letters. Electronic. Same idea as before, but angrier.
I want to write about something else. I can't get past my anger over this topic, though. The Justice Department.
I am stunned at the moral blindness and unpatriotism of most of the Republicans in Congress. I'm not saying the Democrats are better, I don't know that. But I thought the Republicans were much, much better. They swore to their God that they would?
a) Fight for Republican dominance of government
b) Reduce taxes
c) Tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
d) Defend the constitution
It's D folks. We can disagree about taxes and abortion and health care and Iraq. The deal is we put our collective heads together and come up with the best compromise for us all. I don't always like the compromise, but it is better than all known alternatives.
But stocking the government's Department of We'll Decide Whose Rights to Protect and Who to Throw in Jail with only people who share your politics... hell not just your politics, people who are in your gang... pushing out others, pressuring prosecutors, etc. That's not a government, that's a mafia. That's Stalinism (minus the omnipresent government spies and the gulag...).
I expect the party in power to take my money. I know no political system that doesn't enrich the leaders. But my liberty, my rights to get a fair shot at a public service job regardless of whether I went to a historically black school or interned for the EPA... My right to have a fair election as defined by neutral referees and not one team. I do not expect the government to infringe on that. In fact, it's the reason I justify all the guns in America... because people fear the alternative is repressive government.
Anyway, all the shouting in the world isn't helping. I think I understand how people felt when they volunteered for the military after 9/11. I want to do something. If the enemy was in a foreign country, I could go fight. But I don't want to fight, and the enemy is here. I want my representatives to protect the relatively free country we have. I want to do my part to make it as free a country for my kids as it was for me.
Caring is hard. I'm shouting while I can, for as long as I can. I hope it is, in the scheme of things, enough.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Citizen Democracy
Prescription for what ails ya... one a day , repeat as necessary.
================================
Dear Senator/Congress(wo)man _________,
My name is _____________, and I live in Houston, TX. I'm a 34 years old political moderate who has been actively involved in politics since age 16. I have voted, worked and campaigned for, and donated to candidates of both the Democratic and Republican party. I sympathize with liberal concerns about the condition of those less well off, and share conservative skepticism about where government involvement can have a positive effect.
No action of the US government has troubled me more than those of the White House and the Attorney General's office to politicize the Department of Justice.
I remember the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, just after Easter 1995. That was my first exposure to Americans who thought their own government was their enemy. After September 11, 2001, I heard more people claim government conspiracies to seize greater power. They said the government could not be trusted. I now watch with great sadness how our attempts to build a legitimate government in Iraq have been undermined, perhaps fatally, by the deep lack of trust and civility between Iraqi citizens of different factions. It occurs to me that while we as Americans often disagree with our government, we still fundamentally believe in it and consider ourselves Americans first.
I understand that at some level, politics is a game. There is a certain amount of holding on the offensive line, hand-checking in the paint, that goes on. One campaign steals the others' signs. It's not pretty but it doesn't fundamentally hurt anything. The referees aren't going to call every foul. And when you are the away team, you usually have to play with the home team's refs. And sure, the home refs may have a little bias, even if they try to be fair.
And when I first heard of the firings of the eight U.S. Attorneys, I assumed this was the equivalent of one team whining about a questionable call. When you are the away team, you have to expect some questionable calls to go against you. But as details of the activities of the Attorney General's office and the White House have come out, this doesn't look like a case of a bad call or two, or even a biased ref.
This looks like one team pressuring the refs, threatening them, and replacing them based on how they call the game. It also looks like the neutral referees, the civil service, were being selected based on their loyalty to one team.
The reason we play this game of politics is that in the competition of ideas, the best ideas win and the country wins with them. I root like hell for my team, and I usually disagree with close calls that go against them. But if my team tried to fix the game, it would be game over for them and rightly so. The problem here is there are only two teams, so if one cheats, it's not just them that loses, it's the whole sport. American democracy.
The sports metaphor seems apt but it understates the seriousness of the situation we're in. We have soldiers dying every day in Iraq, willing to give their lives to help build a government that represents all Iraqi citizens, out of a society that doesn't trust its government or other factions. Meanwhile, we have an administration that seems bent not on winning a battle of ideas, but in sacrificing Americans' trust in their government in order to increase the power of its own political faction. The irony is heartbreaking.
If Americans cannot trust the impartiality of the government officials who have the responsibility to protect their rights and the power to imprison them, I fear for the health of our country. I fear more conspiracy theorists. I fear greater polarization. I fear more Oklahoma City bombings.
My hope in writing you is to challenge you to take risks, just like our soldiers do, to help ensure that our government, especially the Department of Justice, re-establishes the trust of the American people. Conservatives fought the cold war to defeat an ideology of government political intrusion into every aspect of citizen's lives. We can't tolerate politicization of our legal system. Please help the Republican party prove itself worthy of being trusted with power, ensuring the continuing dialog of ideas our country depends on to prosper.
Thank you for spending time with me in reading this. God bless you, and give you strength, courage and wisdom for our country and our children.
All the Best Regards,
___________
================================
Dear Senator/Congress(wo)man _________,
My name is _____________, and I live in Houston, TX. I'm a 34 years old political moderate who has been actively involved in politics since age 16. I have voted, worked and campaigned for, and donated to candidates of both the Democratic and Republican party. I sympathize with liberal concerns about the condition of those less well off, and share conservative skepticism about where government involvement can have a positive effect.
No action of the US government has troubled me more than those of the White House and the Attorney General's office to politicize the Department of Justice.
I remember the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, just after Easter 1995. That was my first exposure to Americans who thought their own government was their enemy. After September 11, 2001, I heard more people claim government conspiracies to seize greater power. They said the government could not be trusted. I now watch with great sadness how our attempts to build a legitimate government in Iraq have been undermined, perhaps fatally, by the deep lack of trust and civility between Iraqi citizens of different factions. It occurs to me that while we as Americans often disagree with our government, we still fundamentally believe in it and consider ourselves Americans first.
I understand that at some level, politics is a game. There is a certain amount of holding on the offensive line, hand-checking in the paint, that goes on. One campaign steals the others' signs. It's not pretty but it doesn't fundamentally hurt anything. The referees aren't going to call every foul. And when you are the away team, you usually have to play with the home team's refs. And sure, the home refs may have a little bias, even if they try to be fair.
And when I first heard of the firings of the eight U.S. Attorneys, I assumed this was the equivalent of one team whining about a questionable call. When you are the away team, you have to expect some questionable calls to go against you. But as details of the activities of the Attorney General's office and the White House have come out, this doesn't look like a case of a bad call or two, or even a biased ref.
This looks like one team pressuring the refs, threatening them, and replacing them based on how they call the game. It also looks like the neutral referees, the civil service, were being selected based on their loyalty to one team.
The reason we play this game of politics is that in the competition of ideas, the best ideas win and the country wins with them. I root like hell for my team, and I usually disagree with close calls that go against them. But if my team tried to fix the game, it would be game over for them and rightly so. The problem here is there are only two teams, so if one cheats, it's not just them that loses, it's the whole sport. American democracy.
The sports metaphor seems apt but it understates the seriousness of the situation we're in. We have soldiers dying every day in Iraq, willing to give their lives to help build a government that represents all Iraqi citizens, out of a society that doesn't trust its government or other factions. Meanwhile, we have an administration that seems bent not on winning a battle of ideas, but in sacrificing Americans' trust in their government in order to increase the power of its own political faction. The irony is heartbreaking.
If Americans cannot trust the impartiality of the government officials who have the responsibility to protect their rights and the power to imprison them, I fear for the health of our country. I fear more conspiracy theorists. I fear greater polarization. I fear more Oklahoma City bombings.
My hope in writing you is to challenge you to take risks, just like our soldiers do, to help ensure that our government, especially the Department of Justice, re-establishes the trust of the American people. Conservatives fought the cold war to defeat an ideology of government political intrusion into every aspect of citizen's lives. We can't tolerate politicization of our legal system. Please help the Republican party prove itself worthy of being trusted with power, ensuring the continuing dialog of ideas our country depends on to prosper.
Thank you for spending time with me in reading this. God bless you, and give you strength, courage and wisdom for our country and our children.
All the Best Regards,
___________
Coup d'America
Okay, this isn't funny anymore.
It was amusing at first to see Alberto Gonzales getting grilled. The White House seemed to get caught with their pants down, trying to put some Republican-friendly lawyers in as federal prosecutors. People defending the administration said, "hey these are political appointments, Bush can pick whoever he wants."
I thought they had a point. I thought Bush and co. were trying to cover up something the public wouldn't like - political patronage - and were dirtying up some good attorneys in the process. But it didn't seem like anything dangerous... I assume that there is a little bit of politics in all these appointments, and the White House just got caught lying about it.
Inside-the-beltway kind of stuff.
But I've been keeping an eye on this, and the more information comes out, the scarier this gets. By which I mean, to me this is worse than the Iraq war, and believe me I don't say this lightly. And what worries me is that the press isn't putting the big picture together for the public. They need to. I'll do my little bit here.
None of this is proven, but this is what the evidence suggests to me so far. And I'm being as honest as I can, imagining this was some other administration that I loved and whose policy goals I approved of.
There was a concerted effort to infiltrate the Department of Justice and turn it into a political weapon to ensure Republican political dominance. Let me repeat that for clarity. The part of our executive that can put people in jail, that we depend on to enforce our laws fairly, to ensure that all Americans are treated equally... there was a concerted, well thought-out, intentional plan to put political pressure on public servants to prosecute Democratic political candidates, and to stop investigations of Republican political candidates. This occurred at multiple levels. It's not just phone calls, people were relocated to close districts and given prosecutions to pursue and voters to purge, against the recommendations of the civil service staff. This was in violation of clear policies banning this kind of activity in an election year.
And it's not just the 8 attorneys. Previous attorneys were removed (albeit more quietly... pressured to resign etc) and replaced by people with strong partisan backgrounds who immediately proceeded to initiate political prosecutions. Remember Jack Abramoff, the guy who bought off Bob Ney and was chummy with lots of Republican congressmen? He went to jail and the Republicans lost the election. Then the prosecutor who won the case was fired for performance reasons.
What about the whole "the President can appoint whomever he wants" part? Well, until a measure was snuck into the USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization, the President couldn't really pick anyone he wanted, he had to have approval. The part snuck in said that if Bush timed it right, he didn't need any approvals. Not even the Republican congressmen claim to have known the provision was in there, and it has now been abused and repealed.
And besides, it wasn't just these appointments that were being used as partisan weapons. The Department of Justice let a White House representative screen new civil servants so that only good Republicans could get jobs. That's right, federal law enforcement is now dependent on political beliefs. This needs to be on the cover of Time Magazine. The Department of Justice was *illegally* blocking Democrats and Independents from civil service jobs.
This shouldn't be a surprise. Remember that other Texas Republican, Tom Delay, who was pushing the "Permanent Republican Majority"? Who had a K Street Project to force lobbying firms to fire Democrats else they couldn't get a fair hearing? Not to mention the unprecedented midcycle Texas redistricting to create a bunch of new Republican seats in the Congress?
Another name you need to know. James Comey is a senior VP of Lockheed Martin. He worked his way up through the US attorney's office ranks from 1987 to 2002 when he became Bush's Deputy Attorney General. He was the #2 in the Department of Justice until 2005. In this administration. He knows the attorneys who were fired.
This lifelong Republican sat before Congress and defended the fired attorneys as 1st rate. He said that juries have to know that the prosecutors bringing charges against people are 100% clean, that they are the good guys and can be trusted. He said that the damage that has been done to the Department of Justice may be irreparable.
I'd argue the same is being done to the government as a whole. I'm a Democrat by political allegiance but if the Democrats ever tried to take over the civil functions of the government for political purposes I'd vote straight ticket Republican. Our country cannot function if people fundamentally distrust the motives of the government. It's bad enough when, like Watergate, one party breaks the law to beat the other party. A healthy Democracy depends on parties battling over ideas, and absolute power corrupts any party. But it's a whole other Kafkaesque level when one party attempts to turn the government against non-politicians who don't pledge political loyalty.
And who does it look like was behind this? Karl Rove (who I have nothing whatsoever personal against, he's a political strategist, it's his job to be Machiavelli) and Harriet Miers. Let's pause here. George Bush nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. If it were not for the fact that she was not conservative enough for her own party, we might have had a sitting Supreme Court Justice who was behind an illegal and fundamentally anti-constitutional partisan takeover of the one part of the executive branch (save the military) that desperately needs to be nonpartisan. Nothing is sacred.
============
I'm generally charitable about people's motives, but for this I'll make an exception. This is rotten as Hell. This is supposedly why we fought a cold war, to protect America and people around the world from corrupt governments that seek to control people's live through enforced political loyalty. This is why true conservatives distrust government, because of the corrupting influence that centralized power brings. At least with Iraq, one can charitably say that this administration was trying to replace something dictatorial with something democratic, and naively underestimated the obstacles.
I cannot believe it is possible to look impartially at the facts coming out every day and conclude anything other than that the administration and its allies were trying to stage a coup of sorts, increasing political power by taking over non-political parts of the government.
This is exactly the kind of thing that is killing our soldiers overseas every day. Americans ask why we should sacrifice lives to support Iraqi leaders who won't find a way to set aside political differences and to build a functioning government that fairly represents and works for all Iraqis. Yet while Maliki and co talk unity, behind the scenes they work to consolidate power just like Putin in Russia.
The White House and its allies are trying to set aside a functioning government that represents all Americans and replace it with one that furthers their political aims. This makes me deeply sympathetic to those I know who want guns to protect themselves not from criminals but from our own government. Our country depends on trusting each other and the government we elect. We see every day from Iraq how hard it is to rebuild trust and civility once it is destroyed. To sacrifice the bipartisan trust that keeps America together, for partisan power... is fundamentally unpatriotic and un-American.
The Department of Justice is not the only thing that this administration has irreparably damaged. And I for one am going to add my voice to the noise about it.
If you'll excuse me, I have to start writing letters to my representatives.
It was amusing at first to see Alberto Gonzales getting grilled. The White House seemed to get caught with their pants down, trying to put some Republican-friendly lawyers in as federal prosecutors. People defending the administration said, "hey these are political appointments, Bush can pick whoever he wants."
I thought they had a point. I thought Bush and co. were trying to cover up something the public wouldn't like - political patronage - and were dirtying up some good attorneys in the process. But it didn't seem like anything dangerous... I assume that there is a little bit of politics in all these appointments, and the White House just got caught lying about it.
Inside-the-beltway kind of stuff.
But I've been keeping an eye on this, and the more information comes out, the scarier this gets. By which I mean, to me this is worse than the Iraq war, and believe me I don't say this lightly. And what worries me is that the press isn't putting the big picture together for the public. They need to. I'll do my little bit here.
None of this is proven, but this is what the evidence suggests to me so far. And I'm being as honest as I can, imagining this was some other administration that I loved and whose policy goals I approved of.
There was a concerted effort to infiltrate the Department of Justice and turn it into a political weapon to ensure Republican political dominance. Let me repeat that for clarity. The part of our executive that can put people in jail, that we depend on to enforce our laws fairly, to ensure that all Americans are treated equally... there was a concerted, well thought-out, intentional plan to put political pressure on public servants to prosecute Democratic political candidates, and to stop investigations of Republican political candidates. This occurred at multiple levels. It's not just phone calls, people were relocated to close districts and given prosecutions to pursue and voters to purge, against the recommendations of the civil service staff. This was in violation of clear policies banning this kind of activity in an election year.
And it's not just the 8 attorneys. Previous attorneys were removed (albeit more quietly... pressured to resign etc) and replaced by people with strong partisan backgrounds who immediately proceeded to initiate political prosecutions. Remember Jack Abramoff, the guy who bought off Bob Ney and was chummy with lots of Republican congressmen? He went to jail and the Republicans lost the election. Then the prosecutor who won the case was fired for performance reasons.
What about the whole "the President can appoint whomever he wants" part? Well, until a measure was snuck into the USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization, the President couldn't really pick anyone he wanted, he had to have approval. The part snuck in said that if Bush timed it right, he didn't need any approvals. Not even the Republican congressmen claim to have known the provision was in there, and it has now been abused and repealed.
And besides, it wasn't just these appointments that were being used as partisan weapons. The Department of Justice let a White House representative screen new civil servants so that only good Republicans could get jobs. That's right, federal law enforcement is now dependent on political beliefs. This needs to be on the cover of Time Magazine. The Department of Justice was *illegally* blocking Democrats and Independents from civil service jobs.
This shouldn't be a surprise. Remember that other Texas Republican, Tom Delay, who was pushing the "Permanent Republican Majority"? Who had a K Street Project to force lobbying firms to fire Democrats else they couldn't get a fair hearing? Not to mention the unprecedented midcycle Texas redistricting to create a bunch of new Republican seats in the Congress?
Another name you need to know. James Comey is a senior VP of Lockheed Martin. He worked his way up through the US attorney's office ranks from 1987 to 2002 when he became Bush's Deputy Attorney General. He was the #2 in the Department of Justice until 2005. In this administration. He knows the attorneys who were fired.
This lifelong Republican sat before Congress and defended the fired attorneys as 1st rate. He said that juries have to know that the prosecutors bringing charges against people are 100% clean, that they are the good guys and can be trusted. He said that the damage that has been done to the Department of Justice may be irreparable.
I'd argue the same is being done to the government as a whole. I'm a Democrat by political allegiance but if the Democrats ever tried to take over the civil functions of the government for political purposes I'd vote straight ticket Republican. Our country cannot function if people fundamentally distrust the motives of the government. It's bad enough when, like Watergate, one party breaks the law to beat the other party. A healthy Democracy depends on parties battling over ideas, and absolute power corrupts any party. But it's a whole other Kafkaesque level when one party attempts to turn the government against non-politicians who don't pledge political loyalty.
And who does it look like was behind this? Karl Rove (who I have nothing whatsoever personal against, he's a political strategist, it's his job to be Machiavelli) and Harriet Miers. Let's pause here. George Bush nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. If it were not for the fact that she was not conservative enough for her own party, we might have had a sitting Supreme Court Justice who was behind an illegal and fundamentally anti-constitutional partisan takeover of the one part of the executive branch (save the military) that desperately needs to be nonpartisan. Nothing is sacred.
============
I'm generally charitable about people's motives, but for this I'll make an exception. This is rotten as Hell. This is supposedly why we fought a cold war, to protect America and people around the world from corrupt governments that seek to control people's live through enforced political loyalty. This is why true conservatives distrust government, because of the corrupting influence that centralized power brings. At least with Iraq, one can charitably say that this administration was trying to replace something dictatorial with something democratic, and naively underestimated the obstacles.
I cannot believe it is possible to look impartially at the facts coming out every day and conclude anything other than that the administration and its allies were trying to stage a coup of sorts, increasing political power by taking over non-political parts of the government.
This is exactly the kind of thing that is killing our soldiers overseas every day. Americans ask why we should sacrifice lives to support Iraqi leaders who won't find a way to set aside political differences and to build a functioning government that fairly represents and works for all Iraqis. Yet while Maliki and co talk unity, behind the scenes they work to consolidate power just like Putin in Russia.
The White House and its allies are trying to set aside a functioning government that represents all Americans and replace it with one that furthers their political aims. This makes me deeply sympathetic to those I know who want guns to protect themselves not from criminals but from our own government. Our country depends on trusting each other and the government we elect. We see every day from Iraq how hard it is to rebuild trust and civility once it is destroyed. To sacrifice the bipartisan trust that keeps America together, for partisan power... is fundamentally unpatriotic and un-American.
The Department of Justice is not the only thing that this administration has irreparably damaged. And I for one am going to add my voice to the noise about it.
If you'll excuse me, I have to start writing letters to my representatives.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Fear Factor
Grades for the California Republican Debate:
Mitt Romney
Slogan: "I'm not a charming actor, but I play one on TV"
Fear Factor: The evil stepdad in the Lifetime Weekend Movie
Rudy Giuliani
Slogan: "If you let me in your club I promise to blow something up"
Fear Factor: J.D. in Heathers
John McCain
Slogan: "Sorry I get a bit unhinged when the meds wear off. Heh heh. Zzzz"
Fear Factor: Dr. Frank-N-Furter, Rocky Horror Picture Show
Sam Brownback
Slogan: "I love life, I eat it every day"
Fear Factor: Zombie Ned Flanders
Tommy Thompson
Slogan: "Yes, I'm a proud conservative. No, I wasn't in Law & Order"
Fear Factor: stumbling high-heeled beauty queen in any slasher pic
Jim Gilmore
Slogan: "I'm a proud conservative, too, AND I got a 9/11 plane!"
Fear Factor: driver who stops at the old house/farm/hotel for the night
Duncan Hunter
Slogan: "No, that's not a porn name"
Fear Factor: Zed from Pulp Fiction
Tom Tancredo
Slogan: "How can we talk about taxes & wars with all these Mexicans everywhere?"
Fear Factor: Prince Prospero, Poe's Mask of the Red Death
Mike Huckabee
Slogan: "Would you mind if I asked your sister out?"
Fear Factor: cuddly puppy
Ron Paul
Slogan: "Corrupt, incompetent Republicans just prove government doesn't work!"
Fear Factor: Scientist who decides to study the alien rather than kill it
Mitt Romney
Slogan: "I'm not a charming actor, but I play one on TV"
Fear Factor: The evil stepdad in the Lifetime Weekend Movie
Rudy Giuliani
Slogan: "If you let me in your club I promise to blow something up"
Fear Factor: J.D. in Heathers
John McCain
Slogan: "Sorry I get a bit unhinged when the meds wear off. Heh heh. Zzzz"
Fear Factor: Dr. Frank-N-Furter, Rocky Horror Picture Show
Sam Brownback
Slogan: "I love life, I eat it every day"
Fear Factor: Zombie Ned Flanders
Tommy Thompson
Slogan: "Yes, I'm a proud conservative. No, I wasn't in Law & Order"
Fear Factor: stumbling high-heeled beauty queen in any slasher pic
Jim Gilmore
Slogan: "I'm a proud conservative, too, AND I got a 9/11 plane!"
Fear Factor: driver who stops at the old house/farm/hotel for the night
Duncan Hunter
Slogan: "No, that's not a porn name"
Fear Factor: Zed from Pulp Fiction
Tom Tancredo
Slogan: "How can we talk about taxes & wars with all these Mexicans everywhere?"
Fear Factor: Prince Prospero, Poe's Mask of the Red Death
Mike Huckabee
Slogan: "Would you mind if I asked your sister out?"
Fear Factor: cuddly puppy
Ron Paul
Slogan: "Corrupt, incompetent Republicans just prove government doesn't work!"
Fear Factor: Scientist who decides to study the alien rather than kill it
Blogging the Republican debate
Crap, I thought it started at 8pm! dang!
This is going too fast, and I missed most of it.
But seeing a show of hands of who doesn't believe in evolution,
well, that's just grand.
And Sam Brownback saying that he has a compassionate and aggressive foreign policy.
Mike Huckabee says that if Republicans let big business move jobs overseas, dump pensions and then take multimillion dollar bonuses, then the Republicans don't deserve to win the White House.
So not all Republicans are in the pocket of Wall Street. Cool.
Ron Paul, meet Mike Gravel, Mike meet Ron.
Terry Schiavo... McCain is not impressing me. Of course, I'm not the target audience. Too wishy washy.
Now it's time for Clinton-bashing... yadda yadda
Damn, this is why I hate Republicans (I hate Democrats, too, sometimes). The laughing at trashing people. Just a little too much like the way folks laugh about the blacks/gays/immigrants/etc. Very clubby. Waaaaaaay too clubby. A lack of seriousness.
McCain I'll give credit here. At least he's not being insulting. I do sympathize with the Republicans who are turned off by Bush-bashing. This is the same thing in reverse.
Is it just me or does every question start with Romney?
They are having to raise their hands to get to speak. Matthews isn't doing as well as Williams, but I think it is more the willingness of the candidates to go over.
Sam Brownback supports the Biden approach to Iraq.
Thompson fumbles his words too much. Stage left, Governor.
Giuliani and Romney come off best, though Huckabee and Gilmore are good.
That's it, at least they are rebroadcasting this one at 10pm CDT.
==================
Recap from the top.
Brownback. Scary scary. Seems almost orgasmic when he says confrontation and aggressive. Like the kid who sketches guns and skulls on his notebook cover.
Huckabee. I like him. Don't know his politics exactly, but seems to be thoughtful and not afraid to speak hard truths. Said we needed 300k troops and didn't listen to the generals, but doesn't pile on. He's positive.
Ron Paul. Non-interventionist.
McCain on Iran. (Earlier he talked about winners and losers... comes across as more interested in "winning" than in soldiers... like someone who wouldn't stop arguing until he 'won'... a little scary). Dances around. Basically says war with Iran if they get a nuke and .... and.... if intelligence indicates they ... well...
Who's this guy? He stutters. He says a threat to the existence of Israel is a threat to the existence of the United States.
Giuliani. Much more polished. Invoked Reagan... again
Gilmore on bin Laden. Seems thoughtful as well. Understands diplomacy (or at least talks the talk) .. invokes moral high ground... he's actually very good on this... needing to win hearts and minds. He doesn't scare me.
Romney says bin Laden will pay, will die. Eh. Seems like a pressed suit. Too rehearsed, get no sense of his thought process. Like an actor.
McCain is funny on whether to put Tancredo (Mr. Anti-immigration) head of immigration.. "In a word 'No'"
Huckabee Yes on immigrants for president after his 8 years. Everyone else is No. McCain and Giuliani both dodge the question. Kudos to Romney for the guts to at least answer the question.
Romney asked what he dislikes about America, and ... he loves it, the mountains, god-loving people, now Reagan, ... (ugh) you could make a pull-string doll with that recording.
Huckabee on climate change... boy scout... leave the campsite in better shape... says science is for scientists. Wow, another really attractive answer. I'm ... impressed.
Mr Stutter on curing diseases, stem cells, cloning people...
Duncan Hunter on compassionate conservative. Says Yes, then immediate pivots to threatening Iran. Isn't compassion touching? Doesn't want to wait until Iran has the bomb, implies he wants to bomb now.
Ron Paul on the IRS... wants to eliminate it. Says we shouldn't police the world and take care cradle to grave, can do without IRS if change role of government.
Roe v Wade... everyone says great except Giuliani.. he says he'll take it either way, that precedent counts for something.
Subtlety. Gilmore says exceptions for abortion okay, touts his credentials. Thompson says leave it to the states, though pro-life.
Romney ... always for life or pro-choice. Personally pro-life, but protects the law which was pro-choice. Notes Reagan, Bush, Hyde were pro-choice once. Says he changed because of cloning etc was Brave New World and changed his mind.
Brownback says he could support pro-choice because big tent is important, 80% agreement is still good. Darn, both scary and smart.
Giuliani is caught trying to dodge abortion issue. Says he hates abortion but supported abortion funding in New York. Problem is he tried to dodge it 3 times before saying "Yes".
McCain... "good and evil" ... doing the "My friends"... presidential bit. Sounds okay. Talks about Powerful nation. Eh. Now everyone else is crowing about defense backgrounds and growing threats.
Huckabee again. He talks softly and optimistically. Culture of life... islmaic fascists .. eh. Clearly I'm not that target audience.
Ron Paul... back to the role of government... not policing the world. Overdoing military aggressiveness weakens us.
Private employer firing gay workers. Tommy Thompson would leave it up to business (hence okay).
Romney on Roman Catholic bishops denying communion. Clever answer, government shouldn't tell churches what they can do. Smart, well prepared.
Huckabee says his faith explains his decision process. Getting grilled about criticizing Romney, rather unfairly.
Romney getting a lot of airtime. Blather.
Brownback we're a nation of faith. Invokes Lieberman. We need to embrace it, not running it out of public square.
Hunter on border fence. Double fence. Reduced crime etc.
Gilmore. Knows Karl Rove, should keep him? Dodge first try. Dodge second time, more elegantly, talks about more important things.
Tancredo... that's the stutterer. Rove is out, especially because of immigration.
Giuliani on Christian Conservatism. Lots of anyone in the party is good. Says no party has monopoly on virtue. And he can get Democrats to
Thompson is conservative in a blue state, popular, and started welfare reform, will reform Washington. Reagan Reagan Reagan. Did we mention Reagan.
Brownback on corruption in Republican Party. Says they go to jail, but what about stronger families (huh?). Keeps talking about backing up, kids born out of wedlock. Kids hearing nappy headed hos. (What this has to do with corrupt politicians... ?)
Tancredo on corruption... failure of individuals. Centrist needed to win? No Reagan was not a centrist, he followed his belief. What matters is believing what you say.
McCain on special interests (passing a chance to shoot at Giuliani, bit classy and well handled). Spending is to blame for loss. Good line about drunken sailors, but fumbles it by saying he has more time.
/// now we're at start again///
McCain is weird when he acts tough then, ending his answer, suddenly does this awkward smile.
Romney takes an invited shot at Giuliani about taking actions to limit abortions.
Giuliani says he doesn't like abortion but ultimately respects a woman's right to make a different moral decision. Credit for the toughest answer of the night.
Thompson on racism, you can try to rally against it setting a good precedent.
Tancredo says if they talked straight about immigration, he would get the nomination.
McCain says enforcement plus dealing with 12 million people.
Inconvenient Truth? Didn't watch it, says Duncan Hunter, but no taxes on alternative energy, wants to invest in private industry for this.
Ron Paul on crisis decisions. He was a doctor I guess, can't think of a critical decision, urged to not go to war.
Gilmore, women in prison, nonviolent first time offenders. Must insist upon obedience to the law. Notes he was also prosecutor and governor during 9/11.
Stem cell. Romney has sick wife but will not farm embryos, will allow private funding. Brownback, adult stem cells will work. Everyone concurs, Thompson says you can't answer but then clearly says it isn't necessary. McCain says we need to support federal funding. Ron Paul says government should say out.
Romney on health care. Not ashamed of it, invokes Heritage Foundation, market market, private sector, joke about Ted Kennedy. Market.
McCain on tax cuts. He was being a budget hawk, good pivot to invoke anger at spending.
Everyone talks about tax cuts. No capital gains tax, alternative flat tax, AMT, flat tax, no IRS, consumption tax instead, manufacturing tax, line item veto, tax credits for health care. Ron Paul no income tax and reduce government spending. Death tax, marginal rates.
This is going too fast, and I missed most of it.
But seeing a show of hands of who doesn't believe in evolution,
well, that's just grand.
And Sam Brownback saying that he has a compassionate and aggressive foreign policy.
Mike Huckabee says that if Republicans let big business move jobs overseas, dump pensions and then take multimillion dollar bonuses, then the Republicans don't deserve to win the White House.
So not all Republicans are in the pocket of Wall Street. Cool.
Ron Paul, meet Mike Gravel, Mike meet Ron.
Terry Schiavo... McCain is not impressing me. Of course, I'm not the target audience. Too wishy washy.
Now it's time for Clinton-bashing... yadda yadda
Damn, this is why I hate Republicans (I hate Democrats, too, sometimes). The laughing at trashing people. Just a little too much like the way folks laugh about the blacks/gays/immigrants/etc. Very clubby. Waaaaaaay too clubby. A lack of seriousness.
McCain I'll give credit here. At least he's not being insulting. I do sympathize with the Republicans who are turned off by Bush-bashing. This is the same thing in reverse.
Is it just me or does every question start with Romney?
They are having to raise their hands to get to speak. Matthews isn't doing as well as Williams, but I think it is more the willingness of the candidates to go over.
Sam Brownback supports the Biden approach to Iraq.
Thompson fumbles his words too much. Stage left, Governor.
Giuliani and Romney come off best, though Huckabee and Gilmore are good.
That's it, at least they are rebroadcasting this one at 10pm CDT.
==================
Recap from the top.
Brownback. Scary scary. Seems almost orgasmic when he says confrontation and aggressive. Like the kid who sketches guns and skulls on his notebook cover.
Huckabee. I like him. Don't know his politics exactly, but seems to be thoughtful and not afraid to speak hard truths. Said we needed 300k troops and didn't listen to the generals, but doesn't pile on. He's positive.
Ron Paul. Non-interventionist.
McCain on Iran. (Earlier he talked about winners and losers... comes across as more interested in "winning" than in soldiers... like someone who wouldn't stop arguing until he 'won'... a little scary). Dances around. Basically says war with Iran if they get a nuke and .... and.... if intelligence indicates they ... well...
Who's this guy? He stutters. He says a threat to the existence of Israel is a threat to the existence of the United States.
Giuliani. Much more polished. Invoked Reagan... again
Gilmore on bin Laden. Seems thoughtful as well. Understands diplomacy (or at least talks the talk) .. invokes moral high ground... he's actually very good on this... needing to win hearts and minds. He doesn't scare me.
Romney says bin Laden will pay, will die. Eh. Seems like a pressed suit. Too rehearsed, get no sense of his thought process. Like an actor.
McCain is funny on whether to put Tancredo (Mr. Anti-immigration) head of immigration.. "In a word 'No'"
Huckabee Yes on immigrants for president after his 8 years. Everyone else is No. McCain and Giuliani both dodge the question. Kudos to Romney for the guts to at least answer the question.
Romney asked what he dislikes about America, and ... he loves it, the mountains, god-loving people, now Reagan, ... (ugh) you could make a pull-string doll with that recording.
Huckabee on climate change... boy scout... leave the campsite in better shape... says science is for scientists. Wow, another really attractive answer. I'm ... impressed.
Mr Stutter on curing diseases, stem cells, cloning people...
Duncan Hunter on compassionate conservative. Says Yes, then immediate pivots to threatening Iran. Isn't compassion touching? Doesn't want to wait until Iran has the bomb, implies he wants to bomb now.
Ron Paul on the IRS... wants to eliminate it. Says we shouldn't police the world and take care cradle to grave, can do without IRS if change role of government.
Roe v Wade... everyone says great except Giuliani.. he says he'll take it either way, that precedent counts for something.
Subtlety. Gilmore says exceptions for abortion okay, touts his credentials. Thompson says leave it to the states, though pro-life.
Romney ... always for life or pro-choice. Personally pro-life, but protects the law which was pro-choice. Notes Reagan, Bush, Hyde were pro-choice once. Says he changed because of cloning etc was Brave New World and changed his mind.
Brownback says he could support pro-choice because big tent is important, 80% agreement is still good. Darn, both scary and smart.
Giuliani is caught trying to dodge abortion issue. Says he hates abortion but supported abortion funding in New York. Problem is he tried to dodge it 3 times before saying "Yes".
McCain... "good and evil" ... doing the "My friends"... presidential bit. Sounds okay. Talks about Powerful nation. Eh. Now everyone else is crowing about defense backgrounds and growing threats.
Huckabee again. He talks softly and optimistically. Culture of life... islmaic fascists .. eh. Clearly I'm not that target audience.
Ron Paul... back to the role of government... not policing the world. Overdoing military aggressiveness weakens us.
Private employer firing gay workers. Tommy Thompson would leave it up to business (hence okay).
Romney on Roman Catholic bishops denying communion. Clever answer, government shouldn't tell churches what they can do. Smart, well prepared.
Huckabee says his faith explains his decision process. Getting grilled about criticizing Romney, rather unfairly.
Romney getting a lot of airtime. Blather.
Brownback we're a nation of faith. Invokes Lieberman. We need to embrace it, not running it out of public square.
Hunter on border fence. Double fence. Reduced crime etc.
Gilmore. Knows Karl Rove, should keep him? Dodge first try. Dodge second time, more elegantly, talks about more important things.
Tancredo... that's the stutterer. Rove is out, especially because of immigration.
Giuliani on Christian Conservatism. Lots of anyone in the party is good. Says no party has monopoly on virtue. And he can get Democrats to
Thompson is conservative in a blue state, popular, and started welfare reform, will reform Washington. Reagan Reagan Reagan. Did we mention Reagan.
Brownback on corruption in Republican Party. Says they go to jail, but what about stronger families (huh?). Keeps talking about backing up, kids born out of wedlock. Kids hearing nappy headed hos. (What this has to do with corrupt politicians... ?)
Tancredo on corruption... failure of individuals. Centrist needed to win? No Reagan was not a centrist, he followed his belief. What matters is believing what you say.
McCain on special interests (passing a chance to shoot at Giuliani, bit classy and well handled). Spending is to blame for loss. Good line about drunken sailors, but fumbles it by saying he has more time.
/// now we're at start again///
McCain is weird when he acts tough then, ending his answer, suddenly does this awkward smile.
Romney takes an invited shot at Giuliani about taking actions to limit abortions.
Giuliani says he doesn't like abortion but ultimately respects a woman's right to make a different moral decision. Credit for the toughest answer of the night.
Thompson on racism, you can try to rally against it setting a good precedent.
Tancredo says if they talked straight about immigration, he would get the nomination.
McCain says enforcement plus dealing with 12 million people.
Inconvenient Truth? Didn't watch it, says Duncan Hunter, but no taxes on alternative energy, wants to invest in private industry for this.
Ron Paul on crisis decisions. He was a doctor I guess, can't think of a critical decision, urged to not go to war.
Gilmore, women in prison, nonviolent first time offenders. Must insist upon obedience to the law. Notes he was also prosecutor and governor during 9/11.
Stem cell. Romney has sick wife but will not farm embryos, will allow private funding. Brownback, adult stem cells will work. Everyone concurs, Thompson says you can't answer but then clearly says it isn't necessary. McCain says we need to support federal funding. Ron Paul says government should say out.
Romney on health care. Not ashamed of it, invokes Heritage Foundation, market market, private sector, joke about Ted Kennedy. Market.
McCain on tax cuts. He was being a budget hawk, good pivot to invoke anger at spending.
Everyone talks about tax cuts. No capital gains tax, alternative flat tax, AMT, flat tax, no IRS, consumption tax instead, manufacturing tax, line item veto, tax credits for health care. Ron Paul no income tax and reduce government spending. Death tax, marginal rates.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Law & Order
I just realized this post needs some context. A recent discussion over at TinyCatPants got me thinking about how lots of folks talk about the importance of law and order in immigration, and conflate the illegality of immigration with terrorism and public safety. It occurred to me that every day most Americans ignore laws that aren't consistently enforced, with far greater public safety impact.
I wondered how the law and order crowd would feel if the whole "no amnesty, send them home" argument was applied to them.
============================================
Washington, D.C.
Wednesday, May 2, 20xx 7:45pm
The administration today announced the results of a major new security initiative. The President addressed reporters in a conference at the White House briefing room just before 11am.
“Good morning.
Just over a year ago, on May 1, the federal government -- working with the governors of over 30 states -- completed the installation of an extensive network of high-resolution satellite cameras along America’s national borders, highways and rural roads. Using the data from this network – called SAFENet -- government analysts at the Department of Homeland Security have spent the last 12 months identifying lawbreakers who have put this country and its citizens at risk. The identity and location of these individuals has been passed to local law enforcement in all 50 states.
I’d like to address some comments to the good law-abiding citizens of the America, and also to those who will be contacted by the police over the coming weeks. Then I’ll take your questions.
On September 11, 2001, our nation was attacked by terrorists. In addition to military, diplomatic and intelligence responses, our government combined the expertise of the FBI, the Transportation and Security Administration, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and others organizations to form the Department of Homeland Security. DHS’s mission was and is to “lead the unified national effort to secure America … prevent and deter terrorist attacks and protect against and respond to threats and hazards to the nation … ensure safe and secure borders, welcome lawful immigrants and visitors, and promote the free-flow of commerce.”
This administration understands that you want to be able to live and bring up your children in communities that are free from fear and insecurity. You teach your children to play by the rules, and you want them to be able to get ahead. You want them to be safe in a dangerous world.
Your government has worked to achieve all these things. But until now we have failed you in one important respect. Though we have laws controlling the flow of people into, out of, and across the country, we’ve had neither the technology nor the will to enforce them.
Now that we’ve developed the technology, we intend to demonstrate the will to protect the American people.
Ineffective border enforcement contributed to the nearly 3,000 deaths on 9/11 and contributes to about 5,000 deaths due to illegal drug overdoses every year. Within our borders, ineffective traffic enforcement contributes to the death of over 10,000 fellow Americans every year.
Immigration laws exist to promote economic and social stability, and to prevent the flow of drugs and other dangers into this country from those who would wish us harm. Speed limits promote fuel efficiency, protecting our lungs and the air we breathe, and lessening the flow of funds out of this country to people who would wish us harm.
Speed limits and other traffic laws can save lives. The lives of children playing in their front yard, the lives of parents walking to church, the lives of families cycling on a Sunday afternoon. Speed limits and other traffic regulation can also save the lives of thousands of drivers themselves.
This is not only about security.
Many Americans feel like they are always falling behind. They wait patiently in line, abide by the law, and watch as others illegally pass them by. It does not matter that those cutting in line -- whether undocumented Mexicans or BMW-driving businessmen -- may think they are “bending” our laws to meet family obligations. These are our laws. We chose them democratically. They exist to protect us and our freedoms, and nobody is above them. Nobody can choose which laws he wants to follow and which he does not.
Some argue that it is our laws that should change, that if the laws were different then people would obey them. We can debate changes democratically. Perhaps We the People will decide to raise the limits on speed and immigration. But the American people will not support any such changes to the law as long as they believe violations of the law will continue to be ignored. Americans have seen that words are cheap; it is easy for the government to relax limits and promise future enforcement. Americans want to see enforcement first.
We hear you.
Starting immediately and using the data gathered by SAFENet over the past 12 months, local and state police and the FBI will be enforcing the existing penalties on the books for all detected violations of the law. These will mainly fall into two categories. Anyone seen entering or remaining in the country illegally will be deported to their country of entry or origin. Anyone seen repeatedly violating speed limits or other traffic safety laws will have their driver’s license revoked. These folks can apply again for a visa or license after paying all fines and observing waiting periods of 1-3 years, consistent with existing state and federal laws. These folks will then start at the back of the line.
To those who will be contacted by the police: we recognize that this enforcement action will bring hardship to many families. We remind everyone that the government is merely punishing violations of existing law, under current statutes of limitation. The government does not force anyone to break the law. The fact that everyone else does it, or you think you can get away with it, is not an excuse. All who would seek to live and travel in America have a responsibility to do so lawfully. The only way to make our roads and our country safe is to ensure that there is no room for those who have repeatedly demonstrated their disrespect for the law.
We do not seek to demonize or discriminate against anyone. The economy of America depends on cars, trucks and immigration. The vast majority of immigrants and drivers are good people. But just because you are a good driver or worker, this does not entitle you to ignore the rules. It’s not personal, we’re not saying we don’t like you. But it’s time for you to go home and stay there.
And now I'll take any questions.”
I wondered how the law and order crowd would feel if the whole "no amnesty, send them home" argument was applied to them.
============================================
Washington, D.C.
Wednesday, May 2, 20xx 7:45pm
The administration today announced the results of a major new security initiative. The President addressed reporters in a conference at the White House briefing room just before 11am.
“Good morning.
Just over a year ago, on May 1, the federal government -- working with the governors of over 30 states -- completed the installation of an extensive network of high-resolution satellite cameras along America’s national borders, highways and rural roads. Using the data from this network – called SAFENet -- government analysts at the Department of Homeland Security have spent the last 12 months identifying lawbreakers who have put this country and its citizens at risk. The identity and location of these individuals has been passed to local law enforcement in all 50 states.
I’d like to address some comments to the good law-abiding citizens of the America, and also to those who will be contacted by the police over the coming weeks. Then I’ll take your questions.
On September 11, 2001, our nation was attacked by terrorists. In addition to military, diplomatic and intelligence responses, our government combined the expertise of the FBI, the Transportation and Security Administration, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and others organizations to form the Department of Homeland Security. DHS’s mission was and is to “lead the unified national effort to secure America … prevent and deter terrorist attacks and protect against and respond to threats and hazards to the nation … ensure safe and secure borders, welcome lawful immigrants and visitors, and promote the free-flow of commerce.”
This administration understands that you want to be able to live and bring up your children in communities that are free from fear and insecurity. You teach your children to play by the rules, and you want them to be able to get ahead. You want them to be safe in a dangerous world.
Your government has worked to achieve all these things. But until now we have failed you in one important respect. Though we have laws controlling the flow of people into, out of, and across the country, we’ve had neither the technology nor the will to enforce them.
Now that we’ve developed the technology, we intend to demonstrate the will to protect the American people.
Ineffective border enforcement contributed to the nearly 3,000 deaths on 9/11 and contributes to about 5,000 deaths due to illegal drug overdoses every year. Within our borders, ineffective traffic enforcement contributes to the death of over 10,000 fellow Americans every year.
Immigration laws exist to promote economic and social stability, and to prevent the flow of drugs and other dangers into this country from those who would wish us harm. Speed limits promote fuel efficiency, protecting our lungs and the air we breathe, and lessening the flow of funds out of this country to people who would wish us harm.
Speed limits and other traffic laws can save lives. The lives of children playing in their front yard, the lives of parents walking to church, the lives of families cycling on a Sunday afternoon. Speed limits and other traffic regulation can also save the lives of thousands of drivers themselves.
This is not only about security.
Many Americans feel like they are always falling behind. They wait patiently in line, abide by the law, and watch as others illegally pass them by. It does not matter that those cutting in line -- whether undocumented Mexicans or BMW-driving businessmen -- may think they are “bending” our laws to meet family obligations. These are our laws. We chose them democratically. They exist to protect us and our freedoms, and nobody is above them. Nobody can choose which laws he wants to follow and which he does not.
Some argue that it is our laws that should change, that if the laws were different then people would obey them. We can debate changes democratically. Perhaps We the People will decide to raise the limits on speed and immigration. But the American people will not support any such changes to the law as long as they believe violations of the law will continue to be ignored. Americans have seen that words are cheap; it is easy for the government to relax limits and promise future enforcement. Americans want to see enforcement first.
We hear you.
Starting immediately and using the data gathered by SAFENet over the past 12 months, local and state police and the FBI will be enforcing the existing penalties on the books for all detected violations of the law. These will mainly fall into two categories. Anyone seen entering or remaining in the country illegally will be deported to their country of entry or origin. Anyone seen repeatedly violating speed limits or other traffic safety laws will have their driver’s license revoked. These folks can apply again for a visa or license after paying all fines and observing waiting periods of 1-3 years, consistent with existing state and federal laws. These folks will then start at the back of the line.
To those who will be contacted by the police: we recognize that this enforcement action will bring hardship to many families. We remind everyone that the government is merely punishing violations of existing law, under current statutes of limitation. The government does not force anyone to break the law. The fact that everyone else does it, or you think you can get away with it, is not an excuse. All who would seek to live and travel in America have a responsibility to do so lawfully. The only way to make our roads and our country safe is to ensure that there is no room for those who have repeatedly demonstrated their disrespect for the law.
We do not seek to demonize or discriminate against anyone. The economy of America depends on cars, trucks and immigration. The vast majority of immigrants and drivers are good people. But just because you are a good driver or worker, this does not entitle you to ignore the rules. It’s not personal, we’re not saying we don’t like you. But it’s time for you to go home and stay there.
And now I'll take any questions.”
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Thursday, April 19, 2007
The fetus is dead
In retrospect the Supreme Court decision yesterday should not have been a surprise.
The political left prides itself on being the protector of the less-well-off. They fought slavery with religious zeal. When nobody thought a Catholic could be elected president, the Democrats nominated one. They're likely to nominate a white woman or a black man next. The left is for sheltering the homeless, feeding the hungry, taking in the immigrant, for good pay and safe jobs.
In many ways the political left can be summed up as being opposed to the abuse of the powerless by the powerful.
This is why the abortion issue has hurt the left. Over the last 30 years the left has sought to sanctify the birth canal, claiming for it the moral power of granting entitlement to life. On one side, tissue. Pass through, be blessed, and be worthy of protection.
And comes the inevitable rejoinder: "what if this tissue is passed through the birth canal before an abortion, is it not annointed? If life begins at birth, does not a partial birth result in at least a partial life?"
It is a fair point, one that must be acknowledged. From a moral, philosophical, and scientific standpoint there is nothing fundamentally different about the fetus inside the mother's womb at nine months and the infant emerging minutes later at birth.
They are morally equivalent.
There is, slowly developing, a person whose life depends on a myriad of sacrifices made and risks taken by the woman carrying it. To choose not to carry those responsibilities and let that nascent life end, is a tragic choice - though perhaps the least tragic remaining.
The public understands this.
But in the desire to protect women from being treated as second class citizens, the left has employed the callous language and ideology of the fetus as tissue, displaying an intentional moral blindness that they themselves so often criticize in their opposition (as when we hear that Jesus would have favored a cut in the capital gains tax).
How many prospective parents talk about how their "fetus" is doing?
All the while, medical technology advances, and with it the viability and visibility of the life inside a pregnant woman. By not acknowledging this life, the pain of its loss, and the gruesome similarity of some procedures to infanticide, the political left undermines its credibility and claims to moral superiority.
The same happened when President Bush watched an unfolding tragedy in Iraq and claimed everything was fine. The public stops listening until the obvious ugliness was addressed and the requests for support made in light of it. People understand hardship, but the don't tolerate being patronized (just ask Al Gore).
Yesterday, through their elected and appointed officials, the American people said that if society's right to care for the life of a fetus stops at the birth canal, then it starts there, too. The myth cuts both ways.
So why do we object? Not because we feel a fetus has been granted "human" status and rights.
No, we object because the government is exerting its control over a woman's body in the name of another. Just as when women were the property of their fathers and their husbands. Once men could rape their wives with impunity; her body belonged to him. That history is why we object so bitterly to the court's ruling. The court is effectively saying that there is a legal right to injure a woman, granted to the government on behalf of a child. If the child had been born, and needed a kidney or bone-marrow transplant from the mother to stay alive, many people would feel the mother is morally obliged to risk her health for the life of the child, but very few people would be comfortable with the government compelling the woman to undergo a risky medical procedure. Yet pregnancies are risky.
I believe this is the essence of the more-honest dialog we need to begin with America. Acknowledging the moral imperative of protecting those in need, acknowledging the increasing moral standing of the life growing, the deep sadness that any person feels when they cannot choose to carry a life and must let it end, the great moral questions this raises, but emphasizing that freedom means freedom to make mistakes, even tragic ones, that we are a nation of free people, that when a government can force you to put your health at risk against your will, you are not free. That even when we deeply disagree with the morality of another's actions, when those actions fundamentally affect their own health and future, we must be humble enough to leave the judging to the individual, her doctor, and her God.
And that to the extent that we want to take action to avoid the tragedy of unwanted pregnancy and abortion, we should focus on making the situation rare and the alternatives better, without adding extra burdens or coercions to an already heavy decision.
The political left prides itself on being the protector of the less-well-off. They fought slavery with religious zeal. When nobody thought a Catholic could be elected president, the Democrats nominated one. They're likely to nominate a white woman or a black man next. The left is for sheltering the homeless, feeding the hungry, taking in the immigrant, for good pay and safe jobs.
In many ways the political left can be summed up as being opposed to the abuse of the powerless by the powerful.
This is why the abortion issue has hurt the left. Over the last 30 years the left has sought to sanctify the birth canal, claiming for it the moral power of granting entitlement to life. On one side, tissue. Pass through, be blessed, and be worthy of protection.
And comes the inevitable rejoinder: "what if this tissue is passed through the birth canal before an abortion, is it not annointed? If life begins at birth, does not a partial birth result in at least a partial life?"
It is a fair point, one that must be acknowledged. From a moral, philosophical, and scientific standpoint there is nothing fundamentally different about the fetus inside the mother's womb at nine months and the infant emerging minutes later at birth.
They are morally equivalent.
There is, slowly developing, a person whose life depends on a myriad of sacrifices made and risks taken by the woman carrying it. To choose not to carry those responsibilities and let that nascent life end, is a tragic choice - though perhaps the least tragic remaining.
The public understands this.
But in the desire to protect women from being treated as second class citizens, the left has employed the callous language and ideology of the fetus as tissue, displaying an intentional moral blindness that they themselves so often criticize in their opposition (as when we hear that Jesus would have favored a cut in the capital gains tax).
How many prospective parents talk about how their "fetus" is doing?
All the while, medical technology advances, and with it the viability and visibility of the life inside a pregnant woman. By not acknowledging this life, the pain of its loss, and the gruesome similarity of some procedures to infanticide, the political left undermines its credibility and claims to moral superiority.
The same happened when President Bush watched an unfolding tragedy in Iraq and claimed everything was fine. The public stops listening until the obvious ugliness was addressed and the requests for support made in light of it. People understand hardship, but the don't tolerate being patronized (just ask Al Gore).
Yesterday, through their elected and appointed officials, the American people said that if society's right to care for the life of a fetus stops at the birth canal, then it starts there, too. The myth cuts both ways.
So why do we object? Not because we feel a fetus has been granted "human" status and rights.
No, we object because the government is exerting its control over a woman's body in the name of another. Just as when women were the property of their fathers and their husbands. Once men could rape their wives with impunity; her body belonged to him. That history is why we object so bitterly to the court's ruling. The court is effectively saying that there is a legal right to injure a woman, granted to the government on behalf of a child. If the child had been born, and needed a kidney or bone-marrow transplant from the mother to stay alive, many people would feel the mother is morally obliged to risk her health for the life of the child, but very few people would be comfortable with the government compelling the woman to undergo a risky medical procedure. Yet pregnancies are risky.
I believe this is the essence of the more-honest dialog we need to begin with America. Acknowledging the moral imperative of protecting those in need, acknowledging the increasing moral standing of the life growing, the deep sadness that any person feels when they cannot choose to carry a life and must let it end, the great moral questions this raises, but emphasizing that freedom means freedom to make mistakes, even tragic ones, that we are a nation of free people, that when a government can force you to put your health at risk against your will, you are not free. That even when we deeply disagree with the morality of another's actions, when those actions fundamentally affect their own health and future, we must be humble enough to leave the judging to the individual, her doctor, and her God.
And that to the extent that we want to take action to avoid the tragedy of unwanted pregnancy and abortion, we should focus on making the situation rare and the alternatives better, without adding extra burdens or coercions to an already heavy decision.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Freedom
I want this post to be eloquent. I associate eloquence with cool detachment, careful choice of words. It's hard to be cool or detached. I'll try to be careful anyways.
What has happened to freedom in this country?
I lived as an American in Europe for many years. I was greeted warmly traveling on the continent, complete with "I love America!". The outpouring of sympathy after the Oklahoma City bombing and after 9-11 were tremendous.
I spent one Valentine's Day with A. in Casablanca, and was humbled by the King Hussein Mosque, perhaps the most beautiful building I've ever seen. In Marrakesh we chatted with locals about the Sahara. We looked forward to going back and riding camels.
I read last week about some violence towards Americans in Morocco. I forget the details. I just remember thinking that I wouldn't feel safe visiting Morocco again.
I'm headed to France in June. I love France. I love the language, the country is beautiful, the appreciation for food and wine and quality of life. I now have to deal with France jokes whenever I mention the place, and I feel the need to be apologetic when I'm there.
I live daily knowing that phone companies and libraries and internet providers are being leaned on by the government to turn over personal information, without proper government oversight or based on fraudulent information.
I know that innocent people are locked away in Cuba not just by Castro but by our own government, and innocent people are killed by our soldiers, not due to any malice on the part of the captors and soldiers, but because these innocents are necessary collateral damage to achieve a world that looks and acts the way we want it to.
I know families are torn apart by the strain of deployments, injuries and deaths.
I know the soldiers too are held hostage to a military strategy that on the one hand claims to be aimed at winning the loyalty of the Iraqi population, while at the same time arguing that we choose to fight our wars in their backyard because we would rather the collateral damage happen there than happen here.
Today 5 men told all women in America that if they choose to have a second-term abortion, they may be required for moral reasons to have knives stuck deep into their bodies, acknowledging this may endanger the health of the women.
We are told that we are fighting to spread freedom and democracy.
"The state can't give you freedom, and the state can't take it away. Freedom is something you're born with, and then one day someone tries to deny it. The extent to which you resist is the extent to which you are free." - Utah Phillips
Freedom is something you do.
What are you going to do now?
What has happened to freedom in this country?
I lived as an American in Europe for many years. I was greeted warmly traveling on the continent, complete with "I love America!". The outpouring of sympathy after the Oklahoma City bombing and after 9-11 were tremendous.
I spent one Valentine's Day with A. in Casablanca, and was humbled by the King Hussein Mosque, perhaps the most beautiful building I've ever seen. In Marrakesh we chatted with locals about the Sahara. We looked forward to going back and riding camels.
I read last week about some violence towards Americans in Morocco. I forget the details. I just remember thinking that I wouldn't feel safe visiting Morocco again.
I'm headed to France in June. I love France. I love the language, the country is beautiful, the appreciation for food and wine and quality of life. I now have to deal with France jokes whenever I mention the place, and I feel the need to be apologetic when I'm there.
I live daily knowing that phone companies and libraries and internet providers are being leaned on by the government to turn over personal information, without proper government oversight or based on fraudulent information.
I know that innocent people are locked away in Cuba not just by Castro but by our own government, and innocent people are killed by our soldiers, not due to any malice on the part of the captors and soldiers, but because these innocents are necessary collateral damage to achieve a world that looks and acts the way we want it to.
I know families are torn apart by the strain of deployments, injuries and deaths.
I know the soldiers too are held hostage to a military strategy that on the one hand claims to be aimed at winning the loyalty of the Iraqi population, while at the same time arguing that we choose to fight our wars in their backyard because we would rather the collateral damage happen there than happen here.
Today 5 men told all women in America that if they choose to have a second-term abortion, they may be required for moral reasons to have knives stuck deep into their bodies, acknowledging this may endanger the health of the women.
We are told that we are fighting to spread freedom and democracy.
"The state can't give you freedom, and the state can't take it away. Freedom is something you're born with, and then one day someone tries to deny it. The extent to which you resist is the extent to which you are free." - Utah Phillips
Freedom is something you do.
What are you going to do now?
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Remember when
...you were a high school student, or an undergraduate, and things were just *cool*?
Not everything mind you, but a ride late at night with someone's new CD, or the bar you'd go to after classes, or this new book or this class you were taking...
it was just cool, like it made you think,
"hey, a lot of life might be boring or tedious or crappy, but there's this place that isn't like that, I'm gonna find out more about it, and though it isn't a physical place, I'm still gonna move there, because all travel is mental travel."
I'd say that, for the moment, I've found it in Houston.
Of course, that doesn't mean that Houston is all *cool*, or that there is more cool here than in in DC or London or Opelika for that matter.
It just means that, tonight was cool like Coronas with lime and philosophy class. And that matters not because I think for one moment that work tomorrow won't be frustrating and tedious. That's not the point. The point is that, it occurs to me that that feeling of cool that existed in college wasn't illusion. No, that's not the point either. Hard to express this... maybe this: you don't have to be young and naive to feel that way. Or, it is possible to feel that way in spite of knowing what in time you inevitably find out about the world.
Tonight, in case I didn't mention it, was a house concert with Sarah Golden and Anais Mitchell. But more than the concert (which was amazing), tonight reminded me of sitting around at Maps while T and KP played guitar and sang Indigo Girls, reminded me of A & H coming over to Opelika and drinking tequila shots and doing thrashy dancing with black eyeliner. Cruising the Alabama cyclone with T listening to Counting Crows before they recorded Big Yellow Taxi. Making tiny snowmen in Auburn at 2am during a freak snowstorm for while A was in bed.
Etc etc. Point is that it doesn't require lots of alcohol or a teary movie or photo album. Just spending an evening with a lot of open, lovely people who enjoy music. Who talk to each other. I could tell the story here but I'll save it.
And, for the record, I missed all of you and wished you were here to enjoy it with me.
***************
About the videos below. Started big, then small, then camera died. Quicktime format. Sorry about the guy's elbow. If you only have time for one, try The Wall (Hadestown).
Oh, and these are ridiculously big files, so it's gonna be Monday probably before they are up.
Namesake
Friday Night
Dont Fail Me Now
The Wall (Hadestown)
Changer
Venus
Out of Pawn
Before the Eyes of Storytelling Girls
Shenandoah
The Belly and the Beast
Autumns Ashes
I Wear Your Dress (start)
Others not recorded:
Orion
Hades and Persephone
Song of the Magi
Your Fonder Heart
Time after Time (Cyndi Lauper sing-along)
Two Kids
1984
Not everything mind you, but a ride late at night with someone's new CD, or the bar you'd go to after classes, or this new book or this class you were taking...
it was just cool, like it made you think,
"hey, a lot of life might be boring or tedious or crappy, but there's this place that isn't like that, I'm gonna find out more about it, and though it isn't a physical place, I'm still gonna move there, because all travel is mental travel."
I'd say that, for the moment, I've found it in Houston.
Of course, that doesn't mean that Houston is all *cool*, or that there is more cool here than in in DC or London or Opelika for that matter.
It just means that, tonight was cool like Coronas with lime and philosophy class. And that matters not because I think for one moment that work tomorrow won't be frustrating and tedious. That's not the point. The point is that, it occurs to me that that feeling of cool that existed in college wasn't illusion. No, that's not the point either. Hard to express this... maybe this: you don't have to be young and naive to feel that way. Or, it is possible to feel that way in spite of knowing what in time you inevitably find out about the world.
Tonight, in case I didn't mention it, was a house concert with Sarah Golden and Anais Mitchell. But more than the concert (which was amazing), tonight reminded me of sitting around at Maps while T and KP played guitar and sang Indigo Girls, reminded me of A & H coming over to Opelika and drinking tequila shots and doing thrashy dancing with black eyeliner. Cruising the Alabama cyclone with T listening to Counting Crows before they recorded Big Yellow Taxi. Making tiny snowmen in Auburn at 2am during a freak snowstorm for while A was in bed.
Etc etc. Point is that it doesn't require lots of alcohol or a teary movie or photo album. Just spending an evening with a lot of open, lovely people who enjoy music. Who talk to each other. I could tell the story here but I'll save it.
And, for the record, I missed all of you and wished you were here to enjoy it with me.
***************
About the videos below. Started big, then small, then camera died. Quicktime format. Sorry about the guy's elbow. If you only have time for one, try The Wall (Hadestown).
Oh, and these are ridiculously big files, so it's gonna be Monday probably before they are up.
Namesake
Friday Night
Dont Fail Me Now
The Wall (Hadestown)
Changer
Venus
Out of Pawn
Before the Eyes of Storytelling Girls
Shenandoah
The Belly and the Beast
Autumns Ashes
I Wear Your Dress (start)
Others not recorded:
Orion
Hades and Persephone
Song of the Magi
Your Fonder Heart
Time after Time (Cyndi Lauper sing-along)
Two Kids
1984
Friday, March 16, 2007
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Storm Front Coming
Thinking about heading WNW to SXSW.
Or remembering which way winds blow in winter, I may just kick back and watch the clouds gathering, and contemplate how close lightning may strike.
Or remembering which way winds blow in winter, I may just kick back and watch the clouds gathering, and contemplate how close lightning may strike.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Currently obsessing over
AntiChrist Television Blues
Oh! my little mocking bird sing!
Oh! my little mocking bird sing!
I need you to get up on that stage for me, honey,
And show the men it's not about the money.
Wanna hold a mirror up to the world,
So they can see themselves inside my little girl!
Oh! my little mocking bird sing!
Oh! my little mocking bird sing!
I need you to get up on that stage for me, honey,
And show the men it's not about the money.
Wanna hold a mirror up to the world,
So they can see themselves inside my little girl!
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Light
Some days are happy ones. Maybe it's getting 3 hours sleep. Maybe the big breakfast at the local greasy spoon on an empty stomach. The waitress in the funny cowboy hat. The glorious sunlight on wisps of clouds, fresh morning air. The black and yellow birds drinking from puddles in the always cracked pavements.
Anais Mitchell playing on the stereo.
There is much to love in the world. More than fits in a little mind at one time.
But my, my, my.
Isn't it something special when it overflows.
Anais Mitchell playing on the stereo.
There is much to love in the world. More than fits in a little mind at one time.
But my, my, my.
Isn't it something special when it overflows.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
New Music, Old Friends
Well, not so old. But Anais Mitchell's "The Brightness" and The Arcade Fire's "Neon Fire" are out now.
God bless iTunes.
Reviews to come.
God bless iTunes.
Reviews to come.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
roots
so like i said i've been wanting roots for a long time.
or to be more precise, what comes from roots.
fruit.
i want fruit trees.
blueberrys like in grandmas yard
blackberries by the fence
loquats and kumquats
hell even a fig or two, and I never ate those as a kid.
for 15 years i've moved place to place
never longer in one apartment than about 20 months with KP in Opelika
dreaming of a nice house
a quiet car to drive to the theatre
and enough money to eat good food and buy books
but each place has been temporary
with D&G in a spare room
in dorms
with T&T chasing rats and throwing darts
cold wet english dorms
sunny opelika
mother in law's
roommates at A's university
flat by the trains in Woking
and by the trains in Leatherhead
in J's spare room in Virginia, driving weekends to Boston
apartments in Fairfax knowing moves were coming for both A and I
and to Texas, next to a nice grocery store
total lawns mowed: 1
I turn 35 this year, and the closest friends I've had are very far away. I talk to them much less than I'd like to, and am often ashamed by how little I know of their daily lives. All our lives are only to get more complicated and busy in the years ahead.
That scares me.
Several months ago, when my parents first came to visit me here, I wanted to take them out for dinner. I realized I only ever went to a few restaurants. That's all I had ever done anywhere except Auburn and Foley, the two places I had considered homes. Every other town was temporary, passing through. Waiting for the place where the careers and the partners and the friends and family all came magically together.
Several weeks ago, I realized that if I wanted to be able to entertain people when they came here, that I needed to get to know the city myself. It is fun to visit a city when you know someone who lives there... really lives there. Not someone who hangs out in their apartment and kills time waiting for a better tomorrow. I found the new Zagat survey for Texas restaurants, Zagat that I had come to love in Washington. Friends from work came down on business expenses, I could entertain them. I found a storyline for adventuring into the city.
Several days ago, I was sitting in my car on a Sunday afternoon. Garrison Keillor was on the radio, a rerun of the previous day's Prairie Home Companion. I remembered how 13 years earlier I sat in my car on a warm day in Auburn, outside the Post Office, love letter in hand to send to A, but waiting to hear the end of Prairie Home Companion because you could actually get good reception in that parking lot. How I had thought then that if there was something good, soul-affirmingly good (like M&M) about the world, and about America (which I was considering leaving), this was it. And how years later, after September 11, when so much of what I had grown up loving, fiercely, fiercely, about the United States was being sullied and perhaps destroyed, when my love for the country was feeling increasingly like an unrequited love for an illusion, how it was then that I heard Garrison Keillor speak, as Jimmy Carter had spoken, about the fundamental decency and goodness of the country not in fearful, hateful, selfish terms, but as something precious that must be protected not by guns but by the voices of people not afraid to speak truth to power and prejudice. And hearing that voice on a Sunday afternoon, as cars from the mega-church filled cafeteria parking lots, I thought how I wished I had seen him perform in person. And then wishing fulfilled, hearing that he would speak to the Progressive Forum in Houston.
Several days ago I sat twenty feet from him, and his spirit filled me with the hope that (paraphrasing I think John Adams wishes) our country would be honorable and successful, but failing that, honorable. Walking from dinner to the performance hall, I passed the city theatre, the Alley Theatre, and remembered Sundays in Atlanta to see musicals. I haven't listened to a new musical I liked in years, but I loved those trips, and the dream of a life filled with unimagined wonders. Yet in 10 years in the suburbs of London and Washington, I had seen fewer plays than any one year as a college student in Auburn or Manchester. I bought season tickets later that night.
Several hours ago I got a phone call that the life of an aunt I love was in danger. Five hours earlier I walked back from lunch in the new heat, thinking that in life it is important to know what you want, but to plan based on what you expect. I said, "for example, I hope nobody I love ever dies, and I've been very lucky that I've lost almost no loved ones my entire life. But I would be foolish to believe and plan that nobody ever would." I thought of this as A had spoke to me of her worry about presenting her work, and how she hoped being left off a presentation list wasn't a jinx. I thought, you accept the fear that bad things can happen, but then move on to what you can do to make matters better. And that there was no such thing as jinxes.
Five hours later I was thinking of jinxes again.
Wishing I could do something to make things better.
Hating that my job, which indirectly keeps me away from those I love, is acutely doing so now.
Not knowing who to call.
Not so interested in the political scandal of the day or stock prices.
Wanting to hear how everyone was. Wanting to sit in the waiting room and get someone coffee. More thankful than is rational that T wants to have coffee at the airport tomorrow.
With A asleep in London, and the Alabama contingent manning the phones, I sat to reading Tiny Cat Pants and was impressed not just by how consistently Aunt B can open her mind to people, but also by how effectively she has knit together a community of strangers and not-so-strangers across different geographic, age and political distances.
One post that got my attention involved those who say that "all we can do is pray", and the response that more is asked than prayer - action is required. And I think of Oprah's statement (that I'm not sure I fully agree with but anyway) that it is not Love but Courage that is most valuable, because without courage love does nothing.
Action, love, courage, community. Things I believe in, things I'm trying more every day to live.
or to be more precise, what comes from roots.
fruit.
i want fruit trees.
blueberrys like in grandmas yard
blackberries by the fence
loquats and kumquats
hell even a fig or two, and I never ate those as a kid.
for 15 years i've moved place to place
never longer in one apartment than about 20 months with KP in Opelika
dreaming of a nice house
a quiet car to drive to the theatre
and enough money to eat good food and buy books
but each place has been temporary
with D&G in a spare room
in dorms
with T&T chasing rats and throwing darts
cold wet english dorms
sunny opelika
mother in law's
roommates at A's university
flat by the trains in Woking
and by the trains in Leatherhead
in J's spare room in Virginia, driving weekends to Boston
apartments in Fairfax knowing moves were coming for both A and I
and to Texas, next to a nice grocery store
total lawns mowed: 1
I turn 35 this year, and the closest friends I've had are very far away. I talk to them much less than I'd like to, and am often ashamed by how little I know of their daily lives. All our lives are only to get more complicated and busy in the years ahead.
That scares me.
Several months ago, when my parents first came to visit me here, I wanted to take them out for dinner. I realized I only ever went to a few restaurants. That's all I had ever done anywhere except Auburn and Foley, the two places I had considered homes. Every other town was temporary, passing through. Waiting for the place where the careers and the partners and the friends and family all came magically together.
Several weeks ago, I realized that if I wanted to be able to entertain people when they came here, that I needed to get to know the city myself. It is fun to visit a city when you know someone who lives there... really lives there. Not someone who hangs out in their apartment and kills time waiting for a better tomorrow. I found the new Zagat survey for Texas restaurants, Zagat that I had come to love in Washington. Friends from work came down on business expenses, I could entertain them. I found a storyline for adventuring into the city.
Several days ago, I was sitting in my car on a Sunday afternoon. Garrison Keillor was on the radio, a rerun of the previous day's Prairie Home Companion. I remembered how 13 years earlier I sat in my car on a warm day in Auburn, outside the Post Office, love letter in hand to send to A, but waiting to hear the end of Prairie Home Companion because you could actually get good reception in that parking lot. How I had thought then that if there was something good, soul-affirmingly good (like M&M) about the world, and about America (which I was considering leaving), this was it. And how years later, after September 11, when so much of what I had grown up loving, fiercely, fiercely, about the United States was being sullied and perhaps destroyed, when my love for the country was feeling increasingly like an unrequited love for an illusion, how it was then that I heard Garrison Keillor speak, as Jimmy Carter had spoken, about the fundamental decency and goodness of the country not in fearful, hateful, selfish terms, but as something precious that must be protected not by guns but by the voices of people not afraid to speak truth to power and prejudice. And hearing that voice on a Sunday afternoon, as cars from the mega-church filled cafeteria parking lots, I thought how I wished I had seen him perform in person. And then wishing fulfilled, hearing that he would speak to the Progressive Forum in Houston.
Several days ago I sat twenty feet from him, and his spirit filled me with the hope that (paraphrasing I think John Adams wishes) our country would be honorable and successful, but failing that, honorable. Walking from dinner to the performance hall, I passed the city theatre, the Alley Theatre, and remembered Sundays in Atlanta to see musicals. I haven't listened to a new musical I liked in years, but I loved those trips, and the dream of a life filled with unimagined wonders. Yet in 10 years in the suburbs of London and Washington, I had seen fewer plays than any one year as a college student in Auburn or Manchester. I bought season tickets later that night.
Several hours ago I got a phone call that the life of an aunt I love was in danger. Five hours earlier I walked back from lunch in the new heat, thinking that in life it is important to know what you want, but to plan based on what you expect. I said, "for example, I hope nobody I love ever dies, and I've been very lucky that I've lost almost no loved ones my entire life. But I would be foolish to believe and plan that nobody ever would." I thought of this as A had spoke to me of her worry about presenting her work, and how she hoped being left off a presentation list wasn't a jinx. I thought, you accept the fear that bad things can happen, but then move on to what you can do to make matters better. And that there was no such thing as jinxes.
Five hours later I was thinking of jinxes again.
Wishing I could do something to make things better.
Hating that my job, which indirectly keeps me away from those I love, is acutely doing so now.
Not knowing who to call.
Not so interested in the political scandal of the day or stock prices.
Wanting to hear how everyone was. Wanting to sit in the waiting room and get someone coffee. More thankful than is rational that T wants to have coffee at the airport tomorrow.
With A asleep in London, and the Alabama contingent manning the phones, I sat to reading Tiny Cat Pants and was impressed not just by how consistently Aunt B can open her mind to people, but also by how effectively she has knit together a community of strangers and not-so-strangers across different geographic, age and political distances.
One post that got my attention involved those who say that "all we can do is pray", and the response that more is asked than prayer - action is required. And I think of Oprah's statement (that I'm not sure I fully agree with but anyway) that it is not Love but Courage that is most valuable, because without courage love does nothing.
Action, love, courage, community. Things I believe in, things I'm trying more every day to live.
40 days and 40 nights
...since a decent post.
That's really pretty pitiful, so I'm gonna remedy that now.
I have greater respect than ever for Aunt B at Tiny Cat Pants. It's easy to start something, the challenge is staying with it day after day.
Also, I like to do fun and exciting new projects which leave little time for old habits.
I've gotten out of my exercise and good eating habits a bit. Haven't really gained any weight back, but I can tell the difference walking 3 miles once a week versus 5 times a week.
I find myself missing friends and family a lot. This especially over the past 2-3 weeks. Then I spoke to T today after M's surgery, and I'm so looking forward to just sitting down with her. There are many times when I question my life priorities, made worse with A being so far away. I've learned to really enjoy parts of Houston; it's becoming a place I like being, but it's hard to overstate my envy at those who can just go over to the hospital. I used to be able to go over to the hospital. I hate that I can't. While I've always had the desire to see the world and enjoy things that are not available in a small Alabama town, I've never had same degree of negative things pushing me away as some of my other loved ones. Maybe that's because I moved away so soon after high school and never really lived there again. But for whatever reasons, I really do love so much and so many there, and I have wonderful memories that (while I recognize them as just memories) are painfully dislocative when I want to be with the people I love.
I'm in KP withdrawal due to lack of posts, and T withdrawal due to lack of cell reception. I had gotten used to chatting with T a few nights a week when he worked at the hotel, and am hoping very much that his new schedule combined with my Gulf Coast location will make it possible to spend more than a few hours talking. It takes more than a few hours.
I also know KP will be increasingly busy, if not very soon then in the near future. I know people who really do well with phones, I remember hearing of G/D calling A or S calling A daily or more, and I had a friend at work in Virginia who talked to her mother daily. And I remember an old girlfriend once saying that she envied me and my cousins, saying she had nobody so close. I find myself envying me then as well.
Which leads me in part to posting. I've found at work that, and maybe I'm different than most folks on this, but I hate bothering people. I've mentioned this before. The fact that A and I so often do everything together probably informs or reinforces this, but when I'm wishing to be spending time with people and thinking how poor a substitute phones are, it seems a bit of an inconvenience to take people away from those they are choosing to be with, so they can spend time on ... horrors ... the phone.
I mentioned work but then left that hanging.
Often in my job I have to go and ask for other people's help with stuff. I do it cheerfully and it is often fine, but it seems inevitably I have want to ask about more things than they have time to discuss, so I'm left in the awkward position of trying to figure out when to just leave them alone. I don't like that sense of imposition. Me, I try again to be very cheerful and friendly when people need something from me, and people get surprised how much time I take to help. It's flattering but depressing - I think everyone should do that, and it makes me aware that others are more jealous of their time than I am. So "people are busy" plus "phones suck" equals "calling someone is equivalent to asking someone if they can hold the flashlight while I fix the engine". Sure you might have a nice chat at the same time, but it's really a hassle in the scheme of things.
Or maybe the fear is that someone else will consider it that. Probably more along that line. Classic fear of rejection, or simply a fear of reaffirming how far apart people really are?
Okay, on that cheery note, I've been thinking that I ought to find some way to share what I've been doing in town, because as I mentioned before the self-pity session, I have been actually enjoying Houston.
I've mentioned the restaurants. I'm posting photos of restaurants on Flickr. Most of these are drive-bys, but as I try them I am getting multiple photos of those. Perhaps posting some reviews up here would be interesting?
I've also been going to the theatre. I've seen Homebody/Kabul and Hitchcock Blonde. I also heard Garrison Keillor speak at the Progressive Forum, where the guy who wrote The Weather Makers (an influential global warming book) will be speaking in a week or so. I used to think when I was in college that I'd move to Atlanta and get season tickets to the Fox Theatre. I bought season tickets to the Alley Theatre in Houston, and they are the first season tickets I've had since Auburn.
I've been missing roots. This is a whole 'nother post, and the thought "break them up like Aunt B does" is ringing through my head... what the hell...
That's really pretty pitiful, so I'm gonna remedy that now.
I have greater respect than ever for Aunt B at Tiny Cat Pants. It's easy to start something, the challenge is staying with it day after day.
Also, I like to do fun and exciting new projects which leave little time for old habits.
I've gotten out of my exercise and good eating habits a bit. Haven't really gained any weight back, but I can tell the difference walking 3 miles once a week versus 5 times a week.
I find myself missing friends and family a lot. This especially over the past 2-3 weeks. Then I spoke to T today after M's surgery, and I'm so looking forward to just sitting down with her. There are many times when I question my life priorities, made worse with A being so far away. I've learned to really enjoy parts of Houston; it's becoming a place I like being, but it's hard to overstate my envy at those who can just go over to the hospital. I used to be able to go over to the hospital. I hate that I can't. While I've always had the desire to see the world and enjoy things that are not available in a small Alabama town, I've never had same degree of negative things pushing me away as some of my other loved ones. Maybe that's because I moved away so soon after high school and never really lived there again. But for whatever reasons, I really do love so much and so many there, and I have wonderful memories that (while I recognize them as just memories) are painfully dislocative when I want to be with the people I love.
I'm in KP withdrawal due to lack of posts, and T withdrawal due to lack of cell reception. I had gotten used to chatting with T a few nights a week when he worked at the hotel, and am hoping very much that his new schedule combined with my Gulf Coast location will make it possible to spend more than a few hours talking. It takes more than a few hours.
I also know KP will be increasingly busy, if not very soon then in the near future. I know people who really do well with phones, I remember hearing of G/D calling A or S calling A daily or more, and I had a friend at work in Virginia who talked to her mother daily. And I remember an old girlfriend once saying that she envied me and my cousins, saying she had nobody so close. I find myself envying me then as well.
Which leads me in part to posting. I've found at work that, and maybe I'm different than most folks on this, but I hate bothering people. I've mentioned this before. The fact that A and I so often do everything together probably informs or reinforces this, but when I'm wishing to be spending time with people and thinking how poor a substitute phones are, it seems a bit of an inconvenience to take people away from those they are choosing to be with, so they can spend time on ... horrors ... the phone.
I mentioned work but then left that hanging.
Often in my job I have to go and ask for other people's help with stuff. I do it cheerfully and it is often fine, but it seems inevitably I have want to ask about more things than they have time to discuss, so I'm left in the awkward position of trying to figure out when to just leave them alone. I don't like that sense of imposition. Me, I try again to be very cheerful and friendly when people need something from me, and people get surprised how much time I take to help. It's flattering but depressing - I think everyone should do that, and it makes me aware that others are more jealous of their time than I am. So "people are busy" plus "phones suck" equals "calling someone is equivalent to asking someone if they can hold the flashlight while I fix the engine". Sure you might have a nice chat at the same time, but it's really a hassle in the scheme of things.
Or maybe the fear is that someone else will consider it that. Probably more along that line. Classic fear of rejection, or simply a fear of reaffirming how far apart people really are?
Okay, on that cheery note, I've been thinking that I ought to find some way to share what I've been doing in town, because as I mentioned before the self-pity session, I have been actually enjoying Houston.
I've mentioned the restaurants. I'm posting photos of restaurants on Flickr. Most of these are drive-bys, but as I try them I am getting multiple photos of those. Perhaps posting some reviews up here would be interesting?
I've also been going to the theatre. I've seen Homebody/Kabul and Hitchcock Blonde. I also heard Garrison Keillor speak at the Progressive Forum, where the guy who wrote The Weather Makers (an influential global warming book) will be speaking in a week or so. I used to think when I was in college that I'd move to Atlanta and get season tickets to the Fox Theatre. I bought season tickets to the Alley Theatre in Houston, and they are the first season tickets I've had since Auburn.
I've been missing roots. This is a whole 'nother post, and the thought "break them up like Aunt B does" is ringing through my head... what the hell...
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Eat more
I should, I suppose, be writing about more interesting things. What am I doing, you might ask.
Well, still working on the web site thing. About the only thing that I would consider "artistic" was this illustration I did for restaurants without photos:
For those wanting a brain teaser, this is the sort of thing that I have been pondering. (Charles might be interested in these...)
1) Imagine I were to draw a closed shape on paper, all straight-line edges (no curves). Then using carbon paper (remember that?) I put a dot at each vertex. Then I hand you the carbon with just the dots. Would you be able to reconstruct it from just the dots, if I told you that none of the lines/sides cross each other? Note that the shape may be concave.
2) If you knew both the coordinates of each vertex and where the lines went, and then I gave you the coordinates of another point, could you determine whether the point was inside the closed shape *without* graphing it? ("Inside" in the sense that the center of a crescent moon shape is *not* inside the shape.) What formula/algorithm would you use to determine this?
That's all to say, this is why I haven't been blogging. Not exactly dinner conversation.
Off to measure another hundred coordinates on the map...
Well, still working on the web site thing. About the only thing that I would consider "artistic" was this illustration I did for restaurants without photos:
For those wanting a brain teaser, this is the sort of thing that I have been pondering. (Charles might be interested in these...)
1) Imagine I were to draw a closed shape on paper, all straight-line edges (no curves). Then using carbon paper (remember that?) I put a dot at each vertex. Then I hand you the carbon with just the dots. Would you be able to reconstruct it from just the dots, if I told you that none of the lines/sides cross each other? Note that the shape may be concave.
2) If you knew both the coordinates of each vertex and where the lines went, and then I gave you the coordinates of another point, could you determine whether the point was inside the closed shape *without* graphing it? ("Inside" in the sense that the center of a crescent moon shape is *not* inside the shape.) What formula/algorithm would you use to determine this?
That's all to say, this is why I haven't been blogging. Not exactly dinner conversation.
Off to measure another hundred coordinates on the map...
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Eat
So I haven't been posting much lately, and this will be a short one to boot.
This is mostly because I've been building a new website. Or web tool. Thing.
Anyway, it will never be "done", but as of Thursday it has some useful data in it, and as of last night it has a neat (undocumented) search trick I've been itching for.
http://heyjebbo.com/eat
Enjoy!
This is mostly because I've been building a new website. Or web tool. Thing.
Anyway, it will never be "done", but as of Thursday it has some useful data in it, and as of last night it has a neat (undocumented) search trick I've been itching for.
http://heyjebbo.com/eat
Enjoy!
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Afghanistan
Another of those stories written by people who have been there. Not exactly a pick-me-up.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/02/AR2007020201474.html
As for me, I'm trying to make a Google Map with restaurants, which I can view on a cell phone. Ugh. Don't bother.
Otherwise all is well.
Oh, and is the first half of this Superbowl sloppy or what?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/02/AR2007020201474.html
As for me, I'm trying to make a Google Map with restaurants, which I can view on a cell phone. Ugh. Don't bother.
Otherwise all is well.
Oh, and is the first half of this Superbowl sloppy or what?
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Buddhists say
you need three things in life:
Something to do
Something to love
Something to hope for
(at least, according to Esquire magazine)
Something to do
Something to love
Something to hope for
(at least, according to Esquire magazine)
Saturday, January 27, 2007
my turn
okay, I hope everybody is ready to start writing, because the only reason I haven't been nagging all of you is because I haven't been writing either.
Check.
I'm kind of wanting to go in a few different directions with this post and with the blog in general. I'm pretty crap at writing day to day entries; I usually try to wait until I have something "big" to say.
I've got nothing big to say, which is the equivalent of not having a target to try to land on when you parachute out of a plane. Parachuting never sounded like much fun to me, too scary, but for this once let's try it.
I'm eating sushi. Why don't we grow up eating this stuff? It's terrific, I love it.
I'm on call. That is, I'm getting paid to sit around the apartment just in case and computers break... so there will be somebody there to fix them quickly (me).
I'm on a fruit kick. You should be eating more fruit.
There is this web site called "real age" or something like that. You can google it. The idea is that depending on your lifestyle, etc., you may be older or younger than your birth date would imply. What makes it kind of fun is that it keeps updating your age as you answer questions, and then it sends you an e-mail link to your final age and a list of all the things that make you younger or older than average
I need more fish and fruit, and exercise. And nuts.
What actually prodded me to write today was an article in the New York Times written by somebody who has lived in Iraq the last two years. The only times I've ever felt like I really understood what was going on over there have been when I've read things written by people who have no connection to politics or the military. That may sound like a stereotypical "Don't trust authority" thought, but it's not that I think everybody in the establishment is trying to mislead the public. Rather, I think that people who look at a situation from the outside with their own agenda end up asking the wrong questions, such that even the right answers can be misleading. People who live it organically recognize how the questions are framed on the ground, and if you don't start with that-with understanding what it is that you are trying to change-the law of unintended consequences will eat your lunch every time.
Here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/weekinreview/28tave.html
Gosh, it sure is easier to write about stuff like that then simple day-to-day things. Anybody else find that to be true?
It's harder for me to write about the personal things I think about:
Money, the ethics of what you buy with it, the difference between extravagance and paying living wages, what is worth giving up for it.
Friendships, how much philosophical/political/artistic/temperamental similarities you need to have to make them worth the effort, how much depth and frequency of interaction you need to make them grow, what kinds of friends you need.
Locations, where to live, where to work, and the importance of culture, cost-of-living, job opportunities, closeness to existing friends, climate, infrastructure you need to be happy.
Sex, how and why it brings out different parts of your personality, why it embarrasses us publicly and privately, the effects of nature and nurture on our desires and attitudes, and what it all means for ethics and identity.
Much easier to talk about existentialism.
I must say I admire folks who write so (seemingly) easily about their day-to-day insecurities. It's a terrifically brave thing and inspiring.
That's pretty much what I wanted to say.
Now, get writing.
Check.
I'm kind of wanting to go in a few different directions with this post and with the blog in general. I'm pretty crap at writing day to day entries; I usually try to wait until I have something "big" to say.
I've got nothing big to say, which is the equivalent of not having a target to try to land on when you parachute out of a plane. Parachuting never sounded like much fun to me, too scary, but for this once let's try it.
I'm eating sushi. Why don't we grow up eating this stuff? It's terrific, I love it.
I'm on call. That is, I'm getting paid to sit around the apartment just in case and computers break... so there will be somebody there to fix them quickly (me).
I'm on a fruit kick. You should be eating more fruit.
There is this web site called "real age" or something like that. You can google it. The idea is that depending on your lifestyle, etc., you may be older or younger than your birth date would imply. What makes it kind of fun is that it keeps updating your age as you answer questions, and then it sends you an e-mail link to your final age and a list of all the things that make you younger or older than average
I need more fish and fruit, and exercise. And nuts.
What actually prodded me to write today was an article in the New York Times written by somebody who has lived in Iraq the last two years. The only times I've ever felt like I really understood what was going on over there have been when I've read things written by people who have no connection to politics or the military. That may sound like a stereotypical "Don't trust authority" thought, but it's not that I think everybody in the establishment is trying to mislead the public. Rather, I think that people who look at a situation from the outside with their own agenda end up asking the wrong questions, such that even the right answers can be misleading. People who live it organically recognize how the questions are framed on the ground, and if you don't start with that-with understanding what it is that you are trying to change-the law of unintended consequences will eat your lunch every time.
Here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/weekinreview/28tave.html
Gosh, it sure is easier to write about stuff like that then simple day-to-day things. Anybody else find that to be true?
It's harder for me to write about the personal things I think about:
Money, the ethics of what you buy with it, the difference between extravagance and paying living wages, what is worth giving up for it.
Friendships, how much philosophical/political/artistic/temperamental similarities you need to have to make them worth the effort, how much depth and frequency of interaction you need to make them grow, what kinds of friends you need.
Locations, where to live, where to work, and the importance of culture, cost-of-living, job opportunities, closeness to existing friends, climate, infrastructure you need to be happy.
Sex, how and why it brings out different parts of your personality, why it embarrasses us publicly and privately, the effects of nature and nurture on our desires and attitudes, and what it all means for ethics and identity.
Much easier to talk about existentialism.
I must say I admire folks who write so (seemingly) easily about their day-to-day insecurities. It's a terrifically brave thing and inspiring.
That's pretty much what I wanted to say.
Now, get writing.
Monday, January 08, 2007
Sermon
I should set this up better. Make you want to spend an entire hour stopping what you are doing and listening.
I've said before that it is unfair that those who do not regularly attend church have no practical alternatives, no shared ritual to attend to that provides the healing and faith, separate from the political and metaphysical dogma of modern religious institutions.
This week, attend church whenever you want.
But the service is one hour.
And the sermon is here.
I've said before that it is unfair that those who do not regularly attend church have no practical alternatives, no shared ritual to attend to that provides the healing and faith, separate from the political and metaphysical dogma of modern religious institutions.
This week, attend church whenever you want.
But the service is one hour.
And the sermon is here.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Back to work
Pitiful excuse for a blog entry, this is.
It is 4am in London though...
Back to Houston after a week in Blighty. Funny when you flip between ... paradigms and then you are supposed to just drop back in where you left off. I rarely want to.
But it's 4am, work in 10 hours, and not yet unpacked.
How to hold on to new sensations and perspectives, and old ones recontextualized? Language I suppose. But a moment's experience well captured can take hours.
How do you index a self?
It is 4am in London though...
Back to Houston after a week in Blighty. Funny when you flip between ... paradigms and then you are supposed to just drop back in where you left off. I rarely want to.
But it's 4am, work in 10 hours, and not yet unpacked.
How to hold on to new sensations and perspectives, and old ones recontextualized? Language I suppose. But a moment's experience well captured can take hours.
How do you index a self?
Friday, December 15, 2006
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Karamazov
The Brothers Karamazov
Part Two, Book 6: the Russian Monk, Chapter 3: from Talks and Homilies of the Elder Zosima, (e) Some Words about the Russian Monk and His Possible Significance
...The world has proclaimed freedom, especially of late, but what do we see in this freedom of theirs: only slavery and suicide! For the world says: "you have needs, therefore satisfy them, for you have the same rights as the noblest and richest men. Do not be afraid to satisfy them, but even increase them" -- this is the current teaching of the world. And in this they see freedom. But what comes of this right to increase one's needs? For the rich, isolation and spiritual suicide; for the poor, envy and murder, for they have been given rights, but have not yet been shown any way of satisfying their needs. We are assured that the world is becoming more and more united, is being formed into brotherly communion, by the shortening of distances, by the transmitting of thoughts through the air. Alas, do not believe in such a union of people. Taking freedom to mean the increase and prompt satisfaction of needs, they distort their own nature, for they generate many meaningless and foolish desires, habits, and the most absurd fancies in themselves. They live only for mutual envy, for pleasure-seeking and self-display. To have dinners, horses, carriages, rank, and slaves to serve them is now considered such a necessity that for the sake of it, to satisfy, they will sacrifice life, honor, the love of mankind, and will even kill themselves if they are unable to satisfy it. We see the same thing in those who are not rich, while the poor, so far, simply drown their unsatisfied needs and envy in drink. But soon they will get drunk on blood instead of wine, they are being led to that. I ask you: is such a man free? I knew one "fighter for an idea" who told me himself that when he was deprived of tobacco in prison, he was so tormented by this deprivation that he almost went and betrayed his "idea," just so that they would give him tobacco. And such a man says: "I am going to fight for mankind." Well, how far will such a man get, and what is he good for? Perhaps some quick action, but he will not endure for long. And no wonder that instead of freedom they have fallen into slavery, and instead of serving brotherly love and human unity, they have fallen, on the contrary, into disunity and isolation, as my mysterious visitor and teacher used to tell me in my youth. And therefore the idea of serving mankind, of the brotherhood and oneness of people, is fading more and more in the world, and indeed the idea now even meets with mockery, for how can one drop one's habits, where will this slave go now that he is so accustomed to satisfying the innumerable needs he himself has invented? He is isolated, and what does he care about the whole? They have succeeded in amassing more and more things, but have less and less joy.
Part Two, Book 6: the Russian Monk, Chapter 3: from Talks and Homilies of the Elder Zosima, (e) Some Words about the Russian Monk and His Possible Significance
...The world has proclaimed freedom, especially of late, but what do we see in this freedom of theirs: only slavery and suicide! For the world says: "you have needs, therefore satisfy them, for you have the same rights as the noblest and richest men. Do not be afraid to satisfy them, but even increase them" -- this is the current teaching of the world. And in this they see freedom. But what comes of this right to increase one's needs? For the rich, isolation and spiritual suicide; for the poor, envy and murder, for they have been given rights, but have not yet been shown any way of satisfying their needs. We are assured that the world is becoming more and more united, is being formed into brotherly communion, by the shortening of distances, by the transmitting of thoughts through the air. Alas, do not believe in such a union of people. Taking freedom to mean the increase and prompt satisfaction of needs, they distort their own nature, for they generate many meaningless and foolish desires, habits, and the most absurd fancies in themselves. They live only for mutual envy, for pleasure-seeking and self-display. To have dinners, horses, carriages, rank, and slaves to serve them is now considered such a necessity that for the sake of it, to satisfy, they will sacrifice life, honor, the love of mankind, and will even kill themselves if they are unable to satisfy it. We see the same thing in those who are not rich, while the poor, so far, simply drown their unsatisfied needs and envy in drink. But soon they will get drunk on blood instead of wine, they are being led to that. I ask you: is such a man free? I knew one "fighter for an idea" who told me himself that when he was deprived of tobacco in prison, he was so tormented by this deprivation that he almost went and betrayed his "idea," just so that they would give him tobacco. And such a man says: "I am going to fight for mankind." Well, how far will such a man get, and what is he good for? Perhaps some quick action, but he will not endure for long. And no wonder that instead of freedom they have fallen into slavery, and instead of serving brotherly love and human unity, they have fallen, on the contrary, into disunity and isolation, as my mysterious visitor and teacher used to tell me in my youth. And therefore the idea of serving mankind, of the brotherhood and oneness of people, is fading more and more in the world, and indeed the idea now even meets with mockery, for how can one drop one's habits, where will this slave go now that he is so accustomed to satisfying the innumerable needs he himself has invented? He is isolated, and what does he care about the whole? They have succeeded in amassing more and more things, but have less and less joy.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Thoughts on the report of the Iraq Study Group
Peaceful democracies exist on the consent of both the majority and the minority.
In the wake of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration decided that the existing sanctions-based foreign policy in Iraq was insufficient to protect American interests. Equating the long escalation of Al Qaeda attacks throughout the 90s with the violent history and murderous nature of the Hussein regime (as well as declining enforcement of UN sanctions), the administration understood the lesson of the terrorist strikes as follows: threats conveniently dismissed or ignored when small will in time become catastrophic realities. Further, it would seem that the administration hoped another lesson was possible: that through early, massive, and forceful consequences (and perhaps only through this) could future catastrophic realities be nipped in the bud.
Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq provided the opportunity to project this lesson (and test the theory).
The US invasion of Iraq was publicly justified on two bases: the need to protect ourselves from imminent danger, and an opportunity to undermine the causes of terrorism (which were considered to be repressive governments unresponsive to the needs and grievances of their populations and protecting their power through vilification of outsiders, especially the United States and Israel).
It was not important that the Iraqi threat to the United States or the world be imminent in order to demonstrate that any potential threat to the United States or the world would be met with early, massive and forceful consequences. It was only important that some threat be acknowledged, and some intransigence on the part of the threatening regime be demonstrated. At that point, the lesson could be taught.
However, the administration was operating in a domestic and international political climate that was not necessarily conducive to destroying the Iraqi regime merely to set an example. Thus it was important to establish the "burning platform" of an imminent chemical, biological or nuclear threat, and/or terrorist connection (ideally to the attacks of September 11). It would be unfair to suggest that all these threats were known to be false. It is more accurate to say that a moderate, reasonably well-controlled threat was widely perceived, with a great deal of vague/questionable/conflicting information that made it easy for anyone so inclined to connect the dots as they saw fit. Contradictory dots of whatever suggestion were often ignored. It is fair to blame decision-makers at this phase for ignoring "inconvenient truths" for fear of seeming indecisive or worse obstructionist.
As time and events disproved the imminence of the Iraqi threat, the legitimacy of the American-led invasion fell back on the secondary justification of planting the seeds of democracy in a Middle Eastern garden of misdirected anger. This is a key point. The domestic political and international legitimacy of American actions was at this point tied to the concept of democratic government in Iraq. Leaving with success, "winning", became acquainted with leaving a democratic government behind.
Bob Gates, the newly-appointed Secretary of Defense, acknowledged in testimony this week that the American-led forces are not "winning" in Iraq.
And yet, a democratic government is in place. Again, this is important. We have achieved democracy in Iraq, and yet we have not succeeded. Something is missing. That something is peace, or as it is more fashionably known, stability.
Peaceful (stable) democracies exist on the consent of both the majority and minority.
Until the American-led invasion in 2002, Iraq was governed by a minority Sunni population who dominated the Shi'ite majority through severe repression. Establishing democracy in Iraq required by definition that a majority be empowered. The rules by which the Iraqi constitution was drawn up, and thus the basis for Iraqi democracy, depend in large part on religious identity. (In fairness religious identity was already a significant factor for many people, especially in light of the history of Sunni domination of the Shi'ite majority.) Thus, minority domination of the majority was replaced with majority domination of the minority.
This is democracy: majority rules.
Peaceful, stable democracies, though, have an additional requirement. The minority must agree to live peacefully on the terms of the majority. Thus we have the concept of minority rights within a framework of majority rules.
This is peaceful democracy: majority rules, minority rights.
When Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans took power in the late 19th century, the previously dominant Southern Democrats foresaw the terms under which they would be ruled (namely, curtailment or elimination of slavery) and refused to live peacefully on the majority terms. Thus began civil war.
When the minority refuses to live peacefully on the terms of the majority, the majority in turn has three options: compromise on the terms, attempt to destroy the minority, or attempt to inflict sufficient damage on the minority such that they will compromise. The first is easiest but only in small measures. The second is tempting but depends on an overwhelming difference in power (and thus it is usually "the terrorists" or "the insurgents" or "the extremists" that are targeted). The usual result is the third option, refusing to compromise and recognizing that no purely military victory is possible, but believing that time (or God) is on one's side.
In the case of Iraq, both the Shi'ite majority in government and the minority Sunni insurgency believe that time is on their side. Vaulted into power by American military might, and viewing their continued dominance as a critical legitimation of the American Democracy Project in the Middle East and thus a justification and definition of success in the Iraq venture, the Shi'ite government feels it will not be allowed to fall. Backed by American guns, the government and the Shi'ite militias feel emboldened in their expectations of dominance over the Sunni minority that once oppressed them. At the same time, the Sunni minority (especially the active militia component) feels disenfranchised and -- in a country where political parties are extensions of ethnic/religious identity -- unlikely to have an opportunity to ever become the majority. They have little reason to respect the legitimacy of a Democratic majority of which they will never become a part. Further, they recognize that as a foreign occupation force taking serious casualties, the American political will for an open-ended support for the Shi'ite government is not sustainable. At some point the Americans will leave, while the Syrians and Iranians will remain as important patrons. Thus the Sunnis see little advantage in submitting to the Shi'ite majority and have every reason to believe that time is on their side.
It is this recognition that the Iraq Study Group grasps, and with which the administration seems to differ. When enough of the minority choose not to live peacefully on the terms of the majority, supporting the legitimate = Democratic = majority is effectively the same as taking sides in a civil war. The Bush administration has taken sides. This in and of itself is not unreasonable. However, when "our side" believes that we have their backs no matter what, and does not have the political will (taking into account militias etc.) to compromise on terms currently acceptable to the minority, and thus our side = the majority believes it is better to fight for improved terms... and at the same time the "other side" believes that we are leaving (sooner or later) and is willing to continue fighting until that day so that they can get improved terms... when both sides' frame of reference tells them that it makes sense to go on killing in order to break the will of the other side, that is the prescription for the downward spiral of civil war we see today.
The Iraq Study Group is saying, in effect, that we have to tell "our side" that the "other side" is right... that we won't be there forever, that time is not on their side, and that they need to get the best compromise they can today. In the language of democracy and terrorists/insurgents/extremists, this is giving in to the "bad guys". In the language of peaceful/stable democracy, though, this is granting additional minority rights in order to avoid (continuing) a civil war.
One thing I found striking, particularly in the discussion with the co-chairs of the Iraq Study Group, is the extreme difference in tone from that of the administration. It is as if they are saying, we have no leverage over the Sunnis (who we are treating as the bad guys), and very little leverage over the Shi'ites (some of whom make up the government we treat as the good guys). If we want peace, about the best we can hope is to lean on the good guys to cut a deal with the bad guys. And they might not want to, just as in the American Civil War they may prefer to keep killing each other until both sides can see clearly that additional killing will not significantly change the terms of a compromise.
In other words, bluntly, if there is to be peace it will be on the "bad guys'" terms. And we cannot force the good guys to take those terms, but we ought to try.
Of course this is something of an oversimplification. But the judgment that the administration will have to deal with in the coming days and weeks is this: just as in Vietnam, the "good guy" government that we are backing increasingly lacks legitimacy among both the Shi'ite majority and especially the Sunni minority, and it does not appear to be within our military or political power to establish that legitimacy. The only practical hope (and a limited one at that) is that the government, fearing for its own survival, renegotiates its terms of existence.
Only by being willing to sacrifice the democratic government of Iraq, the greatest remaining legitimation of the war, can we hope to transform it into a stable democratic government. If we fail in this, stability will come only after more bloodshed shapes a new government (of whatever form) that will be sufficiently tolerated by all the surviving peoples of Iraq.
In the wake of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration decided that the existing sanctions-based foreign policy in Iraq was insufficient to protect American interests. Equating the long escalation of Al Qaeda attacks throughout the 90s with the violent history and murderous nature of the Hussein regime (as well as declining enforcement of UN sanctions), the administration understood the lesson of the terrorist strikes as follows: threats conveniently dismissed or ignored when small will in time become catastrophic realities. Further, it would seem that the administration hoped another lesson was possible: that through early, massive, and forceful consequences (and perhaps only through this) could future catastrophic realities be nipped in the bud.
Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq provided the opportunity to project this lesson (and test the theory).
The US invasion of Iraq was publicly justified on two bases: the need to protect ourselves from imminent danger, and an opportunity to undermine the causes of terrorism (which were considered to be repressive governments unresponsive to the needs and grievances of their populations and protecting their power through vilification of outsiders, especially the United States and Israel).
It was not important that the Iraqi threat to the United States or the world be imminent in order to demonstrate that any potential threat to the United States or the world would be met with early, massive and forceful consequences. It was only important that some threat be acknowledged, and some intransigence on the part of the threatening regime be demonstrated. At that point, the lesson could be taught.
However, the administration was operating in a domestic and international political climate that was not necessarily conducive to destroying the Iraqi regime merely to set an example. Thus it was important to establish the "burning platform" of an imminent chemical, biological or nuclear threat, and/or terrorist connection (ideally to the attacks of September 11). It would be unfair to suggest that all these threats were known to be false. It is more accurate to say that a moderate, reasonably well-controlled threat was widely perceived, with a great deal of vague/questionable/conflicting information that made it easy for anyone so inclined to connect the dots as they saw fit. Contradictory dots of whatever suggestion were often ignored. It is fair to blame decision-makers at this phase for ignoring "inconvenient truths" for fear of seeming indecisive or worse obstructionist.
As time and events disproved the imminence of the Iraqi threat, the legitimacy of the American-led invasion fell back on the secondary justification of planting the seeds of democracy in a Middle Eastern garden of misdirected anger. This is a key point. The domestic political and international legitimacy of American actions was at this point tied to the concept of democratic government in Iraq. Leaving with success, "winning", became acquainted with leaving a democratic government behind.
Bob Gates, the newly-appointed Secretary of Defense, acknowledged in testimony this week that the American-led forces are not "winning" in Iraq.
And yet, a democratic government is in place. Again, this is important. We have achieved democracy in Iraq, and yet we have not succeeded. Something is missing. That something is peace, or as it is more fashionably known, stability.
Peaceful (stable) democracies exist on the consent of both the majority and minority.
Until the American-led invasion in 2002, Iraq was governed by a minority Sunni population who dominated the Shi'ite majority through severe repression. Establishing democracy in Iraq required by definition that a majority be empowered. The rules by which the Iraqi constitution was drawn up, and thus the basis for Iraqi democracy, depend in large part on religious identity. (In fairness religious identity was already a significant factor for many people, especially in light of the history of Sunni domination of the Shi'ite majority.) Thus, minority domination of the majority was replaced with majority domination of the minority.
This is democracy: majority rules.
Peaceful, stable democracies, though, have an additional requirement. The minority must agree to live peacefully on the terms of the majority. Thus we have the concept of minority rights within a framework of majority rules.
This is peaceful democracy: majority rules, minority rights.
When Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans took power in the late 19th century, the previously dominant Southern Democrats foresaw the terms under which they would be ruled (namely, curtailment or elimination of slavery) and refused to live peacefully on the majority terms. Thus began civil war.
When the minority refuses to live peacefully on the terms of the majority, the majority in turn has three options: compromise on the terms, attempt to destroy the minority, or attempt to inflict sufficient damage on the minority such that they will compromise. The first is easiest but only in small measures. The second is tempting but depends on an overwhelming difference in power (and thus it is usually "the terrorists" or "the insurgents" or "the extremists" that are targeted). The usual result is the third option, refusing to compromise and recognizing that no purely military victory is possible, but believing that time (or God) is on one's side.
In the case of Iraq, both the Shi'ite majority in government and the minority Sunni insurgency believe that time is on their side. Vaulted into power by American military might, and viewing their continued dominance as a critical legitimation of the American Democracy Project in the Middle East and thus a justification and definition of success in the Iraq venture, the Shi'ite government feels it will not be allowed to fall. Backed by American guns, the government and the Shi'ite militias feel emboldened in their expectations of dominance over the Sunni minority that once oppressed them. At the same time, the Sunni minority (especially the active militia component) feels disenfranchised and -- in a country where political parties are extensions of ethnic/religious identity -- unlikely to have an opportunity to ever become the majority. They have little reason to respect the legitimacy of a Democratic majority of which they will never become a part. Further, they recognize that as a foreign occupation force taking serious casualties, the American political will for an open-ended support for the Shi'ite government is not sustainable. At some point the Americans will leave, while the Syrians and Iranians will remain as important patrons. Thus the Sunnis see little advantage in submitting to the Shi'ite majority and have every reason to believe that time is on their side.
It is this recognition that the Iraq Study Group grasps, and with which the administration seems to differ. When enough of the minority choose not to live peacefully on the terms of the majority, supporting the legitimate = Democratic = majority is effectively the same as taking sides in a civil war. The Bush administration has taken sides. This in and of itself is not unreasonable. However, when "our side" believes that we have their backs no matter what, and does not have the political will (taking into account militias etc.) to compromise on terms currently acceptable to the minority, and thus our side = the majority believes it is better to fight for improved terms... and at the same time the "other side" believes that we are leaving (sooner or later) and is willing to continue fighting until that day so that they can get improved terms... when both sides' frame of reference tells them that it makes sense to go on killing in order to break the will of the other side, that is the prescription for the downward spiral of civil war we see today.
The Iraq Study Group is saying, in effect, that we have to tell "our side" that the "other side" is right... that we won't be there forever, that time is not on their side, and that they need to get the best compromise they can today. In the language of democracy and terrorists/insurgents/extremists, this is giving in to the "bad guys". In the language of peaceful/stable democracy, though, this is granting additional minority rights in order to avoid (continuing) a civil war.
One thing I found striking, particularly in the discussion with the co-chairs of the Iraq Study Group, is the extreme difference in tone from that of the administration. It is as if they are saying, we have no leverage over the Sunnis (who we are treating as the bad guys), and very little leverage over the Shi'ites (some of whom make up the government we treat as the good guys). If we want peace, about the best we can hope is to lean on the good guys to cut a deal with the bad guys. And they might not want to, just as in the American Civil War they may prefer to keep killing each other until both sides can see clearly that additional killing will not significantly change the terms of a compromise.
In other words, bluntly, if there is to be peace it will be on the "bad guys'" terms. And we cannot force the good guys to take those terms, but we ought to try.
Of course this is something of an oversimplification. But the judgment that the administration will have to deal with in the coming days and weeks is this: just as in Vietnam, the "good guy" government that we are backing increasingly lacks legitimacy among both the Shi'ite majority and especially the Sunni minority, and it does not appear to be within our military or political power to establish that legitimacy. The only practical hope (and a limited one at that) is that the government, fearing for its own survival, renegotiates its terms of existence.
Only by being willing to sacrifice the democratic government of Iraq, the greatest remaining legitimation of the war, can we hope to transform it into a stable democratic government. If we fail in this, stability will come only after more bloodshed shapes a new government (of whatever form) that will be sufficiently tolerated by all the surviving peoples of Iraq.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Coming Soon
It's not that I don't enjoy writing blogs. I do, really. It's just that there are things I enjoy more. Like spending time with A when she is in town.
(I think we should all use cool pseudonyms like over at Tiny Cat Pants, what do you say?)
Which is all to say, more blogs coming soon. In the meantime, if you don't know where your voting location is for next Tuesday, go find out now.
I've never found a simple way to do that, which is one indictment of our political system. We complain more people don't vote, but we make them do a research paper just to cast a vote.
So what I've found works best is to either Google your state name and the word "vote", or go to the web site of your local newspaper and start clicking around for Election 2006 etc.. I'd recommend the Google personally.
More to come.
(I think we should all use cool pseudonyms like over at Tiny Cat Pants, what do you say?)
Which is all to say, more blogs coming soon. In the meantime, if you don't know where your voting location is for next Tuesday, go find out now.
I've never found a simple way to do that, which is one indictment of our political system. We complain more people don't vote, but we make them do a research paper just to cast a vote.
So what I've found works best is to either Google your state name and the word "vote", or go to the web site of your local newspaper and start clicking around for Election 2006 etc.. I'd recommend the Google personally.
More to come.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Something Wicked This Way Comes
My favorite thing about writing is the stillness. The way it takes an hour to write two paragraphs. That often frustrates me, I sit down to try to express some thought or feeling, and I look up and it's time to go to bed. Maybe this is something that writers understand instinctively, as a matter of first principle. It's not so obvious to me, that you are supposed to spend the next 20 minutes staring at that one fragment of thought, that one heartbeat, that one Klee staring back at you from the wall.
The hardest part, the really really hard part, is being patient. Is deciding not to think about the thousand heartbeats before and after this one. Not the mail. Not dinner. This now. Only this now. Letting tonight be only one moment, lived and examined for three hours. Who has three hours? Who has time to think?
When we cannot think we cannot see. In a quantum world where observation collapses infinite possibilities to individual realities, we hurtle forward eyes clenched in the darkest darkness listening to whispered promises of every imaginable desire. There is I think a kind of bravery in Looking, in holding on firmly to one valuable thing as the rest of the parade passes by. A kind of Faith in simplicity, sacrifice, commitment.
I admire and aspire to that faith.
I exercise that faith looking at the change of seasons and visits to dark places.
==========
Rain is out of habit. Drivers today seemed puzzled, slowing to 25 on the interstate though wipers stumbled intermittently. Less than an hour earlier I felt the brooding darkness press in over my shoulders, and clouds gathering through the blinds. I sat for a third day wordsmithing computer security documents, something that though tedious I don't mind as I'm good at. It was nice to feel competent, something I had discussed with A. the night before, comparing notes on how much we learn and how much we forget. I still feel in my hands the chiseled work of designs that fade from memory. And years of limestone higher education wash away leaving canyons with spare
hoodoos: Kantian ethics, marching band rules, metal hardening, legal briefs, framing public issues, technology-driven history, and the Lorenz attractor.
As Houston finally drifts out of the lower 90s, I see Lorenz's butterfly circling, patterning out the weather, summer shifting into autumn. Circling out on a wing, the system eventually oscillates to its familiar modes, the swoop of a front lifting the leaves and spitting on the windows. Legend explains the change of season through the myth of Persephone, daughter of Demeter, taken by Hades to be Queen of the Underworld. Loved and fought over by both, Demeter's joint custody between parent and spouse also explained early wedding rituals, and represents perhaps the original long-distance relationship.
The LDR is a different beast than others I've seen stalk the minds of friends and loved ones, one that Queen Persephone understood all too well. Monarch butterflies migrate south every year, chasing the weather patterns of the world. We too try to maintain, to stay in orbit, to change the system when its oscillations tilt towards winter. But sometimes the system changes on us. Certain eyes and ears are the voices calling you home to dinner before night falls. In their absence, the equations change, the landscapes shift to older climates, familiar weather. Wondering when spring will come, when the next flight will head south, is winter's company.
Persephone's heart froze in winter. Odysseus called her the Iron Queen on his dangerous journey to the Underworld, and it was her handmaidens whose punishment it was to tempt him with their Siren's calls. Only Orpheus ever warmed that heart, with the music of Apollo and the words of Calliope, asking that he should live with Eurydice all months of the year in the warmth of the sun. Understanding love but also temptation and fear, Persephone and Hades challenged Orpheus to walk alone through the cold darkness believing he would not lose her along the way. With only the sound of whispering demons in his ears, unable to speak to his love, he reached out for her in fear and in so doing lost her.
There is indeed a wisdom of age that teaches us when to point our ships straight and lash ourselves to the mast. An art, too, in learning not to listen to the voices we can't help but hear.
The hardest part, the really really hard part, is being patient. Is deciding not to think about the thousand heartbeats before and after this one. Not the mail. Not dinner. This now. Only this now. Letting tonight be only one moment, lived and examined for three hours. Who has three hours? Who has time to think?
When we cannot think we cannot see. In a quantum world where observation collapses infinite possibilities to individual realities, we hurtle forward eyes clenched in the darkest darkness listening to whispered promises of every imaginable desire. There is I think a kind of bravery in Looking, in holding on firmly to one valuable thing as the rest of the parade passes by. A kind of Faith in simplicity, sacrifice, commitment.
I admire and aspire to that faith.
I exercise that faith looking at the change of seasons and visits to dark places.
==========
Rain is out of habit. Drivers today seemed puzzled, slowing to 25 on the interstate though wipers stumbled intermittently. Less than an hour earlier I felt the brooding darkness press in over my shoulders, and clouds gathering through the blinds. I sat for a third day wordsmithing computer security documents, something that though tedious I don't mind as I'm good at. It was nice to feel competent, something I had discussed with A. the night before, comparing notes on how much we learn and how much we forget. I still feel in my hands the chiseled work of designs that fade from memory. And years of limestone higher education wash away leaving canyons with spare
hoodoos: Kantian ethics, marching band rules, metal hardening, legal briefs, framing public issues, technology-driven history, and the Lorenz attractor.As Houston finally drifts out of the lower 90s, I see Lorenz's butterfly circling, patterning out the weather, summer shifting into autumn. Circling out on a wing, the system eventually oscillates to its familiar modes, the swoop of a front lifting the leaves and spitting on the windows. Legend explains the change of season through the myth of Persephone, daughter of Demeter, taken by Hades to be Queen of the Underworld. Loved and fought over by both, Demeter's joint custody between parent and spouse also explained early wedding rituals, and represents perhaps the original long-distance relationship.
The LDR is a different beast than others I've seen stalk the minds of friends and loved ones, one that Queen Persephone understood all too well. Monarch butterflies migrate south every year, chasing the weather patterns of the world. We too try to maintain, to stay in orbit, to change the system when its oscillations tilt towards winter. But sometimes the system changes on us. Certain eyes and ears are the voices calling you home to dinner before night falls. In their absence, the equations change, the landscapes shift to older climates, familiar weather. Wondering when spring will come, when the next flight will head south, is winter's company.
Persephone's heart froze in winter. Odysseus called her the Iron Queen on his dangerous journey to the Underworld, and it was her handmaidens whose punishment it was to tempt him with their Siren's calls. Only Orpheus ever warmed that heart, with the music of Apollo and the words of Calliope, asking that he should live with Eurydice all months of the year in the warmth of the sun. Understanding love but also temptation and fear, Persephone and Hades challenged Orpheus to walk alone through the cold darkness believing he would not lose her along the way. With only the sound of whispering demons in his ears, unable to speak to his love, he reached out for her in fear and in so doing lost her.
There is indeed a wisdom of age that teaches us when to point our ships straight and lash ourselves to the mast. An art, too, in learning not to listen to the voices we can't help but hear.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Freakonomics
One hour webcast of an interesting Princeton lecture by author Steven Levitt. Better than what's on TV!
http://www.princeton.edu/WebMedia/lectures/
Also, if you want to take some courses...
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/courses/index.php
http://www.princeton.edu/WebMedia/lectures/
Also, if you want to take some courses...
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/courses/index.php
Netflix
So for everyone who keeps asking me exasperatedly "what do you mean you haven't seen that movie, I rented it because you gave it five stars?" I finally have an answer.
Annette and I both rate movies on the same account. And Annette has seen 500 times more movies than I have.
Anyone else out there in the same situation? I know you can create multiple queues on a single account, but can you have multiple ratings on a single account?
Well, for what it is worth, if it is a classic or black-and-white or Western or Japanese and highly rated, there is a decent chance that Annette thinks so. Doesn't mean I don't think so as well (I usually do), just a good chance I don't think anything yet.
Annette and I both rate movies on the same account. And Annette has seen 500 times more movies than I have.
Anyone else out there in the same situation? I know you can create multiple queues on a single account, but can you have multiple ratings on a single account?
Well, for what it is worth, if it is a classic or black-and-white or Western or Japanese and highly rated, there is a decent chance that Annette thinks so. Doesn't mean I don't think so as well (I usually do), just a good chance I don't think anything yet.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Friday, September 22, 2006
Funniest thing I read today
Together the ruby-red colors and nude photos create an ambience your parents might have called "French whorehouse." To modern sensibilities, the decor might be better described as "ironic, retro-1950s French whorehouse."
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Whipped Cream on Top
Today begins one whole week of frivolous frivolity!
Irreverent irrelevances!
Ice cream cake as a reward for months of fiber and vitamin E!
=============================
10 Things I Need to Do around the House
1. Crush the aluminum cans. Man I go through these, three or so a day and I don't wear shoes in the house, so they gather on the breakfast bar and stare at me from across the room. Go away!
2. Sort out DVDs and CD-ROMs. Why do I never never never write on a CD what it is? There are like 30 of them. I used to love CDs, now I realize they are the tribbles from Star Trek. Cuddly and nefarious.
3. Iron clothes. Does anyone know a way to make this not the most tedious job in the world?
4. Rearrange all the books on my bookshelf. Less crazy than it sounds. You'll see. You'll see. It's gonna be great!
5. Rebuild my computer. My computer likes to reboot automatically sometimes. A lot. Imagine what would happen if your main computer died.
6. Burn all of my software and operating system onto DVDs and CD-ROMs in case my computer dies. What, more CDs? Damn them all!
7. Wash my clothes hamper. Long story.
8. Throw out all of the batteries that are dead. Remember when they used to include battery meters, those little strips, when you bought a package of batteries? Now you see a couple of batteries and it's like, have I used those yet? Have I recharged them?
9. Scan and correct photos to upload to Flickr.
10. Go check the calendar to see whose birthday is this month. I am so incredibly bad at that. I don't think I know more than five peoples birthdays, and most of those because they are easy to remember. Heck, I think this was the first year I remembered Annette and my anniversary. In my defense, neither of us ever remember our anniversary.
==============================
Restaurants of the Week
I tried four new restaurants this week, part of a bid to actually learn a little bit about this city that I live in.
Ziggy's -- healthy food, hip place. Elk burgers and pomegranate martinis.
Romano's -- middling Italian but nice salad and big screen for the football game.
Taco Milagro -- mid-scale Mexican, reasonable portion sizes of very tasty fast food. Yummy mole enchiladas and salsa that hits you like a baseball bat.
Los Ranchitos -- dive Salvadoran, basic but tastes like your grandmother made it (if she was Salvadoran). The food on paper plates was served on those woven-straw paper plate holders like Grandma Jennie used to use before she upgraded to those orange plastic kind that could be washed. Ah, memories.
Irreverent irrelevances!
Ice cream cake as a reward for months of fiber and vitamin E!
=============================
10 Things I Need to Do around the House
1. Crush the aluminum cans. Man I go through these, three or so a day and I don't wear shoes in the house, so they gather on the breakfast bar and stare at me from across the room. Go away!
2. Sort out DVDs and CD-ROMs. Why do I never never never write on a CD what it is? There are like 30 of them. I used to love CDs, now I realize they are the tribbles from Star Trek. Cuddly and nefarious.
3. Iron clothes. Does anyone know a way to make this not the most tedious job in the world?
4. Rearrange all the books on my bookshelf. Less crazy than it sounds. You'll see. You'll see. It's gonna be great!
5. Rebuild my computer. My computer likes to reboot automatically sometimes. A lot. Imagine what would happen if your main computer died.
6. Burn all of my software and operating system onto DVDs and CD-ROMs in case my computer dies. What, more CDs? Damn them all!
7. Wash my clothes hamper. Long story.
8. Throw out all of the batteries that are dead. Remember when they used to include battery meters, those little strips, when you bought a package of batteries? Now you see a couple of batteries and it's like, have I used those yet? Have I recharged them?
9. Scan and correct photos to upload to Flickr.
10. Go check the calendar to see whose birthday is this month. I am so incredibly bad at that. I don't think I know more than five peoples birthdays, and most of those because they are easy to remember. Heck, I think this was the first year I remembered Annette and my anniversary. In my defense, neither of us ever remember our anniversary.
==============================
Restaurants of the Week
I tried four new restaurants this week, part of a bid to actually learn a little bit about this city that I live in.
Ziggy's -- healthy food, hip place. Elk burgers and pomegranate martinis.
Romano's -- middling Italian but nice salad and big screen for the football game.
Taco Milagro -- mid-scale Mexican, reasonable portion sizes of very tasty fast food. Yummy mole enchiladas and salsa that hits you like a baseball bat.
Los Ranchitos -- dive Salvadoran, basic but tastes like your grandmother made it (if she was Salvadoran). The food on paper plates was served on those woven-straw paper plate holders like Grandma Jennie used to use before she upgraded to those orange plastic kind that could be washed. Ah, memories.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Ethics of Geography
Quick one. When I was in Fairfax, I was able to contribute to local charities with some matching grants from my employer. Now that I am in Houston, the setup is different. There is no particular advantage to giving to any charity anywhere over any other.
So I find myself trying to decide how to give. I know the charities in the Washington, D.C. area, and I started out assuming that I should now support local Houston charities.
This is actually the tip of a much bigger ethical iceberg I don't want to get into right now, but the tip is: how do you decide whether it is better to support a charity in Houston, or Washington, or Louisiana, or Allentown PA, or the Sudan, or anywhere else? I'm not even sure what different arguments ethicists would propose either way.
Thoughts?
So I find myself trying to decide how to give. I know the charities in the Washington, D.C. area, and I started out assuming that I should now support local Houston charities.
This is actually the tip of a much bigger ethical iceberg I don't want to get into right now, but the tip is: how do you decide whether it is better to support a charity in Houston, or Washington, or Louisiana, or Allentown PA, or the Sudan, or anywhere else? I'm not even sure what different arguments ethicists would propose either way.
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
