I go through periods of no books for months, then I actually read for a while. Reading phase currently. Last few months:
1 Castle of Crossed Destinies, Italo Calvino
2 Fooled by Randomness, Nassim Taleb
3 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Jo Rowling
4 The Social Climber's Guide to High School, Robyn Schneider
5 Still Life with Woodpecker, Tom Robbins
6 Another Roadside Attraction, Tom Robbins (there ya go bro!)
7 Going Postal, Terry Pratchett
1 - eh. indulgent etude.
2 - annoying but turns very good in the last 3rd
3 - see elsewhere
4 - cotton candy
5 - light, funky
6 - meatier version of 5, adjusts life attitude (a la Zen...)
7 - Very funny, love Pratchett's humor, good you don't have to have read his others
Sunday, July 29, 2007
A Lesson in Procrastination
I can't decide whether it is better to do the review of the movie I just watched or the phone I got a few weeks ago.
Procrastination Method #1. Make a post referencing each. C'est cool, non?
Then... go get a drink!
Nice.
Okay, movie wins.
Heights. Has Glenn Close and one of the blonde actresses who look like Tea Leoni. Everyone (guys included) is attractive and messed up. What a good textured movie. Not a laugh riot, this, but what did you expect from my NetFlix queue? There is this certain kind of movie I love, in pacing and setting and character and plot. Ruby in Paradise is the closest I've seen, or maybe Go Fish. Heights is close to that kind of movie, but set in Manhattan. Which has the added benefit of giving me a sense of the emotional texture I might have related to had I been a big city kid. In any event it makes me want to move to Manhattan.
Now the iPhone. It's hard to "review" it because everyone else has already, and they all say pretty much the same thing, and they are all correct. So what else is left to say?
How about what surprised me.
It's heavy, in a car made of iron not plastic sort of way. Good heavy. The battery life is excellent, much better than my 30GB video iPod. The screen has adjustable brightness and fully bright it is beautiful. Has external speakers, which are surprisingly quite loud but blatty (no bass).
There are 16 "applications" on the home screen. You can't add more.
SMS - very pretty, but I keep getting MySpace SMS messages that I can't stop. Grrr! Mostly an annoyance because of that. 200 free SMS (not international), 20 cents each after that, and unlimited is available (like more than $10, less than $27; don't recall). There is no IM (AOL, MSN etc).
Calendar - Also very pretty. No week view, only day/month. That's annoying. Easy to add stuff. Good overall.
Photos and Camera - these two are linked. Uses the 4-8GB onboard, can't use removable cards. Can email pix. 2 megapixel, good colors. No flash, no video. Viewing and scrolling is very very nice.
YouTube - Never been a big fan. Quality is good over Wi-fi, not over normal AT&T. Hard to find stuff on search.
Stocks and Weather - Stocks is okay. Weather is particularly attractive; it gets "wow"s. You select your cities and scroll.
(Google) Maps - Unless you bookmark things it is tricky to use. For example, if you are looking at an address and you want to drive there, you have to put in the address again. But if you bookmark everything, it works very well. It has driving directions but no GPS; you select Start then go Next Next Next and it animates the movement. Has satellite view but no hybrid. Multi-touch works here and is very good. Multi-touch is where you pinch and pull the screen with 2 fingers, and double-tap to zoom in/out.
Clock - seems superficial but has more to it than meets the eye: World clock displays multiple cities. Alarm can set multiple alarms with selected tones, but not music from the iPod. Stopwatch is self-explanatory, ticking off to 1/10 of a second. Timer counts down to zero rather than up, and can be set to sleep iPod so you can run music for say 30 minutes at bedtime.
Calculator - seems superficial and so far, is. I guess it's handy if you need a calculator.
Notes - is probably the one application that seems deficient. Typing in landscape would be a serious help (it's easier than typing in portrait). Moreso, the ability to categorize notes would be a huge help. As it is, they all go in one long list. You can email notes. You can't seem to import existing notes from other sources (another drawback for me).
Then there are the main 4 apps: Phone, Mail, Safari (Internet), and iPod.
Phone - has 5 screens. One is your "Favorites", phone numbers you have chosen to be on the quick list. One tap calls. "Recents" lists incoming and outgoing calls, including missed, with time and number. "Contacts" is the big list, including photos, email, phone #s, address, birthday, and whatever else you save. "Keypad" is what it sounds like; touch numbers and tap Call. "Voicemail" is the big surprise feature; you don't have to call voicemail and listen through menus. Instead, voicemails appear here like emails would, with name or number. Tap one and it plays immediately, no "Press 7 to go to next message". Works like they say it does, very nice.
The phone also integrates with the iPod. You can answer or send calls to voicemail using the earphone, which also has a mike for handsfree. If music is playing it will fade and pause, resuming after the call.
Mail will syncronize with most major email providers. Mine is GMail. Only complaints are that when you send an email from the phone it shows up in your inbox on the phone, and the read/unread status is not maintained well during syncs (if you read on phone it is still unread in Gmail). Otherwise it works as advertised. You can set up multiple email accounts. Not sure about Hotmail, need to check.
Safari. This is the killer app on the iPhone. If you want to read all about it, go see the demo on Apple's web site and know that works like that. Surprises? That you don't have to pinch/pull to zoom on most web sites; a double tap will zoom correctly. The fonts resize and sharpen at each resolution, making it very easy on the eyes. You can open multiple windows at once. It remembers cookies, that is, you don't have to keep logging in to pages each time you turn on the phone. Bookmarking is as expected. It displays every page correctly, with exception of not playing Java and Flash (which I don't think any other phone does anyway, certainly not my old Treo). Flash they say is coming. But... but... AT&T is slow. At 4-5 bars it's like dial-up. At 1-2 bars it's like dial-up with that old 9.8K modem. Wireless is a joy, though. You can't seem to check SSL certificates (I haven't found how) but most normal humans don't do that regularly.
iPod. My surprise was that not only did they bundle a good phone and great browser with the iPod, but that they made a much better iPod than before, too. Coverflow is a real pleasure, dragging the albums around. Most missing album is added with two clicks in iTunes. Videos in particular are lovely; you really could watch movies on this. And I hear music battery life is ~23 hours. I did ~11 and had half-battery, so I believe it. (Wireless web browsing with bright screen eats battery though, I doubt you'd get 7-8 hours of that, maybe more like 4-5?).
Most iPod attachments don't work, depending on what they do. There is limited bluetooth (can use mono headset), no infrared. No voice calling. I can charge it from my car stereo iPod adapter, but not play music on car stereo itself. The headphone jack is recessed so many headphones won't work with it. Has external volume up/down (good for out and about) and a silent switch.
The AT&T plan is $60 for 450 airtime minutes, $80 for 900, plus bigger plans. Minutes roll over. All plans have unlimited data in the USA. $4 for overseas calling plan but you need a credit check if new customer. Same $200 early termination.
It's very good. It makes the day more pleasurable. Isn't that what you want from your gadgets?
Procrastination Method #1. Make a post referencing each. C'est cool, non?
Then... go get a drink!
Nice.
Okay, movie wins.
Heights. Has Glenn Close and one of the blonde actresses who look like Tea Leoni. Everyone (guys included) is attractive and messed up. What a good textured movie. Not a laugh riot, this, but what did you expect from my NetFlix queue? There is this certain kind of movie I love, in pacing and setting and character and plot. Ruby in Paradise is the closest I've seen, or maybe Go Fish. Heights is close to that kind of movie, but set in Manhattan. Which has the added benefit of giving me a sense of the emotional texture I might have related to had I been a big city kid. In any event it makes me want to move to Manhattan.
Now the iPhone. It's hard to "review" it because everyone else has already, and they all say pretty much the same thing, and they are all correct. So what else is left to say?
How about what surprised me.
It's heavy, in a car made of iron not plastic sort of way. Good heavy. The battery life is excellent, much better than my 30GB video iPod. The screen has adjustable brightness and fully bright it is beautiful. Has external speakers, which are surprisingly quite loud but blatty (no bass).
There are 16 "applications" on the home screen. You can't add more.
SMS - very pretty, but I keep getting MySpace SMS messages that I can't stop. Grrr! Mostly an annoyance because of that. 200 free SMS (not international), 20 cents each after that, and unlimited is available (like more than $10, less than $27; don't recall). There is no IM (AOL, MSN etc).
Calendar - Also very pretty. No week view, only day/month. That's annoying. Easy to add stuff. Good overall.
Photos and Camera - these two are linked. Uses the 4-8GB onboard, can't use removable cards. Can email pix. 2 megapixel, good colors. No flash, no video. Viewing and scrolling is very very nice.
YouTube - Never been a big fan. Quality is good over Wi-fi, not over normal AT&T. Hard to find stuff on search.
Stocks and Weather - Stocks is okay. Weather is particularly attractive; it gets "wow"s. You select your cities and scroll.
(Google) Maps - Unless you bookmark things it is tricky to use. For example, if you are looking at an address and you want to drive there, you have to put in the address again. But if you bookmark everything, it works very well. It has driving directions but no GPS; you select Start then go Next Next Next and it animates the movement. Has satellite view but no hybrid. Multi-touch works here and is very good. Multi-touch is where you pinch and pull the screen with 2 fingers, and double-tap to zoom in/out.
Clock - seems superficial but has more to it than meets the eye: World clock displays multiple cities. Alarm can set multiple alarms with selected tones, but not music from the iPod. Stopwatch is self-explanatory, ticking off to 1/10 of a second. Timer counts down to zero rather than up, and can be set to sleep iPod so you can run music for say 30 minutes at bedtime.
Calculator - seems superficial and so far, is. I guess it's handy if you need a calculator.
Notes - is probably the one application that seems deficient. Typing in landscape would be a serious help (it's easier than typing in portrait). Moreso, the ability to categorize notes would be a huge help. As it is, they all go in one long list. You can email notes. You can't seem to import existing notes from other sources (another drawback for me).
Then there are the main 4 apps: Phone, Mail, Safari (Internet), and iPod.
Phone - has 5 screens. One is your "Favorites", phone numbers you have chosen to be on the quick list. One tap calls. "Recents" lists incoming and outgoing calls, including missed, with time and number. "Contacts" is the big list, including photos, email, phone #s, address, birthday, and whatever else you save. "Keypad" is what it sounds like; touch numbers and tap Call. "Voicemail" is the big surprise feature; you don't have to call voicemail and listen through menus. Instead, voicemails appear here like emails would, with name or number. Tap one and it plays immediately, no "Press 7 to go to next message". Works like they say it does, very nice.
The phone also integrates with the iPod. You can answer or send calls to voicemail using the earphone, which also has a mike for handsfree. If music is playing it will fade and pause, resuming after the call.
Mail will syncronize with most major email providers. Mine is GMail. Only complaints are that when you send an email from the phone it shows up in your inbox on the phone, and the read/unread status is not maintained well during syncs (if you read on phone it is still unread in Gmail). Otherwise it works as advertised. You can set up multiple email accounts. Not sure about Hotmail, need to check.
Safari. This is the killer app on the iPhone. If you want to read all about it, go see the demo on Apple's web site and know that works like that. Surprises? That you don't have to pinch/pull to zoom on most web sites; a double tap will zoom correctly. The fonts resize and sharpen at each resolution, making it very easy on the eyes. You can open multiple windows at once. It remembers cookies, that is, you don't have to keep logging in to pages each time you turn on the phone. Bookmarking is as expected. It displays every page correctly, with exception of not playing Java and Flash (which I don't think any other phone does anyway, certainly not my old Treo). Flash they say is coming. But... but... AT&T is slow. At 4-5 bars it's like dial-up. At 1-2 bars it's like dial-up with that old 9.8K modem. Wireless is a joy, though. You can't seem to check SSL certificates (I haven't found how) but most normal humans don't do that regularly.
iPod. My surprise was that not only did they bundle a good phone and great browser with the iPod, but that they made a much better iPod than before, too. Coverflow is a real pleasure, dragging the albums around. Most missing album is added with two clicks in iTunes. Videos in particular are lovely; you really could watch movies on this. And I hear music battery life is ~23 hours. I did ~11 and had half-battery, so I believe it. (Wireless web browsing with bright screen eats battery though, I doubt you'd get 7-8 hours of that, maybe more like 4-5?).
Most iPod attachments don't work, depending on what they do. There is limited bluetooth (can use mono headset), no infrared. No voice calling. I can charge it from my car stereo iPod adapter, but not play music on car stereo itself. The headphone jack is recessed so many headphones won't work with it. Has external volume up/down (good for out and about) and a silent switch.
The AT&T plan is $60 for 450 airtime minutes, $80 for 900, plus bigger plans. Minutes roll over. All plans have unlimited data in the USA. $4 for overseas calling plan but you need a credit check if new customer. Same $200 early termination.
It's very good. It makes the day more pleasurable. Isn't that what you want from your gadgets?
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Candy
| The Candy Heart You Should Give Is: |
 To: Annette From: Jeff |
| You Are Expressionism |
 Moody, emotional, and even a bit angsty... you certainly know how to express your emotions. At times, you tend to lack perspective on your life, probably as a result of looking inward too much. This introspection does give you a flair for the dramatic. And it's even maybe made you cultivate some artistic talents! You have a true artist's temperament... which is a blessing and a curse. |
| American Cities That Best Fit You: |
 65% Atlanta 55% Miami 55% Washington, DC 50% Austin 50% Chicago |
| Your Dosha is Kapha |
 Calm and grounded, you are not prone to mood swings or anger. However, once you do get angry, it takes a lot to cool you down. You tend to think a little slower than most people, but your logic is astounding. Overall, you very loyal and trustworthy. You're not scared of being who you really are. With friends: You enjoy their company, but often listen more than talk In love: You crave connection and affection. It's hard for you to be single. To achieve more balance: Exercise vigorously (especially in the sun) and let go of attachments. |
| Your Halloween Costume Should Be |
 |
You Are The Devil |
 You don't represent evil, but you do represent the animalistic side of humans. You demonstrate what happens when we listen to our first instincts. At times you tend to be materialistic and hedonistic, giving in to temptation. Admit it, you're guilty of acting first - and forgetting to think later! Your fortune: Right now, you may be having a difficult time as a result of choices you have made. You need to think about what's important in your life, and discover what chains you down. It is the time to acknowledge your faults and take steps to overcome them. It's also the time to let go of any fears or inhibitions that are holding you back. |
| You Belong in London |
 A little old fashioned, and a little modern. A little traditional, and a little bit punk rock. A unique soul like you needs a city that offers everything. No wonder you and London will get along so well. |
| You Should Get a PhD in Liberal Arts (like political science, literature, or philosophy) |
 You're a great thinker and a true philosopher. You'd make a talented professor or writer. |
| You Are 47% American |
 America: You don't love it or want to leave it. But you wouldn't mind giving it an extreme make over. On the 4th of July, you'll fly a freak flag instead... And give Uncle Sam a sucker punch! |
| You Are Midnight |
 You are more than a little eccentric, and you're apt to keep very unusual habits. Whether you're a nightowl, living in a commune, or taking a vow of silence - you like to experiment with your lifestyle. Expressing your individuality is important to you, and you often lie awake in bed thinking about the world and your place in it. You enjoy staying home, but that doesn't mean you're a hermit. You also appreciate quality time with family and close friends. |
| You Are Pretty Happy |
 You generally have a happy, fulfilling life. But things could be a little better, and deep down, you know it. Maybe you need more supportive friends or a more challenging career. Something is preventing you from being totally happy. You just need to figure out what it is! |
| Your Political Profile: |
 Overall: 35% Conservative, 65% Liberal Social Issues: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal Personal Responsibility: 0% Conservative, 100% Liberal Fiscal Issues: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal Ethics: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal Defense and Crime: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal |
| Your Linguistic Profile: |
 50% General American English 30% Dixie 15% Yankee 0% Midwestern 0% Upper Midwestern |
| You Are 67% Pure |
 You're pretty pure, and you have no plans on changing that. You do have a devilish side though... and it will probably get the better of you. |
Monday, July 16, 2007
Friday, July 06, 2007
Gate check
hours. Headed out to UK, be back on July 16. Photos may have to wait
til I return, but I'll have some then.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Monday, June 25, 2007
Why I enjoy Zogby polls
Not reading them, though I like that, too ... but not as much as those Pew polls... no, I enjoy participating. You can sign up to be one of those people who gets polled (by web, not phone calls). Anyway, I'm currently staring at this one:
In a recent survey Zogby International conducted about what Americans see as important in our next president, there was a 30-point difference between those who said a "good, moral personal life" vs. those who said "someone with good Christian values." Which of the following do you think best describes the difference between someone with a good moral personal life and someone with good Chrisitian values?
People with Christian values are more moral
People with Christian values are not necessarily more moral
Religious affiliation is not a factor in one's values and morals
Not sure
Now tell me that isn't fun.
In a recent survey Zogby International conducted about what Americans see as important in our next president, there was a 30-point difference between those who said a "good, moral personal life" vs. those who said "someone with good Christian values." Which of the following do you think best describes the difference between someone with a good moral personal life and someone with good Chrisitian values?
People with Christian values are more moral
People with Christian values are not necessarily more moral
Religious affiliation is not a factor in one's values and morals
Not sure
Now tell me that isn't fun.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Iraq again?
I remember my editor at Auburn saying "Bosnia again?" when I wrote the second or third Bosnia opinion column in three or four weeks. It wasn't really on the front pages yet; we hadn't sent troops or bombed yet. I certainly hadn't had the experience of trying to make the world better (as opposed to just killing the bad guys/commies etc) and making an utter disaster of it yet.
I thought that we could use our strength to make a better world. I think we did in Bosnia. Somalia should have been a warning.
Anyway, I want to talk about Iraq again. Sorry, Seth, wherever you are.
What I want to say is, we / the left (can I count myself among "we"? I guess that's another topic...) are on the chariot... we are riding high politically on anger at Iraq. But I don't know that we know what we want. Or, I think we have a coalition of people with different values who are having a party of convenience but don't realize how potentially deep their disagreements are.
Or maybe I'm just hoping for company in my internal conflicts.
I've always been embarrassed by how much I supported the aims of the war. I mean, not just that I hoped it worked - given the lives at stake I certainly hope everyone wanted it to work. But for some reason (Bosnia?) I thought it could. I missed the same things that the administration did. Yeah I was skeptical of the rosy scenarios. Of course I have excuses: I'm not an expert, the media was fed a line, etc. But at the end of the day, I thought Iraq would be better off. I thought we would be despised, but I thought Iraq would be better. No death squads. No sanctions starving babies.
I was wrong.
And so I question myself now when I look at my fears for what comes next.
The surge is not working. The country wants its troops home. Liberals/the left want an end to a foreign policy premised on launching preemptive wars, and a debacle in Iraq suits that well. I do not mean to suggest that the left hopes the war goes still worse; I fully believe they think the war is lost, and negative signs are just taken as a hopeful sign that others will see this and stop the madness.
But.
And this is where my conflict is.
What happens next? The hopeful scenario is that, with the Americans going, both sides size each other up properly, make the appropriate political compromises to reflect that power (im)balance (fairness be damned) and the fighting actually goes down. In this view, our presence acts as a fuel to the fire, an itch that is scratched with suicide bombings. Maybe. We certainly embolden the Shiite majority to not make deals, as they know we won't stand by and let their government fall. Maybe they'll cut a deal without us.
But I doubt it. I fear that is the same "hope over experience" thinking that got us and the Iraqis into this. More likely I think, the Shiites know our time is limited; they are using our presence to consolidate as much power as possible so that on our exit they are well positioned to "finish the job" and wage a more full-on civil war with the Sunnis. I believe the police and military are branches of the Shiite militia, and will be used as such the moment we leave. I also think the only leverage we have is offering to leave or stay based on the behavior of the Shiite government, but the Republican good cop ('we will stand down when they stand up') and the Democratic bad cop ('we will stand down, then maybe they will stand up') leave no allowance for different actions on our part. Let me say that more clearly. I think the Iraqis figure we are gonna do what we are gonna do (whether leave or stay), so they are best served by maxing their power while we are there and then starting the real war when we leave.
Here is my moral dilemma. For all the political energy on the left about ending the war, I don't think it ends when we leave. I pray it does, but I doubt it. I think we just change the channel now our kids are home, we say any loss of life is the Iraqis' fault (we gave them a chance), and while we are pressing the Sudanese to stop the genocide there, and threatening to send troops, a genocide may happen in Iraq with no credible threat of outside intervention. I think Iran and Saudi Arabia may play out a war in Iraq, and the loss of life will be terrible.
Let's say I'm right (while hoping otherwise).
#1 Maybe we should get out anyway. If the endgame is a political settlement, and too much has happened to get a settlement until a real fight balances the anger with sorrow, then maybe we have to get out of the way and let the sorrow begin. Maybe. But that is nothing to celebrate or be proud of. It's a cold, cold calculation.
#2 Or maybe, we face a question of whether, having broken Iraq, we have a moral duty to police it, and to spend our blood to try to protect all the innocents there who will otherwise die. That assumes our presence, say with another 50k troops and a commitment of 5-10 years, can allow peace to be reached without genocide. I don't know, but it's possible. If so, how do we weigh the moral obligations of our nation to defend life we've put at risk by our policies, with what we owe to our soldiers?
I guess where I am right now is, I think the public says, in effect, screw Iraq if they can't take care of themselves, and we have a bunch of folks on the left who don't like war, and want to see a black mark against the preemptive war policy, and that creates a marriage of convenience. But when we start pulling out because in Republicans are afraid of voters in 2008, if - if - we see blood really flowing in the streets, I wonder...
I wonder if the military guys who see the situation on the ground, who see that with more troops we can maintain a low-grade civil war, and that the alternative is worse from a humanitarian situation ... I wonder if they have it easy. They just have to do the job we give them. We have to ask whether it is worth sacrificing American lives to save Iraqi ones. I think we will choose not to, and I think that will be a winning political decision. Maybe it's morally necessary - who am I to ask someone to die for another, to die for mistakes those soldiers did not make? But if I see the left celebrating a pullout while a civil war we facilitated spins out of control, I will feel a sickness in my stomach.
Let me be clear: I think we probably have to leave, as I am not sure our sacrifices are lessening the chance of an eventual massacre. And if we are viewed as an occupying force, it makes the world - especially the middle east - a more dangerous place (regardless of our good intentions). But the moral core of what makes me a liberal is ashamed and saddened by this failure of power to make things better. It doesn't believe it is possible the "end" the war any more than it is possible to "win" it. It sees a 2009 with Americans being as obnoxious about the Iraqis as they were about the French, while Iraqi kids are blown up. And it expects to be ashamed at the pride with which the left holds itself for having achieved this tragic and morally dubious "end."
I thought that we could use our strength to make a better world. I think we did in Bosnia. Somalia should have been a warning.
Anyway, I want to talk about Iraq again. Sorry, Seth, wherever you are.
What I want to say is, we / the left (can I count myself among "we"? I guess that's another topic...) are on the chariot... we are riding high politically on anger at Iraq. But I don't know that we know what we want. Or, I think we have a coalition of people with different values who are having a party of convenience but don't realize how potentially deep their disagreements are.
Or maybe I'm just hoping for company in my internal conflicts.
I've always been embarrassed by how much I supported the aims of the war. I mean, not just that I hoped it worked - given the lives at stake I certainly hope everyone wanted it to work. But for some reason (Bosnia?) I thought it could. I missed the same things that the administration did. Yeah I was skeptical of the rosy scenarios. Of course I have excuses: I'm not an expert, the media was fed a line, etc. But at the end of the day, I thought Iraq would be better off. I thought we would be despised, but I thought Iraq would be better. No death squads. No sanctions starving babies.
I was wrong.
And so I question myself now when I look at my fears for what comes next.
The surge is not working. The country wants its troops home. Liberals/the left want an end to a foreign policy premised on launching preemptive wars, and a debacle in Iraq suits that well. I do not mean to suggest that the left hopes the war goes still worse; I fully believe they think the war is lost, and negative signs are just taken as a hopeful sign that others will see this and stop the madness.
But.
And this is where my conflict is.
What happens next? The hopeful scenario is that, with the Americans going, both sides size each other up properly, make the appropriate political compromises to reflect that power (im)balance (fairness be damned) and the fighting actually goes down. In this view, our presence acts as a fuel to the fire, an itch that is scratched with suicide bombings. Maybe. We certainly embolden the Shiite majority to not make deals, as they know we won't stand by and let their government fall. Maybe they'll cut a deal without us.
But I doubt it. I fear that is the same "hope over experience" thinking that got us and the Iraqis into this. More likely I think, the Shiites know our time is limited; they are using our presence to consolidate as much power as possible so that on our exit they are well positioned to "finish the job" and wage a more full-on civil war with the Sunnis. I believe the police and military are branches of the Shiite militia, and will be used as such the moment we leave. I also think the only leverage we have is offering to leave or stay based on the behavior of the Shiite government, but the Republican good cop ('we will stand down when they stand up') and the Democratic bad cop ('we will stand down, then maybe they will stand up') leave no allowance for different actions on our part. Let me say that more clearly. I think the Iraqis figure we are gonna do what we are gonna do (whether leave or stay), so they are best served by maxing their power while we are there and then starting the real war when we leave.
Here is my moral dilemma. For all the political energy on the left about ending the war, I don't think it ends when we leave. I pray it does, but I doubt it. I think we just change the channel now our kids are home, we say any loss of life is the Iraqis' fault (we gave them a chance), and while we are pressing the Sudanese to stop the genocide there, and threatening to send troops, a genocide may happen in Iraq with no credible threat of outside intervention. I think Iran and Saudi Arabia may play out a war in Iraq, and the loss of life will be terrible.
Let's say I'm right (while hoping otherwise).
#1 Maybe we should get out anyway. If the endgame is a political settlement, and too much has happened to get a settlement until a real fight balances the anger with sorrow, then maybe we have to get out of the way and let the sorrow begin. Maybe. But that is nothing to celebrate or be proud of. It's a cold, cold calculation.
#2 Or maybe, we face a question of whether, having broken Iraq, we have a moral duty to police it, and to spend our blood to try to protect all the innocents there who will otherwise die. That assumes our presence, say with another 50k troops and a commitment of 5-10 years, can allow peace to be reached without genocide. I don't know, but it's possible. If so, how do we weigh the moral obligations of our nation to defend life we've put at risk by our policies, with what we owe to our soldiers?
I guess where I am right now is, I think the public says, in effect, screw Iraq if they can't take care of themselves, and we have a bunch of folks on the left who don't like war, and want to see a black mark against the preemptive war policy, and that creates a marriage of convenience. But when we start pulling out because in Republicans are afraid of voters in 2008, if - if - we see blood really flowing in the streets, I wonder...
I wonder if the military guys who see the situation on the ground, who see that with more troops we can maintain a low-grade civil war, and that the alternative is worse from a humanitarian situation ... I wonder if they have it easy. They just have to do the job we give them. We have to ask whether it is worth sacrificing American lives to save Iraqi ones. I think we will choose not to, and I think that will be a winning political decision. Maybe it's morally necessary - who am I to ask someone to die for another, to die for mistakes those soldiers did not make? But if I see the left celebrating a pullout while a civil war we facilitated spins out of control, I will feel a sickness in my stomach.
Let me be clear: I think we probably have to leave, as I am not sure our sacrifices are lessening the chance of an eventual massacre. And if we are viewed as an occupying force, it makes the world - especially the middle east - a more dangerous place (regardless of our good intentions). But the moral core of what makes me a liberal is ashamed and saddened by this failure of power to make things better. It doesn't believe it is possible the "end" the war any more than it is possible to "win" it. It sees a 2009 with Americans being as obnoxious about the Iraqis as they were about the French, while Iraqi kids are blown up. And it expects to be ashamed at the pride with which the left holds itself for having achieved this tragic and morally dubious "end."
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Wiiiiiiiiiiiiii
Okay, confessions first.
I've never owned a Nintendo.
My first computer was a Sears Telegames, which was the Sunshine cookie to Atari's Oreo 2600. Having said that, I loved that system like crazy. I remember the dump-dump-dump of Asteroids. It was like kissing a girl. Of course, maybe a lot of things are like that when you are a kid, and maybe that's why kids smile so much.
I also had a Coleco Adam with a tape drive, which was just as fun. But my friend Mark had a Commodore 64, and that was even cooler. I always seemed to have not quite to coolest thing going, but thankfully didn't care too much. (Thanks Mom & Dad for good values.)
I went several years with nothing until the Sony Playstation came out. I had about 5 games for that, 3 of them football. Jumping Flash was most fun; the Japanese make wonderfully ridiculous games. I got a PS2 about 5 years later because it had a US-Region DVD player and I didn't. Also had about 5 games for that. I got rid of it about six months ago; I just didn't play it, didn't find it that much fun. Took more of my time and life than I wanted to spend on games.
Then last weekend A and I got a Wii.
Oh man.
How do I love Wii? Let me count the ways.
1) Not $600, or even $400. $300 with 2 controllers and 2 sets of games. Not that I couldn't afford more, but you spend that much and you feel bad if you aren't orgasming over the graphics and playing games constantly. And what games do you really want to play?
2) Games I really want to play. I know that it's beautiful how the bullets reflect in the sunlight off the translucent blood in the PS3Box version of Tom Clancy's Oblivion War Hero Resurrection 2K7 XTreme Street Hockey Beatdown. But really now. Games are supposed to be fun, right? Like, something you do and it makes you laugh and relax? The Wii I got came with very simple Baseball, Bowling, Golf, Tennis and Boxing games. The extra controller came with several others, like a little tank hunt, stampeding cows in a cornfield, 9-ball, cartoon fishing. They make me laugh. XBox and PS3 games are basically shooting, racing and sports. Nintendo games are *games* (though they are making a lot of the sports for Wii).
3) Speaking of boxing. A and I were both sore in every muscle in our body after about 3 hours of Wii. We were changing into lighter clothes. My fan came out of the closet yesterday once I started facing boxers who could lean and avoid my punches. Some of this stuff is practically aerobics, yet crazy fun. Exercise from games? Imagine that.
4) The music. Maybe kids would hate it. But dang, it's soothing. I have the Wii Start page right now, and it sounds like an instrumental interlude from something off Sarah McLachlan's Surfacing. Just peaceful.
5) The controller kicks ass. In all kinds of ways. You probably already knew that, but it really does. Your characters end up mirroring your movement, for example. And yes, you really really need that wrist strap.
6) Internet setup. I click on Wireless Search. It finds my router. I put in the access code. It's connected. Never was a setup more easy. And once online...
7) (not "The") Weather channel. Here's where nobody else will agree, but this is my favorite part of Wii. I can see my weather. It's beautifully done. I can click around (this is all done via the remote, no cords) and see 5 day forecasts. Yeah, yeah so what. Well. Then I click on Globe, and I can grab and spin a NASA globe, zoom in/out, click on foreign cities... their weather comes up. I mean, if it is raining in London, I hear rain. And this lovely soothing music. This is the kind of thing they sell in those Sharper Image catalogs for $699. I love it. I love it.
8) News channel. I can read very good news articles, dozens, with the globe spinning to the right location. Better articles that most newspapers except Times/Post. I can click Slideshow and it will slideshow the headline, and I click the remote to view the article. I spent about 90 minutes reading the news on Wii last night. Seriously, after this and the Weather thing, I was reconsidering whether I still wanted cable.
9) Mii. You can make little copies of you and your friends. The detail is great; moles, hair selection, face, skin color, clothing color, glasses, height, probably 200-300 individual bits to choose from. You name them. They are saved. When you play a game, you can choose from your Miis. When I played baseball as Me/ii, A was my catcher. In her brown top and shades.
10) You can download Donkey Kong, Galaga etc (for a fee) direct to your Wii and play them. Those old games that you could just pick up, play, then put down.
I've left out the story of how A and I got the Wii, which is kind of funny. But suffice it to say that if we hadn't thought we had to quickly buy it or it was gone, we might not have. What a mistake. It's not just hype. This is a great, fun system.
I've never owned a Nintendo.
My first computer was a Sears Telegames, which was the Sunshine cookie to Atari's Oreo 2600. Having said that, I loved that system like crazy. I remember the dump-dump-dump of Asteroids. It was like kissing a girl. Of course, maybe a lot of things are like that when you are a kid, and maybe that's why kids smile so much.
I also had a Coleco Adam with a tape drive, which was just as fun. But my friend Mark had a Commodore 64, and that was even cooler. I always seemed to have not quite to coolest thing going, but thankfully didn't care too much. (Thanks Mom & Dad for good values.)
I went several years with nothing until the Sony Playstation came out. I had about 5 games for that, 3 of them football. Jumping Flash was most fun; the Japanese make wonderfully ridiculous games. I got a PS2 about 5 years later because it had a US-Region DVD player and I didn't. Also had about 5 games for that. I got rid of it about six months ago; I just didn't play it, didn't find it that much fun. Took more of my time and life than I wanted to spend on games.
Then last weekend A and I got a Wii.
Oh man.
How do I love Wii? Let me count the ways.
1) Not $600, or even $400. $300 with 2 controllers and 2 sets of games. Not that I couldn't afford more, but you spend that much and you feel bad if you aren't orgasming over the graphics and playing games constantly. And what games do you really want to play?
2) Games I really want to play. I know that it's beautiful how the bullets reflect in the sunlight off the translucent blood in the PS3Box version of Tom Clancy's Oblivion War Hero Resurrection 2K7 XTreme Street Hockey Beatdown. But really now. Games are supposed to be fun, right? Like, something you do and it makes you laugh and relax? The Wii I got came with very simple Baseball, Bowling, Golf, Tennis and Boxing games. The extra controller came with several others, like a little tank hunt, stampeding cows in a cornfield, 9-ball, cartoon fishing. They make me laugh. XBox and PS3 games are basically shooting, racing and sports. Nintendo games are *games* (though they are making a lot of the sports for Wii).
3) Speaking of boxing. A and I were both sore in every muscle in our body after about 3 hours of Wii. We were changing into lighter clothes. My fan came out of the closet yesterday once I started facing boxers who could lean and avoid my punches. Some of this stuff is practically aerobics, yet crazy fun. Exercise from games? Imagine that.
4) The music. Maybe kids would hate it. But dang, it's soothing. I have the Wii Start page right now, and it sounds like an instrumental interlude from something off Sarah McLachlan's Surfacing. Just peaceful.
5) The controller kicks ass. In all kinds of ways. You probably already knew that, but it really does. Your characters end up mirroring your movement, for example. And yes, you really really need that wrist strap.
6) Internet setup. I click on Wireless Search. It finds my router. I put in the access code. It's connected. Never was a setup more easy. And once online...
7) (not "The") Weather channel. Here's where nobody else will agree, but this is my favorite part of Wii. I can see my weather. It's beautifully done. I can click around (this is all done via the remote, no cords) and see 5 day forecasts. Yeah, yeah so what. Well. Then I click on Globe, and I can grab and spin a NASA globe, zoom in/out, click on foreign cities... their weather comes up. I mean, if it is raining in London, I hear rain. And this lovely soothing music. This is the kind of thing they sell in those Sharper Image catalogs for $699. I love it. I love it.
8) News channel. I can read very good news articles, dozens, with the globe spinning to the right location. Better articles that most newspapers except Times/Post. I can click Slideshow and it will slideshow the headline, and I click the remote to view the article. I spent about 90 minutes reading the news on Wii last night. Seriously, after this and the Weather thing, I was reconsidering whether I still wanted cable.
9) Mii. You can make little copies of you and your friends. The detail is great; moles, hair selection, face, skin color, clothing color, glasses, height, probably 200-300 individual bits to choose from. You name them. They are saved. When you play a game, you can choose from your Miis. When I played baseball as Me/ii, A was my catcher. In her brown top and shades.
10) You can download Donkey Kong, Galaga etc (for a fee) direct to your Wii and play them. Those old games that you could just pick up, play, then put down.
I've left out the story of how A and I got the Wii, which is kind of funny. But suffice it to say that if we hadn't thought we had to quickly buy it or it was gone, we might not have. What a mistake. It's not just hype. This is a great, fun system.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
The abortion one
B from Tiny Cat Pants suggested I post this here as well. Here ya go.
============
This topic has come up repeatedly here (as other places) so I imagine some people are impatient having to explain what they feel is a basic right. Imagine having to explain to people over and over again why you should be able to have whatever religious beliefs you wanted, when others constantly said “but if we let you believe that you’ll go to hell!”… what I mean is that the position you are advocating is something that is very well understood by many of those (here at least) who disagree with it. Some are patient about it, others just very frustrated, especially given the current trend in abortion politics.
Having said all that, if you are sincerely interested in understanding the line of thinking (which I believe you are based on what you said), I’ll do my best to paraphrase it.
I guess the logic runs like this:
1) The analysis will make more sense if you start with and hold firm the following concern: throughout history women have been viewed as property; of their fathers, their husbands. Women were traded for family alliances. Women couldn’t vote. Women could be raped with impunity by their husbands. Even today is some cultures, besides the whole genital mutilation thing, if a woman is sexually active, even in some cases where she is raped, she may be killed by her “tribe” for bringing disgrace. Not the man (even the rapist). The woman. Who belongs, especially her body/sexuality, to the community.
You may be saying “yes yes I know, but what in the world does this have to do with the life of the baby?” But if you neglect this past you’ll never grasp the context in which abortion rights are seen. Simply put, it’s this: When it comes to women, especially women’s sexual and reproductive rights, men have throughout history and across cultures presumed that they needed to control it, in part because they were wiser protectors better qualified than the women themselves to make decisions. And thus, a woman’s body never belongs to herself as fully as a man’s belongs to himself. And not feeling secure in your own body makes you respond to even well-intentioned concern with a “make all the suggestions you want but keep your hands off my body.”
Okay, now to your points, because they are valid, they just need context to address:
2) Life. Yes, a fetus/undelivered baby is alive. But lots of things are - butterflies, sunflowers. I expect you’d ask, “well sure but they aren’t alive AND human” … that’s more to the point. The question is a fetus/undelivered baby alive AND human. This is what some of the responses above were addressing. There are two answers, each of which are consistent with a pro-choice position, but get there different ways.
A) The fetus/unborn is alive, and human, but not fully so. Either it’s not fully alive (not viable, etc) or not fully human (a small clump of cells, not implanted, shrimplike, etc). The line of this thinking is that, to the extent that the fetus/unborn is less than a full born human baby, any conflict of rights between it and the woman carrying it will benefit the woman. I imagine you can fill in the blanks in this line of argument. I’d only point out the strength and the weakness of this position. The strength is that if at the moment of conception a fetus/unborn is fully alive and human (with all rights etc) then it raises tricky issues - for example, fertilized eggs for IVF that are not implanted can be viewed as murder (full human life stopped), etc. So the strength is that, for most people, there is some qualitative difference between an eggs 2 seconds after fertilization and a toddler. The weakness though is that a fetus/unborn baby 2 seconds before birth seems for all intents and purposes to be just as alive and human as it is 4 seconds later. So there seems very little qualitative difference between fetus/unborn and toddler as pregnancy approaches 9 months.
I think for most people, strengths of the “it’s a mass of cells” and the “it’s a baby” arguments lead to the compromise we have in law: that at first it’s almost all the woman, and by the end it’s almost 50/50 woman and baby, and so as the pregnancy progresses, the fetus/unborn gets more rights relative to the woman.
B) The second argument (which I find persuasive) avoids the whole cells/full human argument, and brings in the history of women as property. It goes like this: Even if for argument you assume a fetus is 100% alive full human with all rights from the moment of conception, the question remains whether that human has the *legal* right to take from a woman’s body. As in, if the child had already been born, and needed a bone marrow transplant to survive, could the government compel the mother (or father) to undergo a bone marrow donation to save the child’s life? I may not be able to express the point I want here, but it is something like this: we say “it’s a child’s life”, and even if in many circumstances that is debatable (as described above), there is a huge step from saying that a woman saves a child’s life by carrying a pregnancy to delivery, and saying that the government can compel a woman against her will to give her body to save someone else, at risk to her own health (which pregnancy always is).
Here’s where the history recap at the top comes in: a woman is perfectly capable of making a moral decision about life and death, and women tend to be just about as anti-abortion as men are. They are stereotyped as having a greater emotional connection to the baby; they carry it inside them. She would seem to be well positioned to understand what is at stake. But if a woman decides she wants her body to be free of the demands of another life (whether fully human, fully alive, or not), do men allow her to have that freedom that men always have, or do they say that the woman’s body belongs to the fetus/unborn, or to the husband, or society, etc? Or does the woman’s body belong to herself, and thus the moral question about whether to risk her health to keep the fetus/unborn alive rests with her?
I think there is a sense that as some feel that the government needs to step in to make the decision (as the last Supreme Court ruling effectively said ‘to save women from making mistakes they might later regret’), that again men are assuming that women are not capable of being responsible with their bodies, and thus someone else needs to step in and take ownership of their bodies and choices. This may also explain the “hey you’re a man, butt out” responses you will often get; it can be interpreted rather like a man who looks over the shoulder of a woman doing household repairs - implying she isn’t capable of taking care of these things without your help.
And this discussion about miscarriages is a case of that; women just trying to live their lives, but finding that men/society are saying that women owe them an accounting of how their bodies are working: the women do not own their bodies, but are allowed to have them by society, on the condition they report back on their use.
Some of that is of course hyperbole, but if you are really interested in understanding where people are coming from, I think that is where people are coming from. Of course most parents would give bone marrow to save their children, and most expectant mothers and fathers think of their unborn babies as babies, and would not want to lose that life. It’s more often the men who run off and leave single mothers. Given how disproportionately the burden of children falls on women, I understand why many feel that they don’t owe anyone else an explanation or obedience for how they use their bodies, and why if they feel they cannot or do not want to carry a pregnancy to delivery, other people should trust them with that difficult decision.
This is where bridgett’s point comes in, and I think it is a key one: that people (and men especially) who feel that they wish women would make different decisions, could best put that energy to use making the burdens of children less. For example, making it easier for women to have children and keep their jobs, better health care (especially prenatal care), etc etc. Point being, that if it is about valuing life and not bossing women around, then trust women, ask them what they need to carry life, and try to give it to them.
That’s what I believe, and I think many (not all) people here believe. Wanted to give you a real chance to understand. And thanks for asking and reading.
============
This topic has come up repeatedly here (as other places) so I imagine some people are impatient having to explain what they feel is a basic right. Imagine having to explain to people over and over again why you should be able to have whatever religious beliefs you wanted, when others constantly said “but if we let you believe that you’ll go to hell!”… what I mean is that the position you are advocating is something that is very well understood by many of those (here at least) who disagree with it. Some are patient about it, others just very frustrated, especially given the current trend in abortion politics.
Having said all that, if you are sincerely interested in understanding the line of thinking (which I believe you are based on what you said), I’ll do my best to paraphrase it.
I guess the logic runs like this:
1) The analysis will make more sense if you start with and hold firm the following concern: throughout history women have been viewed as property; of their fathers, their husbands. Women were traded for family alliances. Women couldn’t vote. Women could be raped with impunity by their husbands. Even today is some cultures, besides the whole genital mutilation thing, if a woman is sexually active, even in some cases where she is raped, she may be killed by her “tribe” for bringing disgrace. Not the man (even the rapist). The woman. Who belongs, especially her body/sexuality, to the community.
You may be saying “yes yes I know, but what in the world does this have to do with the life of the baby?” But if you neglect this past you’ll never grasp the context in which abortion rights are seen. Simply put, it’s this: When it comes to women, especially women’s sexual and reproductive rights, men have throughout history and across cultures presumed that they needed to control it, in part because they were wiser protectors better qualified than the women themselves to make decisions. And thus, a woman’s body never belongs to herself as fully as a man’s belongs to himself. And not feeling secure in your own body makes you respond to even well-intentioned concern with a “make all the suggestions you want but keep your hands off my body.”
Okay, now to your points, because they are valid, they just need context to address:
2) Life. Yes, a fetus/undelivered baby is alive. But lots of things are - butterflies, sunflowers. I expect you’d ask, “well sure but they aren’t alive AND human” … that’s more to the point. The question is a fetus/undelivered baby alive AND human. This is what some of the responses above were addressing. There are two answers, each of which are consistent with a pro-choice position, but get there different ways.
A) The fetus/unborn is alive, and human, but not fully so. Either it’s not fully alive (not viable, etc) or not fully human (a small clump of cells, not implanted, shrimplike, etc). The line of this thinking is that, to the extent that the fetus/unborn is less than a full born human baby, any conflict of rights between it and the woman carrying it will benefit the woman. I imagine you can fill in the blanks in this line of argument. I’d only point out the strength and the weakness of this position. The strength is that if at the moment of conception a fetus/unborn is fully alive and human (with all rights etc) then it raises tricky issues - for example, fertilized eggs for IVF that are not implanted can be viewed as murder (full human life stopped), etc. So the strength is that, for most people, there is some qualitative difference between an eggs 2 seconds after fertilization and a toddler. The weakness though is that a fetus/unborn baby 2 seconds before birth seems for all intents and purposes to be just as alive and human as it is 4 seconds later. So there seems very little qualitative difference between fetus/unborn and toddler as pregnancy approaches 9 months.
I think for most people, strengths of the “it’s a mass of cells” and the “it’s a baby” arguments lead to the compromise we have in law: that at first it’s almost all the woman, and by the end it’s almost 50/50 woman and baby, and so as the pregnancy progresses, the fetus/unborn gets more rights relative to the woman.
B) The second argument (which I find persuasive) avoids the whole cells/full human argument, and brings in the history of women as property. It goes like this: Even if for argument you assume a fetus is 100% alive full human with all rights from the moment of conception, the question remains whether that human has the *legal* right to take from a woman’s body. As in, if the child had already been born, and needed a bone marrow transplant to survive, could the government compel the mother (or father) to undergo a bone marrow donation to save the child’s life? I may not be able to express the point I want here, but it is something like this: we say “it’s a child’s life”, and even if in many circumstances that is debatable (as described above), there is a huge step from saying that a woman saves a child’s life by carrying a pregnancy to delivery, and saying that the government can compel a woman against her will to give her body to save someone else, at risk to her own health (which pregnancy always is).
Here’s where the history recap at the top comes in: a woman is perfectly capable of making a moral decision about life and death, and women tend to be just about as anti-abortion as men are. They are stereotyped as having a greater emotional connection to the baby; they carry it inside them. She would seem to be well positioned to understand what is at stake. But if a woman decides she wants her body to be free of the demands of another life (whether fully human, fully alive, or not), do men allow her to have that freedom that men always have, or do they say that the woman’s body belongs to the fetus/unborn, or to the husband, or society, etc? Or does the woman’s body belong to herself, and thus the moral question about whether to risk her health to keep the fetus/unborn alive rests with her?
I think there is a sense that as some feel that the government needs to step in to make the decision (as the last Supreme Court ruling effectively said ‘to save women from making mistakes they might later regret’), that again men are assuming that women are not capable of being responsible with their bodies, and thus someone else needs to step in and take ownership of their bodies and choices. This may also explain the “hey you’re a man, butt out” responses you will often get; it can be interpreted rather like a man who looks over the shoulder of a woman doing household repairs - implying she isn’t capable of taking care of these things without your help.
And this discussion about miscarriages is a case of that; women just trying to live their lives, but finding that men/society are saying that women owe them an accounting of how their bodies are working: the women do not own their bodies, but are allowed to have them by society, on the condition they report back on their use.
Some of that is of course hyperbole, but if you are really interested in understanding where people are coming from, I think that is where people are coming from. Of course most parents would give bone marrow to save their children, and most expectant mothers and fathers think of their unborn babies as babies, and would not want to lose that life. It’s more often the men who run off and leave single mothers. Given how disproportionately the burden of children falls on women, I understand why many feel that they don’t owe anyone else an explanation or obedience for how they use their bodies, and why if they feel they cannot or do not want to carry a pregnancy to delivery, other people should trust them with that difficult decision.
This is where bridgett’s point comes in, and I think it is a key one: that people (and men especially) who feel that they wish women would make different decisions, could best put that energy to use making the burdens of children less. For example, making it easier for women to have children and keep their jobs, better health care (especially prenatal care), etc etc. Point being, that if it is about valuing life and not bossing women around, then trust women, ask them what they need to carry life, and try to give it to them.
That’s what I believe, and I think many (not all) people here believe. Wanted to give you a real chance to understand. And thanks for asking and reading.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Friday, June 01, 2007
Ian McEwan
on Charlie Rose.... I love Charlie Rose, and Ian McEwan is on discussing art, writing, and Iraq.
I want to live in a world full of people like them. Not because he is full of fire, but because of the wonderful heart and equanimity.
This is a bigger, later post.
But it's stuff like this that gives me more hope than almost anything.
I want to live in a world full of people like them. Not because he is full of fire, but because of the wonderful heart and equanimity.
This is a bigger, later post.
But it's stuff like this that gives me more hope than almost anything.
Monday, May 28, 2007
American Doll Posse
"American Doll Posse... is it good?"
Been wanting to answer this every time I'm in the car, then the engine stops, the music stops, and it's back to everyday life.
Here's my take.
=============================
Tori's last two, Beekeeper and Scarlet's Walk, were rather mellow.
The Beekeeper in particular, let's admit it, had many of us worried that Tori was going the way of Sarah McLachlan. Very adult contemporary. Not that it was all bad - most of my favorites (Orange Knickers, Jamaica Inn, Ribbons Undone, Cars and Guitars, Ireland, Martha's, Pisces) on it were of that ilk . It's just that the stuff that tried to be 'funky' or whatever had the same mellow grove, which made it all very awkward.
Hadn't been a huge fan of Scarlet's Walk either. There were some lovely moments on it (Sorta Fairytale and Taxi Ride were tight, Wednesday fun, ... okay now that I look at it a lot of it was excellent ... Gold Dust and Your Cloud just beautiful). But again, mostly in a smooth sonic groove. No Crucify, no Cornflake/God, no Lite Sneeze, no Spark, no Bonnie and Clyde, no Bliss (though to be honest I felt this trend started on Venus and Back).
So where does American Doll Posse stand? It has some rock back, and feels mostly like Scarlet's Walk + Strange Little Girls with a bit of Choirgirl in there.
Here's the track breakdown. The "Musically" is just sonic style, what album/songs it recalls to me. Nothing to do with lyrics or quality (except "Like?").
So overall? I'd go UtP > LE > Choirgirl > Pele > ADPosse > Venus > Scarlet > Strange > Beekeeper. But ADPosse, Pele and Choirgirl are all close, and ADPosse may improve on more listening. I've read some say if Tori trimmed this to 12 tracks it would be among her very best; I'd say that's true... its upside is kinda Choirgirl plus all B-sides.
Note iTunes has booklet and 2 videos in price, 1st blah, 2nd good.
Definitely worth getting, and I'll probably go see her perform this.
Been wanting to answer this every time I'm in the car, then the engine stops, the music stops, and it's back to everyday life.
Here's my take.
=============================
Tori's last two, Beekeeper and Scarlet's Walk, were rather mellow.
The Beekeeper in particular, let's admit it, had many of us worried that Tori was going the way of Sarah McLachlan. Very adult contemporary. Not that it was all bad - most of my favorites (Orange Knickers, Jamaica Inn, Ribbons Undone, Cars and Guitars, Ireland, Martha's, Pisces) on it were of that ilk . It's just that the stuff that tried to be 'funky' or whatever had the same mellow grove, which made it all very awkward.
Hadn't been a huge fan of Scarlet's Walk either. There were some lovely moments on it (Sorta Fairytale and Taxi Ride were tight, Wednesday fun, ... okay now that I look at it a lot of it was excellent ... Gold Dust and Your Cloud just beautiful). But again, mostly in a smooth sonic groove. No Crucify, no Cornflake/God, no Lite Sneeze, no Spark, no Bonnie and Clyde, no Bliss (though to be honest I felt this trend started on Venus and Back).
So where does American Doll Posse stand? It has some rock back, and feels mostly like Scarlet's Walk + Strange Little Girls with a bit of Choirgirl in there.
Here's the track breakdown. The "Musically" is just sonic style, what album/songs it recalls to me. Nothing to do with lyrics or quality (except "Like?").
American Doll Posse.........Musically.....................Like?
-------------------.........---------.....................------------
01. Yo George...............(throwaway)...................Nope
02. Big Wheel...............Rockabilly Talula.............Yes
03. Bouncing Off Clouds.....Glory of the 80s..............Yep
04. Teenage Hustling........Strange Little Girl...........Oh yeah
05. Digital Ghost...........Northern Lad..................Nice
06. You Can Bring Your Dog..Funky Rattlesnakes............So-so
07. Mr. Bad Man.............Ireland.......................Cutesy/fun
08. Fat Slut................40 secs of Heart of Gold......Ugh
09. Girl Disappearing.......Strange.......................Yes, if monotone
10. Secret Spell............? Taxi Ride via Beekeeper.....OK
11. Devils and Gods.........Agent Orange w/ Irish guitar..Nice, short
12. Body and Soul...........Spark via Strange Lil Girls...Yeah
13. Father's Son............Marianne......................Yes, again monotone
14. Programmable Soda.......Mr Zebra......................Much fun
15. Code Red................Sugar/Honey with groove.......Very much so
16. Roosterspur Bridge......Virginia......................Yeah, not listened to much
17. Beauty of Speed.........Amber Waves...................OK, rhythmic variety
18. Almost Rosey............Jackie's Strength.............Yes, melodic
19. Velvet Revolution.......Purple People.................Love it, too short
20. Dark Side of the Sun....Choirgirl-ish Not Red Baron...Yes
21. Posse Bonus.............Groovy Take to the Sky........Yeah, head-bouncy
22. Smokey Joe..............Beauty Queen/Gold Dust........Great
23. Dragon..................Pretty Good Year..............Very good
So overall? I'd go UtP > LE > Choirgirl > Pele > ADPosse > Venus > Scarlet > Strange > Beekeeper. But ADPosse, Pele and Choirgirl are all close, and ADPosse may improve on more listening. I've read some say if Tori trimmed this to 12 tracks it would be among her very best; I'd say that's true... its upside is kinda Choirgirl plus all B-sides.
Note iTunes has booklet and 2 videos in price, 1st blah, 2nd good.
Definitely worth getting, and I'll probably go see her perform this.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Nothing much to say, but I suppose that is something to say.
Last several weeks tough, ever since A. went back to her degree. Have chunks of things to write in my mind, but as a rule I only do stream of consciousness on comments, not posts.
So posts require stepping outside and getting perspective, and saying something from that perspective.
And like the White House not wanting status reports on Iraq, I'm not itching to do my own status reports.
When I was in school once I hid my report card so I'd have a chance to get some good grades in the bad class before my Mom and Dad asked about it.
I'm torn over whether it is a "good" or "bad" thing to be so tapped into the world/politics thing to let it get to you emotionally. Ideally, I want to be tapped in, do something, and still stay "clean". Right now, I'm tapped in, very burdened with it, but doing something. The alternative is backing out, doing nothing, to recover and get some clarity.
Sometimes when I'm not fed and watered I get short-tempered... okay, always when I'm not fed and watered I get short-tempered and want to fix everything in the world, because every problem is intolerable.
I'm there now, pretty much. The way you feel with low blood sugar, no meal in 2 days except cotton candy. Except I am fed and watered. I've learned good coping methods living w/ A, so I know to relax, separate my emotional reaction from my analytical one, make time to relax etc.
So it's all difficult right now, and I'm not sure why. I have sensible theories, but none really testable. And the bottom line of all of them seems to be, get used to it and hope it goes away.
I get to spend time with T, KP and A in the next 2 months. Next year A and I expect to be together again. Plus there will be a new election. Reason for some hope all around.
But now. Now is hard. Let's hope it is a growth hard, and not a damage hard.
Last several weeks tough, ever since A. went back to her degree. Have chunks of things to write in my mind, but as a rule I only do stream of consciousness on comments, not posts.
So posts require stepping outside and getting perspective, and saying something from that perspective.
And like the White House not wanting status reports on Iraq, I'm not itching to do my own status reports.
When I was in school once I hid my report card so I'd have a chance to get some good grades in the bad class before my Mom and Dad asked about it.
I'm torn over whether it is a "good" or "bad" thing to be so tapped into the world/politics thing to let it get to you emotionally. Ideally, I want to be tapped in, do something, and still stay "clean". Right now, I'm tapped in, very burdened with it, but doing something. The alternative is backing out, doing nothing, to recover and get some clarity.
Sometimes when I'm not fed and watered I get short-tempered... okay, always when I'm not fed and watered I get short-tempered and want to fix everything in the world, because every problem is intolerable.
I'm there now, pretty much. The way you feel with low blood sugar, no meal in 2 days except cotton candy. Except I am fed and watered. I've learned good coping methods living w/ A, so I know to relax, separate my emotional reaction from my analytical one, make time to relax etc.
So it's all difficult right now, and I'm not sure why. I have sensible theories, but none really testable. And the bottom line of all of them seems to be, get used to it and hope it goes away.
I get to spend time with T, KP and A in the next 2 months. Next year A and I expect to be together again. Plus there will be a new election. Reason for some hope all around.
But now. Now is hard. Let's hope it is a growth hard, and not a damage hard.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Two more
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
