I know people who ascribe to the teachings of the late (and unlamented, by me anyway) Aleister Crowley. Crowley, a British scholar of the occult and other things "magickal," created a belief system he called Thelema. He summarized his teachings thusly: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."
I always have been uncomfortable with that as a guiding principle for life. Until I started reading a series of articles in this week's Omaha World-Herald on a superficially unrelated topic, however, I could not clearly say why. Now I can, so I will.
The articles, which are to conclude this-coming weekend, tell in chronological order the story of one Jim O'Gara, erstwhile attorney and consummate fraud artist, who wreaked pure havoc all over the Midwest and left a tangled mess of debt, divorce, and fraud victims in his wake. He got disbarred for (among other things) lying in affidavits to the court. He obtained a grand total of well over $ 1 million from banks and private investors by fraud, including forging his then-wife's signature on loan guarantee paperwork. (Her father, the original developer of Westroads shopping mall, was quite rich . . . and so was she, until she married O'Gara. She wound up bankrupt and got a divorce after O'Gara defaulted on the loan for which he had forged her signature--a loan she knew nothing about until she was served with the court papers notifying her of the judgment against her.) He bought a thriving, well-established furniture-crafting business and ran it into the ground in only 3 years. He hid its tangible assets from creditors and lied about that under oath. He generally conned his way through the court system, getting naught but slaps on the wrist from courts in several jurisdictions because O'Gara managed to con friends and family members over and over to speak out on his behalf.
While I do not yet know the ultimate outcome of O'Gara's story, I think he will finally pay for his crimes. The World-Herald articles have included enough foreshadowing to suggest it, at least. That's what separates reality from Aleister Crowley's teachings.
In the real world, humans are social beings. We live in societies. We create societal institutions to protect us from the things from which we cannot protect ourselves. In the real world, you can do any damn thing you like, so long as you are willing to accept the consequences. But in Crowley's world, you can do any damn thing you like, period. There are no consequences. You are to serve yourself and your own self-perceived needs, wants, and desires.
It's upside down. It raises the individual above the whole. It's a recipe for anarchy and chaos. Now don't get me wrong. I do not believe everyone must live in perfect lockstep, conforming "or else." The title of this blog establishes that. And I am a great believer in protecting the rights of the minority against the tyrannies of the majority. Just because most people believe something doesn't make it true, right, or correct. After all, when asked, a great majority of Americans consistently state that "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" is enshrined in our US Constitution . . . instead of correctly identifying it as being the cornerstone of classical Marxism.
But as I said, we are social beings. And the problem with Crowley's belief system, oddly enough, is the very same as the problem with Marxism (as Karl designed it, not as it has been misused by the totalitarian governments claiming to implement it), to wit: who decides? In the real world, we social beings work though our social institutions and come to consensus. Often, this is not without acrimonious contention (even to the point of shooting wars), but we do work it out. In Crowley's world, as with classical Marxism, the individual's judgment of his own circumstances is raised above everything else. So what do we do when one individual takes advantage of that to his gain and others' detriment? The real world has answers (e.g., "don't do the crime if you can't do the time"). In Crowley's world, nothing happens. The individual is all. If anyone gets run over in the process, too bad for him.
Who knows? I may be wrong about this. Crowley may very well have instituted larger controls on the individual's behavior. Frankly, however, I found what I read of Crowley's writings so disturbing that I could not delve deeply enough into them to discover any such larger controls. If I am wrong, and am shown to be wrong, I will stand corrected. But I don't think I am wrong. Larger controls would be antithetical to Crowley's statement of The Law. In any event, I am totally certain I do not want to live in a world that lets predators and psychopaths like Jim O'Gara justify their behavior in victimizing the rest of us with no adverse consequences to themselves.
[Which leads me to an observation about those who claim passing a law to stop something will do not good, "because criminals will continue to break the law." Laws do not deter. Many laws are broken by people who have no idea those laws even exist. In the real world, we pass laws so that we have a societal mechanism for dealing with people who break those laws. We cannot prevent bad things from happening to people. We can make amends or provide some compensation to those who have suffered as a result.--Ed]
[Which leads me to a related observation as to why I am an iconoclast in the first place. I reject "isms," and political correctness to boot, for the reason that the people pushing those agendas impose their notions of what is good and right and proper on the rest of us without any regard for the sensibilities of the people being imposed upon--or for those of the people being affected by said imposition.--Ed.]
The real world is most certainly not perfect. The line between the rights of the individual and the rights of the larger social whole is amorphous at best. Nor is it always drawn in the correct place. But the real world is much preferable to a system that would loose people like Jim O'Gara on the rest of us without giving us any recourse against the predators amongst us.
* * * * * * * * * *
Postscript: How to Identify a Psychopath
[from the Psychotherapy Checklist for Clinicians, created by psychology professor Robert D. Hare]
Is someone you know: glib and superficial? Egocentric and grandiose? Deceitful and manipulative? Impulsive? Lacking in remorse, guilt, and empathy? Lacking behavior self-controls? Lacking a sense of self-responsibility? Addicted to excitement? Demonstrating early behavior problems and adult anti-social behavior?
That someone may be a psychopath. Exhibiting some of these traits is not by itself conclusive. But it does raise red flags all over the place, and you should be very careful in any dealings you must have with such a person.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Monday, September 25, 2006
Misuse Of Logic III
[Now that I have a trilogy, I ought to get a movie deal.--Ed.]
I heard just a few moments ago that Dubya is challenging the collective conclusion of the heads of the 16 involved intelligence agencies that the US invasion of Iraq has made us less safe, not more safe. What he said, as aired in the snippet of his speech shown on the NBC Nightly News, was "I've heard this theory that everything was fine until we went into Iraq."
Whoa, Nelly!
That is NOT what the intelligence report concluded. No one ever said everything was fine until we went into Iraq. Good Lord! One does not have to be a biblical scholar to know that various factions in the Middle East [I nearly just typed "Muddle East," which actually is a more accurate description . . . --Ed.] have been fighting each other for over 5,000 years now.
What the report concluded was that matters now are worse than before our invasion--and that our invasion played a direct role in making those matters worse.
Which leaves me with this question: is Dubya evil (i.e., Machievellian in his misuse of logic), or is he just plain STUPID?
I don't find any comfort in either choice, frankly.
If there's another, more comforting option, please tell me. I am not sure we collectively are going to survive until we can throw the bums out in 2008.
I heard just a few moments ago that Dubya is challenging the collective conclusion of the heads of the 16 involved intelligence agencies that the US invasion of Iraq has made us less safe, not more safe. What he said, as aired in the snippet of his speech shown on the NBC Nightly News, was "I've heard this theory that everything was fine until we went into Iraq."
Whoa, Nelly!
That is NOT what the intelligence report concluded. No one ever said everything was fine until we went into Iraq. Good Lord! One does not have to be a biblical scholar to know that various factions in the Middle East [I nearly just typed "Muddle East," which actually is a more accurate description . . . --Ed.] have been fighting each other for over 5,000 years now.
What the report concluded was that matters now are worse than before our invasion--and that our invasion played a direct role in making those matters worse.
Which leaves me with this question: is Dubya evil (i.e., Machievellian in his misuse of logic), or is he just plain STUPID?
I don't find any comfort in either choice, frankly.
If there's another, more comforting option, please tell me. I am not sure we collectively are going to survive until we can throw the bums out in 2008.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Another Misuse Of Logic
A recent contributor to the Letters to the Editor page of the Omaha World-Herald contends that our use of torture in fighting the war on terror is not wrong, because even if we stopped, "the terrorists would not be appeased."
Perhaps. But that misses the larger point. We as a country, even though we have the biggest arsenal and are uniformly considered the remaining superpower in the world, cannot afford to "got it alone."
Everybody needs friends and allies. If our government's official policy continues to be we can do whatever we like because our cause is good, we make the following potentially fatal errors: (1) we lose the moral high ground. If we don't stand for something better, and act consistently with what we say we believe, we ARE no better--and thus offer the world nothing unique that merits our continued survival. (2) We alienate the people who otherwise would gravitate toward us and help us. After Hugo Chavez called Dubya "a Devil" in his speech at the UN, no one in the UN challenged him or otherwise stood up to defend us. Domestic politicians who normally have no use for Dubya had to carry the torch for the USA--and even though Charles Rangel (HR, D-NY) spoke out strongly against Chavez's remarks, what Rangel said really came down to "you have no right to criticize him--that's our job." [A real domestic politics triumph for Rangel. He is being patriotic, because "discord stops at the border." We present a united face to the world. But he still didn't minimize his political differences with Dubya, either. Brilliant!--Ed.]
I just hope that the gang of Dubya doesn't go so far in damaging the USA's moral leadership standing with the rest of the world that no one can bring us back. Note that I am not holding my breath.
Perhaps. But that misses the larger point. We as a country, even though we have the biggest arsenal and are uniformly considered the remaining superpower in the world, cannot afford to "got it alone."
Everybody needs friends and allies. If our government's official policy continues to be we can do whatever we like because our cause is good, we make the following potentially fatal errors: (1) we lose the moral high ground. If we don't stand for something better, and act consistently with what we say we believe, we ARE no better--and thus offer the world nothing unique that merits our continued survival. (2) We alienate the people who otherwise would gravitate toward us and help us. After Hugo Chavez called Dubya "a Devil" in his speech at the UN, no one in the UN challenged him or otherwise stood up to defend us. Domestic politicians who normally have no use for Dubya had to carry the torch for the USA--and even though Charles Rangel (HR, D-NY) spoke out strongly against Chavez's remarks, what Rangel said really came down to "you have no right to criticize him--that's our job." [A real domestic politics triumph for Rangel. He is being patriotic, because "discord stops at the border." We present a united face to the world. But he still didn't minimize his political differences with Dubya, either. Brilliant!--Ed.]
I just hope that the gang of Dubya doesn't go so far in damaging the USA's moral leadership standing with the rest of the world that no one can bring us back. Note that I am not holding my breath.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
On The Uses and Misuses of Logic
Or, Mr. Spock, Where The Heck Are You When We Need You?
Since yesterday, I have stumbled across two egregious misuses of logic I'd like to bring to your attention . . . in the hopes that we can all learn from, and avoid making, such faux pas in the future.
First, US Representative Nancy Johnson, R-Conn., is running an ad claiming her challenger, Democrat Chris Miller, is "wrong on security and wrong for America" because Miller wants to "waste valuable time" waiting for a warrant when terrorists are planning attacks on us over the phones. This actually is not so much a misuse of logic as it is a misrepresentation of fact--nevertheless, it is wrong, and deserves to be revealed as such. FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) allows warrantless wiretaps for up to 72 hours. Anyone who cannot get a warrant in 3 days is either totally incompetent or unjustified. Johnson's claim that Miller is "weak on security" is out-and-out wrong. Indeed, Miller would be justified in running a reply ad that says Johnson is weak on maintaining the proper separation of powers our Constitution requires and thus Johnson has no business being in Congress.
Second, and perhaps a bit more frivolously, the Oregon Ducks upset the University of Oklahoma Sooners in college football last Saturday. The instant replay officials erroneously allowed an incorrect call on the field to stand. Oklahoma had a 5-point lead with about 1 minute to go; Oregon tried for an onside kick and was awarded possession of the ball even though an Oregon player, the first one to have touched the ball, did so in less than the 10-yard distance the rule on onside kicks requires. Under the rule, Oklahoma thus should have been awarded possession . . . and could have run out the clock and won the game. Instead, despite clear video evidence showing Oregon violated the rule, the officials gave Oregon the ball. Oregon thereupon scored a touchdown and won the game by 1 point.
Now several Oregon fans are saying that even though the officials obviously got the call wrong, the Sooners still could have stopped the Ducks from scoring, so the bad call is no big deal and it's not wrong for Oregon to claim victory.
At least this misuse of logic has the color of plausibility. Nonetheless, it is wrong. It fails to account for the normal human reaction of being in a stressful situation and getting disoriented for a critical few moments when confronted with something shocking. You cannot separate the bad call from the OU players' reaction to it and from what thereupon ensued.
Besides, it's really irrelevant. The bad call on the field should have been overturned, period. What happened after it was not overturned would not have happened but for the failure of the officials to correct their on-field mistake in the first place. It's a very good thing the PAC-10 suspended the officiating crew for a game and is looking into its policy of using only PAC-10 officials for PAC-10 home games. [I hope the PAC-10 has the guts to do what obviously needs to be done, which is to change that policy, in the interest of avoiding even the appearance of favoritism/impropriety.--Ed.]
Furthermore, Oregon fans should be ashamed of themselves for trying to justify the unjustifiable. I know I would be.
Since yesterday, I have stumbled across two egregious misuses of logic I'd like to bring to your attention . . . in the hopes that we can all learn from, and avoid making, such faux pas in the future.
First, US Representative Nancy Johnson, R-Conn., is running an ad claiming her challenger, Democrat Chris Miller, is "wrong on security and wrong for America" because Miller wants to "waste valuable time" waiting for a warrant when terrorists are planning attacks on us over the phones. This actually is not so much a misuse of logic as it is a misrepresentation of fact--nevertheless, it is wrong, and deserves to be revealed as such. FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) allows warrantless wiretaps for up to 72 hours. Anyone who cannot get a warrant in 3 days is either totally incompetent or unjustified. Johnson's claim that Miller is "weak on security" is out-and-out wrong. Indeed, Miller would be justified in running a reply ad that says Johnson is weak on maintaining the proper separation of powers our Constitution requires and thus Johnson has no business being in Congress.
Second, and perhaps a bit more frivolously, the Oregon Ducks upset the University of Oklahoma Sooners in college football last Saturday. The instant replay officials erroneously allowed an incorrect call on the field to stand. Oklahoma had a 5-point lead with about 1 minute to go; Oregon tried for an onside kick and was awarded possession of the ball even though an Oregon player, the first one to have touched the ball, did so in less than the 10-yard distance the rule on onside kicks requires. Under the rule, Oklahoma thus should have been awarded possession . . . and could have run out the clock and won the game. Instead, despite clear video evidence showing Oregon violated the rule, the officials gave Oregon the ball. Oregon thereupon scored a touchdown and won the game by 1 point.
Now several Oregon fans are saying that even though the officials obviously got the call wrong, the Sooners still could have stopped the Ducks from scoring, so the bad call is no big deal and it's not wrong for Oregon to claim victory.
At least this misuse of logic has the color of plausibility. Nonetheless, it is wrong. It fails to account for the normal human reaction of being in a stressful situation and getting disoriented for a critical few moments when confronted with something shocking. You cannot separate the bad call from the OU players' reaction to it and from what thereupon ensued.
Besides, it's really irrelevant. The bad call on the field should have been overturned, period. What happened after it was not overturned would not have happened but for the failure of the officials to correct their on-field mistake in the first place. It's a very good thing the PAC-10 suspended the officiating crew for a game and is looking into its policy of using only PAC-10 officials for PAC-10 home games. [I hope the PAC-10 has the guts to do what obviously needs to be done, which is to change that policy, in the interest of avoiding even the appearance of favoritism/impropriety.--Ed.]
Furthermore, Oregon fans should be ashamed of themselves for trying to justify the unjustifiable. I know I would be.
Monday, September 18, 2006
A Salute To Phineas Taylor
I understand that Target Stores Inc. has entered into a marketing agreement with some chi-chi Beverly Hills designer. For the first time, Target is allowing its logo (the ubiquitous red bull's-eye) to be put on merchandise not sold in Target stores. You know, on jeans, purses, jewelry, and other accessories. And yes, the collection is called "Target Couture" . . . and yes, it's pronounced "tar-zhay."
So rich and silly people like Paris Hilton are paying lots of money (the purses are going for several hundred dollars each) to promote the logo of a store in which they would not be caught dead shopping. A little frivolity in the world is not a bad thing, but frivolousness is quite another thing altogether.
Isnt it wonderful that the 19th century can still be relevant to the 21st? P. T. Barnum was right about two things: (1) no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public; (2) there is a sucker born every minute.
Phineas Taylor, I salute your wisdom!
So rich and silly people like Paris Hilton are paying lots of money (the purses are going for several hundred dollars each) to promote the logo of a store in which they would not be caught dead shopping. A little frivolity in the world is not a bad thing, but frivolousness is quite another thing altogether.
Isnt it wonderful that the 19th century can still be relevant to the 21st? P. T. Barnum was right about two things: (1) no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public; (2) there is a sucker born every minute.
Phineas Taylor, I salute your wisdom!
Saturday, September 16, 2006
The World Is Getting Entirely Too "In Your Face" For Me
This has nothing to do with anything, but am I the only person in the world who is offended by both the title of the new fall show "Ugly Betty" and by the Dairy Queen commercial for its chili double cheeseburger that ends with the woman telling her male significant other to "pull my finger"?
Hardly anyone seems to grasp the concept anymore that subtlety has its uses, and that you actually can get more attention by being "low key" than by being "in your face."
Why else do you think women who are considered sexy tend to speak in a breathless whisper?
OK, I admit it. I tend to speak in a breathless whisper, but I am not sexy. I'm just out of breath.
Even some of my favorite programs are on occasion too intense for me. Whenever "Meerkat Manor" shows a dead/dying baby meerkat, I have to look away--and even then, I often cry. I am too soft-hearted for this world, I guess.
And Notre Dame just got its collective butt kicked by Michigan. No wonder I'm so upset!
How can it be the middle of September, with college semesters already into their fourth week, college football games of major importance already airing on TV, and the afternoon high temperatures still getting into the 80s? And as if that all weren't bad enough, some local businesses actually put signs up this week predicting that Nebraska would LOSE to USC tonight.
That is simply unheard of around here. I wonder whether anybody in Lincoln was so daring. Probably not, but one never knows . . .
Maybe it's not so much that I am too soft-hearted as it is that I am suffering a major disconnect from this strange conjunction of events.
I know I don't at all feel like putting up my Halloween decorations yet, and the stores are already cramming Christmas down our throats.
I heard the other day that Dubya says America is in its third Great Awakening of religious fervor. I know that he and Iran's President Ahmadinejad share the belief that the "End of Days" is coming . . . although I am quite sure their takes on its details differ radically from one another's.
If Nebraska manages to upset USC tonight, I just might have to agree with them that the End of Days is coming. Soon.
Hardly anyone seems to grasp the concept anymore that subtlety has its uses, and that you actually can get more attention by being "low key" than by being "in your face."
Why else do you think women who are considered sexy tend to speak in a breathless whisper?
OK, I admit it. I tend to speak in a breathless whisper, but I am not sexy. I'm just out of breath.
Even some of my favorite programs are on occasion too intense for me. Whenever "Meerkat Manor" shows a dead/dying baby meerkat, I have to look away--and even then, I often cry. I am too soft-hearted for this world, I guess.
And Notre Dame just got its collective butt kicked by Michigan. No wonder I'm so upset!
How can it be the middle of September, with college semesters already into their fourth week, college football games of major importance already airing on TV, and the afternoon high temperatures still getting into the 80s? And as if that all weren't bad enough, some local businesses actually put signs up this week predicting that Nebraska would LOSE to USC tonight.
That is simply unheard of around here. I wonder whether anybody in Lincoln was so daring. Probably not, but one never knows . . .
Maybe it's not so much that I am too soft-hearted as it is that I am suffering a major disconnect from this strange conjunction of events.
I know I don't at all feel like putting up my Halloween decorations yet, and the stores are already cramming Christmas down our throats.
I heard the other day that Dubya says America is in its third Great Awakening of religious fervor. I know that he and Iran's President Ahmadinejad share the belief that the "End of Days" is coming . . . although I am quite sure their takes on its details differ radically from one another's.
If Nebraska manages to upset USC tonight, I just might have to agree with them that the End of Days is coming. Soon.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Please Don't Give Me That Old Time Religion
I'm with Leonard Pitts, Jr.: literalism has no place in interpreting the Bible. In an op-ed column recently published in the Omaha World-Herald, Pitts recounted an email exchange he had with a reader named Al, who informed him that criticizing the death penalty was criticizing God. Al went on to note that this was not a good thing.
Pitts responded by noting that the Bible also condemns to death people who curse their parents and people who commit adultery. Al's response to that was that those people should be put to death too, "if one wishes to accomplish God's will in the matter."
Pitts dryly added that people like Al scared him. Me, too. [Well, I have my reasons for thinking that condemning adulterers to death might not be a bad thing, but I am willing to take a larger view in light of the greater social good. Financial thumbscrews are punishment enough for adulterous swine.--Ed.] [That last was said half in jest, to all you literalists out there who do not get my sense of humor.--Ed.]
Pitts' main objection to interpreting the Bible literally is that the people who insist on it so that they can, for example, condemn homosexuals, will not even admit it applies when quoted passages from Scripture exhorting us to "love our enemies," "turn the other cheek," and not "store up treasures on Earth."
In other words, he rightly points out that too many literalists/fundamentalists miss the forest for the trees. The larger message of redemption as carried in the New Testament comes by "sacrifice, redemption, and love," in Pitts' own eloquent expression.
He even broke the news (to me, at least) that the venerable Billy Graham has of late rejected the extremes of both left and right, and has chosen instead to accept God as "a loving mystery." He quoted Graham as saying that people of faith can absolutely differ on the details of theology: "I'm not a literalist in the sense that every single jot and tittle is from the Lord. This is a little difference in my thinking over the years."
Amen! I have maintained for a long, long time that on the one hand there is God, and on the other there are the churches and the Bible and other works of man, and there is no inherent contradiction in accepting The One while at the same time rejecting the other.
Pitts concluded by noting that Exodus (35:2) condemned those who work on the Sabbath to death. He said he'd like to ask people like his email correspondent, Al, where his church's leaders stood on that one, but he was afraid to--implying he feared the answer.
I don't blame him.
Pitts responded by noting that the Bible also condemns to death people who curse their parents and people who commit adultery. Al's response to that was that those people should be put to death too, "if one wishes to accomplish God's will in the matter."
Pitts dryly added that people like Al scared him. Me, too. [Well, I have my reasons for thinking that condemning adulterers to death might not be a bad thing, but I am willing to take a larger view in light of the greater social good. Financial thumbscrews are punishment enough for adulterous swine.--Ed.] [That last was said half in jest, to all you literalists out there who do not get my sense of humor.--Ed.]
Pitts' main objection to interpreting the Bible literally is that the people who insist on it so that they can, for example, condemn homosexuals, will not even admit it applies when quoted passages from Scripture exhorting us to "love our enemies," "turn the other cheek," and not "store up treasures on Earth."
In other words, he rightly points out that too many literalists/fundamentalists miss the forest for the trees. The larger message of redemption as carried in the New Testament comes by "sacrifice, redemption, and love," in Pitts' own eloquent expression.
He even broke the news (to me, at least) that the venerable Billy Graham has of late rejected the extremes of both left and right, and has chosen instead to accept God as "a loving mystery." He quoted Graham as saying that people of faith can absolutely differ on the details of theology: "I'm not a literalist in the sense that every single jot and tittle is from the Lord. This is a little difference in my thinking over the years."
Amen! I have maintained for a long, long time that on the one hand there is God, and on the other there are the churches and the Bible and other works of man, and there is no inherent contradiction in accepting The One while at the same time rejecting the other.
Pitts concluded by noting that Exodus (35:2) condemned those who work on the Sabbath to death. He said he'd like to ask people like his email correspondent, Al, where his church's leaders stood on that one, but he was afraid to--implying he feared the answer.
I don't blame him.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
From Various Files
From the "Even a Stopped Clock is Right Twice a Day" file: Cal Thomas, uber-right wing commentator, just called on liberal commentators to give the same satiric treatment and overall attention to Andrew Young's case of foot-in-mouth that they did to US Senator George Allen's use of an ethnic slur.
I already did, thank you very much. But I agree with Thomas in that the errors, omissions, sins, and otherwise stupid actions of everyone, no matter what side of the aisle s/he occupies, must be fair game and must be brought to light by everone in the commentary biz, be the commentator of like or dissimilar general world views.
It is distasteful for me to admit that someone as mean-spirited and vindictive as Cal Thomas often is can be correct about anything, but in this case, he is. And now I am going to go wash my hands for having posted this.
* * * * * * * * * *
From the "Let's Blame the Victim" files: a recent letter to the Editor of the Omaha World-Herald claimed that the reason we lost Vietnam is that the draftees doing the fighting were less than motivated to accomplish the tasks set before them.
That idea is beyond offensive. It is downright odious.
We lost Vietnam for three main reasons: (1) politicians, not military men, made not just strategic, but tactical, decisions; (2) public perceptions in this country were that we were losing the war, especially after the Tet offensive; and (3) you can't fight and win a guerrilla war with conventional armies.
Too bad neither Dubya and his minions nor the Israelis have recognized this in regards to Iraq and Hezbollah, respectively.
* * * * * * * * * *
From the "Hold Your Enemies Closer" files: Op-ed columnist Jonah Goldberg recently posited that liberals have an inconsistent view of the US Constitution. For certain purposes, liberals want the Constitution to be a living, flexible, expanding document. For other purposes, however, liberals insist that the document remain rigid and inflexible.
He concludes that liberals have it backwards, because of where they want the Constitution to be flexible vs. where they want it to be static. He says the Constitution should be flexible to allow us to fight the war on terror, and should not be construed to forbid prayer in school, for example.
As I read his article, I knew instinctively he was wrong, but it took me a while to reason out why. He's wrong because the Constitution's ultimate purpose is to describe and limit the power of the government vis-a-vis the freedom of the individual citizen. Or else what's the use of our championing the concepts of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"? Still, his is the sort of conservative op-ed column that everyone must read, because on the face of it, his argument has a certain seductive power. In other words, it's thoughtful and reasoned, not just a piece of partisan screed, and thus deserves a respectful response/refutation.
Goldberg says there is nothing wrong with the warrantless wiretap program and other such efforts to fight the war on terror because the executive branch has the sole power to conduct foreign policy and wage war--and besides, "al-Qaida is using new technologies the founders never could have imagined."
I might agree with him, except for one small detail: these warrantless wiretaps are happening on US soil without any judicial supervision or oversight. The executive has the power to conduct foreign policy and wage war, but the legislative branch has the sole power of the public pursestrings (how can you fight a war when Congress won't pay for it?), and the judicial branch has the sole power to decide which actions of the other branches do or do not pass Constitutional muster.
Checks and balances are the heart of the Constitution. To posit that any branch can act without at least input from the other two is to ignore the very structure on which our government is built.
I don't disagree with Goldberg that present technologies, never conceived of by the founders, make it easier for terrorists to turn our liberties into "weapons against us." I do disagree with Goldberg when he says that that makes it OK to limit or even curtail those liberties.
I already did, thank you very much. But I agree with Thomas in that the errors, omissions, sins, and otherwise stupid actions of everyone, no matter what side of the aisle s/he occupies, must be fair game and must be brought to light by everone in the commentary biz, be the commentator of like or dissimilar general world views.
It is distasteful for me to admit that someone as mean-spirited and vindictive as Cal Thomas often is can be correct about anything, but in this case, he is. And now I am going to go wash my hands for having posted this.
* * * * * * * * * *
From the "Let's Blame the Victim" files: a recent letter to the Editor of the Omaha World-Herald claimed that the reason we lost Vietnam is that the draftees doing the fighting were less than motivated to accomplish the tasks set before them.
That idea is beyond offensive. It is downright odious.
We lost Vietnam for three main reasons: (1) politicians, not military men, made not just strategic, but tactical, decisions; (2) public perceptions in this country were that we were losing the war, especially after the Tet offensive; and (3) you can't fight and win a guerrilla war with conventional armies.
Too bad neither Dubya and his minions nor the Israelis have recognized this in regards to Iraq and Hezbollah, respectively.
* * * * * * * * * *
From the "Hold Your Enemies Closer" files: Op-ed columnist Jonah Goldberg recently posited that liberals have an inconsistent view of the US Constitution. For certain purposes, liberals want the Constitution to be a living, flexible, expanding document. For other purposes, however, liberals insist that the document remain rigid and inflexible.
He concludes that liberals have it backwards, because of where they want the Constitution to be flexible vs. where they want it to be static. He says the Constitution should be flexible to allow us to fight the war on terror, and should not be construed to forbid prayer in school, for example.
As I read his article, I knew instinctively he was wrong, but it took me a while to reason out why. He's wrong because the Constitution's ultimate purpose is to describe and limit the power of the government vis-a-vis the freedom of the individual citizen. Or else what's the use of our championing the concepts of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"? Still, his is the sort of conservative op-ed column that everyone must read, because on the face of it, his argument has a certain seductive power. In other words, it's thoughtful and reasoned, not just a piece of partisan screed, and thus deserves a respectful response/refutation.
Goldberg says there is nothing wrong with the warrantless wiretap program and other such efforts to fight the war on terror because the executive branch has the sole power to conduct foreign policy and wage war--and besides, "al-Qaida is using new technologies the founders never could have imagined."
I might agree with him, except for one small detail: these warrantless wiretaps are happening on US soil without any judicial supervision or oversight. The executive has the power to conduct foreign policy and wage war, but the legislative branch has the sole power of the public pursestrings (how can you fight a war when Congress won't pay for it?), and the judicial branch has the sole power to decide which actions of the other branches do or do not pass Constitutional muster.
Checks and balances are the heart of the Constitution. To posit that any branch can act without at least input from the other two is to ignore the very structure on which our government is built.
I don't disagree with Goldberg that present technologies, never conceived of by the founders, make it easier for terrorists to turn our liberties into "weapons against us." I do disagree with Goldberg when he says that that makes it OK to limit or even curtail those liberties.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Every Time I Think I Have Something Figured Out . . .
I discover yet another way of looking at it.
Submitted for your consideration: I always used to say that it was not a good thing that Americans collectively have a very, very short historical attention span. After all, it is axiomatic that those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.
But in thinking about the recent waves of illegals coming into this country, and the waves of sectarian prejudice gripping people of various faiths all over the world, I have decided that our notoriously short attention span is not necessarily a bad thing.
After all, it has kept America from being infected with all the ancient feuds and hatreds of the Old World. Yet those very feuds and hatreds seem poised to overwhelm us now.
To expand a bit by example: World War II seems, to most Americans with whom I've discussed it, to have taken place a long, long time ago, and is very old news. Yet in Europe, its scars are still exceedingly visible (consider the Kaiser Wilhelmskirche in Berlin, for instance). Indeed, World War I still seems to be an immediate experience to most Europeans I know. To Muslim extremists, the Crusades took place yesterday, not 900 years ago. Further, non-Muslims subjected to the hatred of Muslim extremists seem to be returning that hatred in kind.
If we are not going to let America be inundated, and thus lose a large part of what makes America unique, we must consciously stop falling into the trap of taking and giving endless revenge, retribution, and retaliation.
Go ahead, ask me how we go about doing that. I honestly have no idea. I just know it needs to be done if the idea that is "America" is to survive. I welcome your comments, suggestions, insights. This topic must be explored and the problem it poses solved if we want to restore and keep lighted the American beacon of hope for the rest of the world.
Submitted for your consideration: I always used to say that it was not a good thing that Americans collectively have a very, very short historical attention span. After all, it is axiomatic that those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.
But in thinking about the recent waves of illegals coming into this country, and the waves of sectarian prejudice gripping people of various faiths all over the world, I have decided that our notoriously short attention span is not necessarily a bad thing.
After all, it has kept America from being infected with all the ancient feuds and hatreds of the Old World. Yet those very feuds and hatreds seem poised to overwhelm us now.
To expand a bit by example: World War II seems, to most Americans with whom I've discussed it, to have taken place a long, long time ago, and is very old news. Yet in Europe, its scars are still exceedingly visible (consider the Kaiser Wilhelmskirche in Berlin, for instance). Indeed, World War I still seems to be an immediate experience to most Europeans I know. To Muslim extremists, the Crusades took place yesterday, not 900 years ago. Further, non-Muslims subjected to the hatred of Muslim extremists seem to be returning that hatred in kind.
If we are not going to let America be inundated, and thus lose a large part of what makes America unique, we must consciously stop falling into the trap of taking and giving endless revenge, retribution, and retaliation.
Go ahead, ask me how we go about doing that. I honestly have no idea. I just know it needs to be done if the idea that is "America" is to survive. I welcome your comments, suggestions, insights. This topic must be explored and the problem it poses solved if we want to restore and keep lighted the American beacon of hope for the rest of the world.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Maybe Ritual Idioting IS Just For Cricket Players After All
I was half-asleep when I heard this report on NPR, so if I get any of the information wrong, please tell me!
In a recent test between England and Pakistan (which England had already won, but you have to play out the string), an umpire named Hair (Hare? spelling was not specified) was of the opinion that the Pakistanis had somehow doctored the ball. In protest, the Pakistanis refused to come out to play the next game. So the umpire went on to declare a forfeit.
The cricket players of all South Asian countries have had a feud of sorts with this umpire for a long time, apparently--they collectively are of the opinion that he lacks respect for them and the high quality of their play--and so several Indian newspapers had a lot of fun with the headlines for articles reporting this most recent incident ("Bad Hair Day," "Hare-Brained" being amongst the best puns).
The Pakistanis are also saying the umpire was too quick to declare the forfeit, as they were just going to come out late as a protest of his previous ruling about the state of the ball.
Does the term "tempest in a teapot" occur to anyone but me? If the outcome of the entire match were in doubt, this protest would be worth a lot more, but still . . . far be it from me to chastise anyone who wishes to protest "on the principle of the thing." I am one for whom principles matter. So I say to the Pakistani team, right on!
It does seem odd that this news was reported so soon after my last posting. Doubtless, it's merely coincidental . . . but then again, the Lord moves in mysterious ways!
In a recent test between England and Pakistan (which England had already won, but you have to play out the string), an umpire named Hair (Hare? spelling was not specified) was of the opinion that the Pakistanis had somehow doctored the ball. In protest, the Pakistanis refused to come out to play the next game. So the umpire went on to declare a forfeit.
The cricket players of all South Asian countries have had a feud of sorts with this umpire for a long time, apparently--they collectively are of the opinion that he lacks respect for them and the high quality of their play--and so several Indian newspapers had a lot of fun with the headlines for articles reporting this most recent incident ("Bad Hair Day," "Hare-Brained" being amongst the best puns).
The Pakistanis are also saying the umpire was too quick to declare the forfeit, as they were just going to come out late as a protest of his previous ruling about the state of the ball.
Does the term "tempest in a teapot" occur to anyone but me? If the outcome of the entire match were in doubt, this protest would be worth a lot more, but still . . . far be it from me to chastise anyone who wishes to protest "on the principle of the thing." I am one for whom principles matter. So I say to the Pakistani team, right on!
It does seem odd that this news was reported so soon after my last posting. Doubtless, it's merely coincidental . . . but then again, the Lord moves in mysterious ways!
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Ritual Idioting--It's Not Just For Cricket Players Anymore
Monty Python to the contrary, ritual idioting is not solely the province of those who play cricket.
We have plenty of idiocy to go around on this side of the pond, thank you very much.
The most recent examples, from both sides of the aisle, as it were, of which I am aware are: (1) US Senator George Allen, R-Va., calling the only person of color at a Republican rally "Macaca," and (2) Andrew Young, civil rights leader and erstwhile improver of Wal-Mart's public image, implying it's OK for Wal-Mart to drive out the "mom and pop" grocery stores, because the Jews, Koreans, and Arabs who run those "mom and pop" stores have ripped off blacks long enough.
What makes Allen's remark so heinous is that he knew the man who was its object would get the point. For Allen's remark is common slur used by French Tunisians, of whom Allen's mother is one descendant. And Allen's comment's object, one S.R. Sidarth, though born and raised in Virginia, is himself of East Indian descent. He was at the rally to videotape it for Allen's Democratic challenger in the senate race, one James Webb.
Worse, Allen has since claimed that (a) he didn't know what the word meant; (b) he fumbled saying the word "mohawk" as he was really referring to Sidarth's haircut [which technically wasn't even a Mohawk to begin with.--Ed]; and (c) that he's really sorry if Sidarth took offense, as none was intended.
Note that he never once apologized for making the remark in the first place. Further, Allen's audience at the rally seemed to appreciate greatly his use of the slur. So the rich white guys are still speaking in code to attempt to keep the rest of us cowed and so intimidated that we let them get away with their @$$%*&*^&@#@#.
Not that what Young said was any better. Wal-Mart promptly distanced itself from his remarks [if nothing else, Wal-Mart does understand the larger implications of bad marketing.--Ed] and Young had the decency to resign his position as head of Working Families for Wal-Mart. The AP report I read said Young had apologized for the remarks, but since what he said as apology was NOT printed, I have no idea whether Young acknowledged the wrongness of the stereotypes those remarks promulgated. Indeed, from what the AP article did say, I have my doubts. Young was quoted as saying "[t]hings that are matter-of-fact in Atlanta, in the New York and Los Angeles environments tend to be a lot more volatile." First, I'm not sure the racism in Atlanta that Young's quote suggests is true. Second, I'm quite sure that Young's statement also implies he thinks what he said was true, and not offensive in and of itself.
I'm no fan of political correctness, but I do believe in courtesy and accuracy. Young's original remarks were tactless and not necessarily accurate, especially when you consider the additional things he said, to wit: that the "mom and pop" stores deliberately overcharged black customers, and sold bad meat, stale bread, and wilted vegetables.
I'm not even going to get into the whole subject of whether a civil rights leader should have anything to do with a huge corporation that pays the absolute minimum in wages and benefits that it legally can get away with paying, and which goes out of its way to stifle all employee attempts to unionize.
Has air pollution wrecked our collective ability to think clearly? The whole world lately seems to think that if someone shouts something loudly enough and long enough, that makes it true, even when it most definitely is not.
One more example of that wrongheadedness is Dubya's insistence in the face of a federal judge's ruling to the contrary that his warrantless wiretap program passes Constitutional muster. I'm so sick of Dubya's take on the whole subject that I can't even address it rationally anymore, beyond crying out the warning once more that our very system of government, of putting laws before men, is in great danger . . . and I don't mean from terrorists, whether they are Islamo-fascists or not.
We have plenty of idiocy to go around on this side of the pond, thank you very much.
The most recent examples, from both sides of the aisle, as it were, of which I am aware are: (1) US Senator George Allen, R-Va., calling the only person of color at a Republican rally "Macaca," and (2) Andrew Young, civil rights leader and erstwhile improver of Wal-Mart's public image, implying it's OK for Wal-Mart to drive out the "mom and pop" grocery stores, because the Jews, Koreans, and Arabs who run those "mom and pop" stores have ripped off blacks long enough.
What makes Allen's remark so heinous is that he knew the man who was its object would get the point. For Allen's remark is common slur used by French Tunisians, of whom Allen's mother is one descendant. And Allen's comment's object, one S.R. Sidarth, though born and raised in Virginia, is himself of East Indian descent. He was at the rally to videotape it for Allen's Democratic challenger in the senate race, one James Webb.
Worse, Allen has since claimed that (a) he didn't know what the word meant; (b) he fumbled saying the word "mohawk" as he was really referring to Sidarth's haircut [which technically wasn't even a Mohawk to begin with.--Ed]; and (c) that he's really sorry if Sidarth took offense, as none was intended.
Note that he never once apologized for making the remark in the first place. Further, Allen's audience at the rally seemed to appreciate greatly his use of the slur. So the rich white guys are still speaking in code to attempt to keep the rest of us cowed and so intimidated that we let them get away with their @$$%*&*^&@#@#.
Not that what Young said was any better. Wal-Mart promptly distanced itself from his remarks [if nothing else, Wal-Mart does understand the larger implications of bad marketing.--Ed] and Young had the decency to resign his position as head of Working Families for Wal-Mart. The AP report I read said Young had apologized for the remarks, but since what he said as apology was NOT printed, I have no idea whether Young acknowledged the wrongness of the stereotypes those remarks promulgated. Indeed, from what the AP article did say, I have my doubts. Young was quoted as saying "[t]hings that are matter-of-fact in Atlanta, in the New York and Los Angeles environments tend to be a lot more volatile." First, I'm not sure the racism in Atlanta that Young's quote suggests is true. Second, I'm quite sure that Young's statement also implies he thinks what he said was true, and not offensive in and of itself.
I'm no fan of political correctness, but I do believe in courtesy and accuracy. Young's original remarks were tactless and not necessarily accurate, especially when you consider the additional things he said, to wit: that the "mom and pop" stores deliberately overcharged black customers, and sold bad meat, stale bread, and wilted vegetables.
I'm not even going to get into the whole subject of whether a civil rights leader should have anything to do with a huge corporation that pays the absolute minimum in wages and benefits that it legally can get away with paying, and which goes out of its way to stifle all employee attempts to unionize.
Has air pollution wrecked our collective ability to think clearly? The whole world lately seems to think that if someone shouts something loudly enough and long enough, that makes it true, even when it most definitely is not.
One more example of that wrongheadedness is Dubya's insistence in the face of a federal judge's ruling to the contrary that his warrantless wiretap program passes Constitutional muster. I'm so sick of Dubya's take on the whole subject that I can't even address it rationally anymore, beyond crying out the warning once more that our very system of government, of putting laws before men, is in great danger . . . and I don't mean from terrorists, whether they are Islamo-fascists or not.
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Gloriosky, Sandy! Arf!
Blame it on the dog days of summer. It's just too darned hot to think. Or more correctly, to think sensibly.
Ferinstance: I just saw a news headline about Fidel Castro saying, "He walks, he talks" and all I could think of was the old side show spiel: "He walks! He talks! He crawls on his belly like a reptile!"
It's even too hot to laugh, though the mental image of Fidel I got from that connection was certainly amusing. Snakes with beards. On a plane--or not. [Snakes. Why'd it have to be snakes?--Ed.]
* * * * * * * * * *
In a small act of personal political rebellion, I refused to watch the televised debate between US Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb) and his challenger, Pete Ricketts (R-Exceedingly Rich Right Wing). It's too hot to put up with all that "sturm und drang." Or, as a wit I know translated into English, "storm and dreck." Besides, I can pretty much predict what happened, based on the ads both campaigns have been running lately. Much mud was flung, started by Ricketts. When Nelson responded in kind, Ricketts claimed "Ben started it!" and flung more of his own, all the while protesting his innocence. Any resemblance between this and the behavior of very small, very spoiled children should be remembered.
My favorite bit of misinformation, a/k/a mud, flung by Ricketts is his trying to color Ben as being a "Clinton-Kennedy" liberal Democrat. Boo! Are you scared yet?
Anyone who has spent more than a microsecond in Nebraska knows Ben is no such thing. Indeed, the main complaint around here about Ben comes from Nebraska Democrats: he is a DINO [in case anyone out there doesn't know, DINO means "Democrat in name only."--Ed.] Ricketts has nothing but contempt for the intelligence of the average Nebraska voter, however, as he seems to think that if he scares Nebraskans enough by making that accusation, he'll not only make it true, he'll win the election.
God, I hope not!
Actually, the Nebraska Democratic Party is supporting Ben by slinging the worst of the mud coming from that campaign . . . and technically, it isn't mud because it's true. Ricketts wants his million-dollar-plus home tax valuation reduced. The valuation went up recently, based on the purchase price Ricketts agreed to pay for the home. The tax is still less than what it would have been if the valuation had been based 100% on the actual sale price--it's somewhere in the range of 90% of the actual sale price, as required by state law, and which Douglas County has been overly lax in enforcing until recently. But Ricketts says it is still too high, and the home is worth much, much less. [OK, I'll bite: then why the heck did he pay so much for it?--Ed.]
To a degree, shouting about this has backfired: Ben has tried to get the tax valuations on his DC and Nebraska homes reduced, more than once, which Ricketts' campaign team has in turn advertised in the most lurid fashion possible.
But if Ricketts believes that he can sling mud and then claim that Ben is the one doing it, I hope the voters in November prove Ricketts wrong.
Besides, Ricketts keeps saying he's not a career politician, he's a business man, who will "work for conservative change in Washington. " First, as anyone who pays attention knows, everything in the US Senate is based on seniority. Even if Ricketts were to win (now THAT'S a scary thought), he wouldn't be able to do much of anything until he became the dreaded "career politician" he claims to be running against.
Second, would you really want to trust the public's funds to someone who can't negotiate a sensible price and who thus pays too much for his own home?
Third, some of Ricketts' actual ideas to promote "conservative change" are downright nasty. As Nelson's campaign has in turn publicized, one of Ricketts pet projects is to get a national sales tax passed and get rid of the IRS as we know it. That ad has been running for weeks with no response at all from Ricketts' campaign team. Maybe none of them have figured out that most of us see that a national sales tax is a BAD idea.
Where Ben got his "it will add 30% to the cost of everything you buy, including food" figure, I do not know. But I like that his campaign staff is pointing out that (1) even Ronald Reagan's chief economic advisor thought a national flat tax was a dumb idea, (2) the present mortgage payment and home mortgage interest payment tax deductions would disappear under such a scheme, and (3) that we average folks would pay a lot more in under such a system than we do now, while the super-rich like Ricketts would pay a lot less.
Don't let the right wing fool you with all its talk about how we shouldn't be promulgating an economic class war. They already been waging war on the true middle class. They just don't want you to notice. The most horribly short-sighted aspect of their stand is that no democracy can survive or even remain stable without a secure middle class. The way things are going under current Republican-driven policies, a few are getting super-rich, a lot are getting much poorer, and the middle is literally being squeezed out of existence. I wouldn't be surprised to see a shooting war come to this country once the middle is gone. It's already frightfully insecure.
To wit: Nebraska recently adopted a concealed weapons carry law. Here's my question about that: if you must carry a gun, what's the big deal about keeping it concealed? Why not just carry it in plain sight? If you say it deters criminals when they don't know whether you are packing heat, I say that if you carry openly, there's no room for doubt. So why all this push for "concealed carry"? I don't get it.
Anyway, don't let the rich right wing extremists fool you by their definition of what is "middle class," either. I hate to inform them of this, but anyone making a six-figure income is NOT middle class. Anyone with that much income is UPPER class, economically speaking, at least. [I make no representations as to those folks' class in aesthetic or humane terms.--Ed.]
By the way, the real reason Dubya wants to let illegal immigrants get some kind of work permits to validate their status in the US is that they will work for less than a US living wage. It's still more than they could make at home. They send most of it back to their homes of origin anyway. They thus are better off taking the risk of being illegal than they would be if they just stayed home in the first place. Dubya's business buddies like the idea of very cheap labor more than they care to help their fellow US citizens. It makes it easier for them to keep their profit margins up. [I can see it now: Economic Viagra!--Ed.]
So, the only way to stop illegal immigrants from flooding this country is to make it UNPROFITABLE for the businesses that employ them to continue doing so . . . and the only way to do that is to enact some whopping fines (like millions of dollars per hire)--and even more importantly, to enforce those same fines. But business owners don't want that. Once they find themselves making 50% profits, they can't seem to scale back to even 45% profits. They all bought into Wall Street's "Greed is Good" mantra.
That also demonstrates why those who say the free market is the "be all and end all" of everything are wrong. Not everything is--or should be-- a commodity. Were you as grossed out as I was about the news reports that women are selling their breast milk to companies who are reselling it at a profit?
The fact that these women were compelled economically to do it is bad enough. That companies can and do turn a profit on it is disgusting. But we can't have stem cell research, oh no! That would be wrong! [Sarcasm most definitely intended.--Ed.]
If you had any kind of unpleasant gut reaction to the breast milk sales story, you know that society is about more than a financial bottom line. If we are to reestablish our country as a civilized beacon of light for the rest of the world, we need to relearn that.
However, as long as people like Pete Ricketts think they can get away with scaring us by wearing Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy masks [I dread Halloween this year, I really do.--Ed.], we aren't going to make any progress on undoing the damage that's been done by those who worship the Almighty Dollar. Don't let them fool you with that "prayer of Jabez" crap, either. They all have forgotten what Jesus said about it being "easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven." Someday, they'll be in for as much of a surprise as they think the fundamentalist Muslims suicide bombers and their sympathizers will be.
I hope.
Ferinstance: I just saw a news headline about Fidel Castro saying, "He walks, he talks" and all I could think of was the old side show spiel: "He walks! He talks! He crawls on his belly like a reptile!"
It's even too hot to laugh, though the mental image of Fidel I got from that connection was certainly amusing. Snakes with beards. On a plane--or not. [Snakes. Why'd it have to be snakes?--Ed.]
* * * * * * * * * *
In a small act of personal political rebellion, I refused to watch the televised debate between US Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb) and his challenger, Pete Ricketts (R-Exceedingly Rich Right Wing). It's too hot to put up with all that "sturm und drang." Or, as a wit I know translated into English, "storm and dreck." Besides, I can pretty much predict what happened, based on the ads both campaigns have been running lately. Much mud was flung, started by Ricketts. When Nelson responded in kind, Ricketts claimed "Ben started it!" and flung more of his own, all the while protesting his innocence. Any resemblance between this and the behavior of very small, very spoiled children should be remembered.
My favorite bit of misinformation, a/k/a mud, flung by Ricketts is his trying to color Ben as being a "Clinton-Kennedy" liberal Democrat. Boo! Are you scared yet?
Anyone who has spent more than a microsecond in Nebraska knows Ben is no such thing. Indeed, the main complaint around here about Ben comes from Nebraska Democrats: he is a DINO [in case anyone out there doesn't know, DINO means "Democrat in name only."--Ed.] Ricketts has nothing but contempt for the intelligence of the average Nebraska voter, however, as he seems to think that if he scares Nebraskans enough by making that accusation, he'll not only make it true, he'll win the election.
God, I hope not!
Actually, the Nebraska Democratic Party is supporting Ben by slinging the worst of the mud coming from that campaign . . . and technically, it isn't mud because it's true. Ricketts wants his million-dollar-plus home tax valuation reduced. The valuation went up recently, based on the purchase price Ricketts agreed to pay for the home. The tax is still less than what it would have been if the valuation had been based 100% on the actual sale price--it's somewhere in the range of 90% of the actual sale price, as required by state law, and which Douglas County has been overly lax in enforcing until recently. But Ricketts says it is still too high, and the home is worth much, much less. [OK, I'll bite: then why the heck did he pay so much for it?--Ed.]
To a degree, shouting about this has backfired: Ben has tried to get the tax valuations on his DC and Nebraska homes reduced, more than once, which Ricketts' campaign team has in turn advertised in the most lurid fashion possible.
But if Ricketts believes that he can sling mud and then claim that Ben is the one doing it, I hope the voters in November prove Ricketts wrong.
Besides, Ricketts keeps saying he's not a career politician, he's a business man, who will "work for conservative change in Washington. " First, as anyone who pays attention knows, everything in the US Senate is based on seniority. Even if Ricketts were to win (now THAT'S a scary thought), he wouldn't be able to do much of anything until he became the dreaded "career politician" he claims to be running against.
Second, would you really want to trust the public's funds to someone who can't negotiate a sensible price and who thus pays too much for his own home?
Third, some of Ricketts' actual ideas to promote "conservative change" are downright nasty. As Nelson's campaign has in turn publicized, one of Ricketts pet projects is to get a national sales tax passed and get rid of the IRS as we know it. That ad has been running for weeks with no response at all from Ricketts' campaign team. Maybe none of them have figured out that most of us see that a national sales tax is a BAD idea.
Where Ben got his "it will add 30% to the cost of everything you buy, including food" figure, I do not know. But I like that his campaign staff is pointing out that (1) even Ronald Reagan's chief economic advisor thought a national flat tax was a dumb idea, (2) the present mortgage payment and home mortgage interest payment tax deductions would disappear under such a scheme, and (3) that we average folks would pay a lot more in under such a system than we do now, while the super-rich like Ricketts would pay a lot less.
Don't let the right wing fool you with all its talk about how we shouldn't be promulgating an economic class war. They already been waging war on the true middle class. They just don't want you to notice. The most horribly short-sighted aspect of their stand is that no democracy can survive or even remain stable without a secure middle class. The way things are going under current Republican-driven policies, a few are getting super-rich, a lot are getting much poorer, and the middle is literally being squeezed out of existence. I wouldn't be surprised to see a shooting war come to this country once the middle is gone. It's already frightfully insecure.
To wit: Nebraska recently adopted a concealed weapons carry law. Here's my question about that: if you must carry a gun, what's the big deal about keeping it concealed? Why not just carry it in plain sight? If you say it deters criminals when they don't know whether you are packing heat, I say that if you carry openly, there's no room for doubt. So why all this push for "concealed carry"? I don't get it.
Anyway, don't let the rich right wing extremists fool you by their definition of what is "middle class," either. I hate to inform them of this, but anyone making a six-figure income is NOT middle class. Anyone with that much income is UPPER class, economically speaking, at least. [I make no representations as to those folks' class in aesthetic or humane terms.--Ed.]
By the way, the real reason Dubya wants to let illegal immigrants get some kind of work permits to validate their status in the US is that they will work for less than a US living wage. It's still more than they could make at home. They send most of it back to their homes of origin anyway. They thus are better off taking the risk of being illegal than they would be if they just stayed home in the first place. Dubya's business buddies like the idea of very cheap labor more than they care to help their fellow US citizens. It makes it easier for them to keep their profit margins up. [I can see it now: Economic Viagra!--Ed.]
So, the only way to stop illegal immigrants from flooding this country is to make it UNPROFITABLE for the businesses that employ them to continue doing so . . . and the only way to do that is to enact some whopping fines (like millions of dollars per hire)--and even more importantly, to enforce those same fines. But business owners don't want that. Once they find themselves making 50% profits, they can't seem to scale back to even 45% profits. They all bought into Wall Street's "Greed is Good" mantra.
That also demonstrates why those who say the free market is the "be all and end all" of everything are wrong. Not everything is--or should be-- a commodity. Were you as grossed out as I was about the news reports that women are selling their breast milk to companies who are reselling it at a profit?
The fact that these women were compelled economically to do it is bad enough. That companies can and do turn a profit on it is disgusting. But we can't have stem cell research, oh no! That would be wrong! [Sarcasm most definitely intended.--Ed.]
If you had any kind of unpleasant gut reaction to the breast milk sales story, you know that society is about more than a financial bottom line. If we are to reestablish our country as a civilized beacon of light for the rest of the world, we need to relearn that.
However, as long as people like Pete Ricketts think they can get away with scaring us by wearing Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy masks [I dread Halloween this year, I really do.--Ed.], we aren't going to make any progress on undoing the damage that's been done by those who worship the Almighty Dollar. Don't let them fool you with that "prayer of Jabez" crap, either. They all have forgotten what Jesus said about it being "easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven." Someday, they'll be in for as much of a surprise as they think the fundamentalist Muslims suicide bombers and their sympathizers will be.
I hope.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
If You Don't Want Your Thoughts Provoked, Don't Read This
Jonathan Zimmerman, a teacher of history and education at New York University, yesterday had an op-ed piece published in many newspapers, among them the Omaha World-Herald. He challenged his fellow liberals to come up with specific instances of when it is necessary to abrogate civil liberties to wage the War on Terror successfully.
He used as his example Abraham Lincoln's actions in suspending the writ of habeas corpus and otherwise trampling on the rights of fellow citizens who were suspected of being Confederate sympathizers. And he argues that Lincoln was right to do so, even though he defied the Constitution (as interpreted by the Supreme Court) to do it.
In short, Zimmerman contends that Benjamin Franklin's admonition that "[t]hose who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security" was [Gasp!--Ed.] wrong.
Zimmerman goes on to note that Dubya's actions to date in riding roughshod over civil liberties are not justified--so far. His weightiest reason for the difference between Lincoln's actions and Dubya's? Lincoln was in a 19th century war--a war requiring the taking of the enemy capital--and Washington, D.C., was geographically surrounded by Confederate sympathizers. Yes, Maryland did not secede, but Maryland was a slave state and a great many Marylanders hoped (and acted to fulfill that hope) that the Confederacy would win. Virginia, forming D.C.'s fourth border, had seceded . . . and took many of the best American military men, such as Robert E. Lee, with her.
Their loyalty was to their states. Lincoln's loyalty was to the Union, as a whole.
Since we are no longer in a war whose winning will be defined by the capture and contol of geography, Dubya cannot ride Lincoln's coattails to justify his wholesale stomping on civil liberties.
I for one do not disagree. But Zimmerman has challenged all his readers to iterate when Dubya's actions would become justified. Despite the historical concensus that Lincoln, as a matter of law, was in the wrong, Lincoln, as a matter of fact, was right. He saved the Union. Ultimately, he freed the slaves. He breathed life into the concept of the United States. Before the Civil War, people spoke of "the United States are . . ." After, people spoke of "the United States is . . ."
As a practical matter, we can either become martyrs to our belief in civil liberties or we can fight as dirty as we need to in order to survive . . . and restore those liberties once the immediate threat to them and to our survival is gone.
What an uncomfortable moral place in which to be! If we sink to our enemies' level, how are we any better than they are and thus more deserving of survival? Yet if we don't, and we fail to survive, our ideals will die with us. But how can we claim them to be our ideals if we do not live in accordance with them?
"Forgive us our trespasses, O Lord, as we forgive those who trespass against us" cuts two ways. We are human, thus by definition imperfect. It is not merely understandable, but expected, that we fail to live up to our stated ideals. But if we don't forgive those who trespass against us, and we instead wipe out those who trespass against us, have we not sunk too far below our ideals to justify claiming them as our own?
He used as his example Abraham Lincoln's actions in suspending the writ of habeas corpus and otherwise trampling on the rights of fellow citizens who were suspected of being Confederate sympathizers. And he argues that Lincoln was right to do so, even though he defied the Constitution (as interpreted by the Supreme Court) to do it.
In short, Zimmerman contends that Benjamin Franklin's admonition that "[t]hose who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security" was [Gasp!--Ed.] wrong.
Zimmerman goes on to note that Dubya's actions to date in riding roughshod over civil liberties are not justified--so far. His weightiest reason for the difference between Lincoln's actions and Dubya's? Lincoln was in a 19th century war--a war requiring the taking of the enemy capital--and Washington, D.C., was geographically surrounded by Confederate sympathizers. Yes, Maryland did not secede, but Maryland was a slave state and a great many Marylanders hoped (and acted to fulfill that hope) that the Confederacy would win. Virginia, forming D.C.'s fourth border, had seceded . . . and took many of the best American military men, such as Robert E. Lee, with her.
Their loyalty was to their states. Lincoln's loyalty was to the Union, as a whole.
Since we are no longer in a war whose winning will be defined by the capture and contol of geography, Dubya cannot ride Lincoln's coattails to justify his wholesale stomping on civil liberties.
I for one do not disagree. But Zimmerman has challenged all his readers to iterate when Dubya's actions would become justified. Despite the historical concensus that Lincoln, as a matter of law, was in the wrong, Lincoln, as a matter of fact, was right. He saved the Union. Ultimately, he freed the slaves. He breathed life into the concept of the United States. Before the Civil War, people spoke of "the United States are . . ." After, people spoke of "the United States is . . ."
As a practical matter, we can either become martyrs to our belief in civil liberties or we can fight as dirty as we need to in order to survive . . . and restore those liberties once the immediate threat to them and to our survival is gone.
What an uncomfortable moral place in which to be! If we sink to our enemies' level, how are we any better than they are and thus more deserving of survival? Yet if we don't, and we fail to survive, our ideals will die with us. But how can we claim them to be our ideals if we do not live in accordance with them?
"Forgive us our trespasses, O Lord, as we forgive those who trespass against us" cuts two ways. We are human, thus by definition imperfect. It is not merely understandable, but expected, that we fail to live up to our stated ideals. But if we don't forgive those who trespass against us, and we instead wipe out those who trespass against us, have we not sunk too far below our ideals to justify claiming them as our own?
Mess O'Potamia
(And with apologies to Jon Stewart for borrowing his pun . . .)
I am in serious curmudgeon mode today, it seems. I have had the exceedingly politically incorrect thought that what we really ought to do about the Middle East is this: we should sneak in and disarm/steal all the nukes on both sides (for our own protection), and then get out completely. Let the Arabs and Israelis fight it out amongst themselves until no one is left standing.
That's what they really want to do, anyway, it seems. We are never going to have lasting peace in the Middle East until the people there realize that revenge is NOT sound political policy. So far, for more than 7,000 years, that hasn't occurred to many people there, and I doubt it will become a popular concept there any time soon.
So let them kill each other off. Without nukes, no one there can destroy or even set off the rest of the world to destroy itself . . . if they can't learn to play nice, the heck with them.
Now, I know this is totally unrealistic. For one thing, it would be impossible for us to go in and safely take out all the nukes lurking around; for another, it's a terrible abrogation of our responsibility as a leader of the so-called Free World to help others (who want our help) to live in peace and some semblance of security.
But we can't just spank their bottoms and send them to Time Out in the corner, now, can we?
And there is no good solution without changing the fundamental mindset of both sides. Until they all learn that revenge is not the way, there's no hope for lasting peace.
Besides, our attempts to "help," like by invading Iraq, haven't done much except tip the balance of power to the more extreme Arabs in other countries like Syria . . . and Iran. So we're probably making things worse overall, not better.
It has been wisely noted that politics is the art of the possible. So far, Middle East peace seems impossible. And this is why I am not ever running for public office. I know what I'd like to say and to do, and I know what I'd be able to say and to do. There's no overlap.
The ultimate lesson is this: Ronald Reagan's push to end the Cold War is going to go down in history as Not A Good Thing. For, whether you liked the USSR or hated the USSR, you have to admit that the USSR was able to keep a lid on the Arab/Islamist fundamentalists and their desire to destroy the world if they couldn't have their own way. [I note this last in light of Hezbollah's stated desire to start WWIII.--Ed]
Better the enemy you know than the enemy you don't know. Better the enemy who understands certain basic concepts (such as "we are all on this Earth together, and we have to learn to live with one another even if we don't like one another, if we ourselves are to survive") than the enemy who couldn't give a damn about anything but glorious martyrdom and immolation.
I never used to want to die, ever, because I always wanted to see how everything turned out. [Yes, I sometimes read the last page of a novel first.--Ed] But I am beginning to think I no longer want to know.
Will someone please explain to me what the heck is so wrong with "live and let live"?
I am in serious curmudgeon mode today, it seems. I have had the exceedingly politically incorrect thought that what we really ought to do about the Middle East is this: we should sneak in and disarm/steal all the nukes on both sides (for our own protection), and then get out completely. Let the Arabs and Israelis fight it out amongst themselves until no one is left standing.
That's what they really want to do, anyway, it seems. We are never going to have lasting peace in the Middle East until the people there realize that revenge is NOT sound political policy. So far, for more than 7,000 years, that hasn't occurred to many people there, and I doubt it will become a popular concept there any time soon.
So let them kill each other off. Without nukes, no one there can destroy or even set off the rest of the world to destroy itself . . . if they can't learn to play nice, the heck with them.
Now, I know this is totally unrealistic. For one thing, it would be impossible for us to go in and safely take out all the nukes lurking around; for another, it's a terrible abrogation of our responsibility as a leader of the so-called Free World to help others (who want our help) to live in peace and some semblance of security.
But we can't just spank their bottoms and send them to Time Out in the corner, now, can we?
And there is no good solution without changing the fundamental mindset of both sides. Until they all learn that revenge is not the way, there's no hope for lasting peace.
Besides, our attempts to "help," like by invading Iraq, haven't done much except tip the balance of power to the more extreme Arabs in other countries like Syria . . . and Iran. So we're probably making things worse overall, not better.
It has been wisely noted that politics is the art of the possible. So far, Middle East peace seems impossible. And this is why I am not ever running for public office. I know what I'd like to say and to do, and I know what I'd be able to say and to do. There's no overlap.
The ultimate lesson is this: Ronald Reagan's push to end the Cold War is going to go down in history as Not A Good Thing. For, whether you liked the USSR or hated the USSR, you have to admit that the USSR was able to keep a lid on the Arab/Islamist fundamentalists and their desire to destroy the world if they couldn't have their own way. [I note this last in light of Hezbollah's stated desire to start WWIII.--Ed]
Better the enemy you know than the enemy you don't know. Better the enemy who understands certain basic concepts (such as "we are all on this Earth together, and we have to learn to live with one another even if we don't like one another, if we ourselves are to survive") than the enemy who couldn't give a damn about anything but glorious martyrdom and immolation.
I never used to want to die, ever, because I always wanted to see how everything turned out. [Yes, I sometimes read the last page of a novel first.--Ed] But I am beginning to think I no longer want to know.
Will someone please explain to me what the heck is so wrong with "live and let live"?
Saturday, July 15, 2006
Sometimes You Win, Sometimes You Lose, And Sometimes, It Rains
Those of you who know me know that I am not a hot weather person. While all the sun-worshippers are out cultivating their personal melanoma patches, and while all the BBQ fans are grilling their hearts out, increasing fire danger and adding to global warming, I am in semi-hibernation, curled up as close to the coldest air conditioner vent in the house as I can get. Nevertheless, I come out of my summer doldrums when the occasion warrants. Several things have been bugging me for a week now, so the occasion must warrant.
Thanks to an unsigned unanimous opinion by the Nebraska Supreme Court last week, University of Nebraska Regent David Hergert is now an ex-Regent. [This is an ex-Regent! 'Allo, all you Monty Python fans!--Ed] He was convicted (after having been impeached by the state legislature) of committing fraud to get reelected. He did not file required campaign spending documents on time, he included misinformation in those same documents, and he lied about it all to cover it up after the election. It's only the second time in Nebraska history that an impeached public official has been convicted, and the last one was over 100 years ago, so this is pretty big news.
The Court condemned all of Hergert's actions, and chided him for his internally contradictory defense arguments (he had such a messy desk that things were always late/lost/messed up; he didn't do anything wrong because the Nebraska election laws are written in such a way that no one can be impeached for what he did to GET into office). But it based its decision on the coverup, as what Hergert did in that regard took place after Election Day. Nebraska election laws absolutely covered that situation. The Court stressed how close a thing it was that Hergert could have been found not guilty, however, in an effort to get the Unicameral to rewrite the election laws so that this unseemly scenario would not repeat. Here's hoping the Unicameral gets the message . . . and does something about it.
Of course, the folks out in western Nebraska have condemned the whole thing as naught but a plot by the big, bad, urban eastern parts of the state to pick on them . . . talk about paranoia! I don't think anyone gives a damn that Hergert was from the western part of the state. If a Regent from one of the more easterly districts had done the same things, he, too, would have been impeached and then convicted. Hergert broke the law, people. He deserves what he got (none the less because he was and is an arrogant SOB who tried to cow and bully [now that's an interesting turn of phrase.--Ed.] first the state senators and then the members of the Court into letting him off. He paid a fine to the State Board of Elections in exchange for its promise of no criminal prosecution--before anyone else noticed what was going on--so he thought he was in the clear.
Which might have been the end of it had Hergert and the election commissioners involved the state attorney general before the fact. But the AG was not consulted. And he took umbrage. AG Jon Bruning correctly perceived what Hergert did as an improper attempt to work the system, so he got the Unicameral to vote to impeach Hergert. The rest is history.
Good thing, too. Sometimes, you win.
But sometimes, you lose. The Cubs have been playing execrably this year [toss in a chorus of Tom Petty singing Freefallin'.--Ed.]--until today, that is. Right now, they are beating up on the Mets 9 to 2 in the bottom of the 7th inning. But they aren't getting out of the cellar any time soon. Like maybe for the rest of the 21st century. Worse, the entire National League is in the same boat, given the way the NLers lost the All Star game on Tuesday. The AL was losing in the bottom of the 9th with 2 out and two strikes on the batter . . . one pitch away from victory, the NL wound up giving it away to the AL. Again. This is the 10th time in the last 11 tries that the NL has lost the All Star Game. The only game the NL didn't lose was the game that ended in a tie after all the players on both teams had been used and the game had already gone many extra innings. Thank you, Commissioner Bud Selig. [I hope you can hear my sarcasm here.--Ed.]
Also losing this past fortnight was the public in general, and the defrauded former employees and shareholders of Enron in particular, what with the death by heart attack of former Enron CEO Ken Lay. No one gets to see Lay behind bars. No one gets to see even an iota of justice being served. No one will recoup the immense financial losses Lay's criminal behavior caused. Nor will anyone get the satisfaction of forcing Lay to recognize and admit that what he did was wrong. Even after his conviction, he maintained his innocence. I think he really believed it, too. And that is scary. What's even more scary is that Dubya still called Lay a "good man and a good friend," refusing to recognize the way Lay screwed over Enron's employees and the rest of us to boot. People who claim to be "born again" the way Lay did and who yet do the kinds of things Lay did give true followers of Jesus a bad name. Holy hypocrites like Lay deserve all the Hell they can suffer.
One can but hope that at least one "Lesson Of Enron" is that deregulation of public utilities is NOT a good thing. How people can study American history and not notice that it contains waves of financial scandals and swindles EVERY TIME business-related laws, rules, and regulations are relaxed, is beyond me. But then again, I have always maintained that the people running businesses and trading on the various stock exchanges these days all would have been pirates in the 18th century[and with apologies to Johnny Depp, who isn't that kind of pirate--Ed.], so maybe there's no way to stop them in any event. Sometimes, therefore, you lose.
And sometimes it rains. You can do everything right and still get a bad outcome. Here, I am thinking of this year's Kentucky Derby winner, Barbaro. Shocking enough that he shattered his right hind leg in the opening strides of the Preakness Stakes. Frighteningly hopeful that he seemed to be doing so well after getting a metal bar and 27 pins put in his leg. Devastating when his veterinary surgeon announced this week that Barbaro had developed laminitis in his other hind hoof and that his prognosis was now exceedingly poor.
Nevertheless, when it does rain, it eventually stops. Late yesterday I heard that Barbaro is still eating well, does not seem to be in pain, and is coping amazingly well with the additional cast and other medical procedures undertaken to keep him alive. His owners and his doctors are doing everything right. Their barometer is "how is the horse coping?" As long as he's coping well and seems to be in good spirits, they are going to do everything they can to keep him alive and pain-free. They won't give up until and unless he does. Good for them! Here's hoping that the rain stops, the flowers bloom, and Barbaro heals.
OK, so I'm still a child of the 60s. I still believe [clap for Tinkerbell!--Ed.] that individuals can contribute to changing the world for the better, that it's worth doing so, and that hope is alive. Not an easy belief system to maintain in the face of crushing 21st century angst, but I'm hanging on to it anyway. Where there is no hope, there is no real life. I prefer to live.
Thanks to an unsigned unanimous opinion by the Nebraska Supreme Court last week, University of Nebraska Regent David Hergert is now an ex-Regent. [This is an ex-Regent! 'Allo, all you Monty Python fans!--Ed] He was convicted (after having been impeached by the state legislature) of committing fraud to get reelected. He did not file required campaign spending documents on time, he included misinformation in those same documents, and he lied about it all to cover it up after the election. It's only the second time in Nebraska history that an impeached public official has been convicted, and the last one was over 100 years ago, so this is pretty big news.
The Court condemned all of Hergert's actions, and chided him for his internally contradictory defense arguments (he had such a messy desk that things were always late/lost/messed up; he didn't do anything wrong because the Nebraska election laws are written in such a way that no one can be impeached for what he did to GET into office). But it based its decision on the coverup, as what Hergert did in that regard took place after Election Day. Nebraska election laws absolutely covered that situation. The Court stressed how close a thing it was that Hergert could have been found not guilty, however, in an effort to get the Unicameral to rewrite the election laws so that this unseemly scenario would not repeat. Here's hoping the Unicameral gets the message . . . and does something about it.
Of course, the folks out in western Nebraska have condemned the whole thing as naught but a plot by the big, bad, urban eastern parts of the state to pick on them . . . talk about paranoia! I don't think anyone gives a damn that Hergert was from the western part of the state. If a Regent from one of the more easterly districts had done the same things, he, too, would have been impeached and then convicted. Hergert broke the law, people. He deserves what he got (none the less because he was and is an arrogant SOB who tried to cow and bully [now that's an interesting turn of phrase.--Ed.] first the state senators and then the members of the Court into letting him off. He paid a fine to the State Board of Elections in exchange for its promise of no criminal prosecution--before anyone else noticed what was going on--so he thought he was in the clear.
Which might have been the end of it had Hergert and the election commissioners involved the state attorney general before the fact. But the AG was not consulted. And he took umbrage. AG Jon Bruning correctly perceived what Hergert did as an improper attempt to work the system, so he got the Unicameral to vote to impeach Hergert. The rest is history.
Good thing, too. Sometimes, you win.
But sometimes, you lose. The Cubs have been playing execrably this year [toss in a chorus of Tom Petty singing Freefallin'.--Ed.]--until today, that is. Right now, they are beating up on the Mets 9 to 2 in the bottom of the 7th inning. But they aren't getting out of the cellar any time soon. Like maybe for the rest of the 21st century. Worse, the entire National League is in the same boat, given the way the NLers lost the All Star game on Tuesday. The AL was losing in the bottom of the 9th with 2 out and two strikes on the batter . . . one pitch away from victory, the NL wound up giving it away to the AL. Again. This is the 10th time in the last 11 tries that the NL has lost the All Star Game. The only game the NL didn't lose was the game that ended in a tie after all the players on both teams had been used and the game had already gone many extra innings. Thank you, Commissioner Bud Selig. [I hope you can hear my sarcasm here.--Ed.]
Also losing this past fortnight was the public in general, and the defrauded former employees and shareholders of Enron in particular, what with the death by heart attack of former Enron CEO Ken Lay. No one gets to see Lay behind bars. No one gets to see even an iota of justice being served. No one will recoup the immense financial losses Lay's criminal behavior caused. Nor will anyone get the satisfaction of forcing Lay to recognize and admit that what he did was wrong. Even after his conviction, he maintained his innocence. I think he really believed it, too. And that is scary. What's even more scary is that Dubya still called Lay a "good man and a good friend," refusing to recognize the way Lay screwed over Enron's employees and the rest of us to boot. People who claim to be "born again" the way Lay did and who yet do the kinds of things Lay did give true followers of Jesus a bad name. Holy hypocrites like Lay deserve all the Hell they can suffer.
One can but hope that at least one "Lesson Of Enron" is that deregulation of public utilities is NOT a good thing. How people can study American history and not notice that it contains waves of financial scandals and swindles EVERY TIME business-related laws, rules, and regulations are relaxed, is beyond me. But then again, I have always maintained that the people running businesses and trading on the various stock exchanges these days all would have been pirates in the 18th century[and with apologies to Johnny Depp, who isn't that kind of pirate--Ed.], so maybe there's no way to stop them in any event. Sometimes, therefore, you lose.
And sometimes it rains. You can do everything right and still get a bad outcome. Here, I am thinking of this year's Kentucky Derby winner, Barbaro. Shocking enough that he shattered his right hind leg in the opening strides of the Preakness Stakes. Frighteningly hopeful that he seemed to be doing so well after getting a metal bar and 27 pins put in his leg. Devastating when his veterinary surgeon announced this week that Barbaro had developed laminitis in his other hind hoof and that his prognosis was now exceedingly poor.
Nevertheless, when it does rain, it eventually stops. Late yesterday I heard that Barbaro is still eating well, does not seem to be in pain, and is coping amazingly well with the additional cast and other medical procedures undertaken to keep him alive. His owners and his doctors are doing everything right. Their barometer is "how is the horse coping?" As long as he's coping well and seems to be in good spirits, they are going to do everything they can to keep him alive and pain-free. They won't give up until and unless he does. Good for them! Here's hoping that the rain stops, the flowers bloom, and Barbaro heals.
OK, so I'm still a child of the 60s. I still believe [clap for Tinkerbell!--Ed.] that individuals can contribute to changing the world for the better, that it's worth doing so, and that hope is alive. Not an easy belief system to maintain in the face of crushing 21st century angst, but I'm hanging on to it anyway. Where there is no hope, there is no real life. I prefer to live.
Sunday, June 25, 2006
B.C.? B.C.E.? It's All BS
The latest ugly manifestation of political correctness is hitting historians big time. Apparently, the use of "B.C." and "A.D." to indicate when something occurred is becoming taboo. Why? "B.C." stands for "before Christ" and "A.D." stands for "Anno Domini" ("in the year of the Lord"). Secularists and non-Christians find this less than polite, apparently. The use of "B.C.E." and "C.E." (for "Before Common Era" and "Common Era" respectively) is increasing in both written and televised parlance about all things historical.
What a load of crap!
Hey, I am all for treating people of different beliefs with as much respect as possible. However, "B.C." and "A.D." comprise a long-standing convention which is no longer of overtly religious significance. If you disagree, consider this: changing what one calls the time periods without changing the dates merely begs the question. What the heck happened that was so momentous that we made it a true dividing line in history in the first place?
Like Jesus or not, believe in Jesus as the Son of God and the only way to Eternal Salvation or not [and anyone who knows me knows I have my doubts.--Ed.], use "B.C." and "A.D." or not, or use "B.C.E." and "C.E." or not, you are still using the conventionally accepted date of Jesus' s birth as your dividing line.
Changing the names without changing the reason for them makes NO sense. Especially when "B.C.E." and "C.E." are more clunky on the tongue than "B.C." and "A.D." The suggestion of some historians, to use "B.C./B.C.E." and "A.D./C.E." is even worse, for obvious reasons.
Furthermore, and most telling for me, is this question: when will it stop? Will we have to recalculate the dates to compensate for the fact that historical evidence now suggests that Jesus was born in either 4 or 7 B.C., depending on whom you believe? How do you decide which of those dates to use as your dividing line to begin with?
And will we have to change the names of the days of the week after that? After all, unless you are a Viking (and I do not mean a Minnesotan or a Minnesota NFL team's player or fan), doesn't honoring gods like Wotan and Thor and Freia distress you?
C'mon already, people! Get your brains in gear, take a deep breath or two, and let it go. The system we have in place now is fine. You can keep your own calendar for your personal use--which I think the Chinese and the Jews already do, do they not? Isn't it presently something like the year 5700+ on either of their calendars?
But we need to have a standard frame of reference when dealing with one another, and "B.C." and "A.D." work well--and are used all over the globe. They are cultural artifacts. They tell us no more than what people in former times took as Truth. Doesn't mean we have to share those beliefs now--but we cannot change the fact that they believed it. The names of the days of the week we use illustrate exactly the same concept.
Remember: if your true concern is not offending someone else's religious sensibilities, you can't just change the names. You have to change the reason(s) behind choosing those names, too. We live quite well with the names of the days of the week as we have them now, and until recently, we have also so lived with "B.C." and "A.D." If it ain't broke, there's no need to fix it.
Besides, it would work a real hardship on Johnny Hart to stop using "B.C." now.
What a load of crap!
Hey, I am all for treating people of different beliefs with as much respect as possible. However, "B.C." and "A.D." comprise a long-standing convention which is no longer of overtly religious significance. If you disagree, consider this: changing what one calls the time periods without changing the dates merely begs the question. What the heck happened that was so momentous that we made it a true dividing line in history in the first place?
Like Jesus or not, believe in Jesus as the Son of God and the only way to Eternal Salvation or not [and anyone who knows me knows I have my doubts.--Ed.], use "B.C." and "A.D." or not, or use "B.C.E." and "C.E." or not, you are still using the conventionally accepted date of Jesus' s birth as your dividing line.
Changing the names without changing the reason for them makes NO sense. Especially when "B.C.E." and "C.E." are more clunky on the tongue than "B.C." and "A.D." The suggestion of some historians, to use "B.C./B.C.E." and "A.D./C.E." is even worse, for obvious reasons.
Furthermore, and most telling for me, is this question: when will it stop? Will we have to recalculate the dates to compensate for the fact that historical evidence now suggests that Jesus was born in either 4 or 7 B.C., depending on whom you believe? How do you decide which of those dates to use as your dividing line to begin with?
And will we have to change the names of the days of the week after that? After all, unless you are a Viking (and I do not mean a Minnesotan or a Minnesota NFL team's player or fan), doesn't honoring gods like Wotan and Thor and Freia distress you?
C'mon already, people! Get your brains in gear, take a deep breath or two, and let it go. The system we have in place now is fine. You can keep your own calendar for your personal use--which I think the Chinese and the Jews already do, do they not? Isn't it presently something like the year 5700+ on either of their calendars?
But we need to have a standard frame of reference when dealing with one another, and "B.C." and "A.D." work well--and are used all over the globe. They are cultural artifacts. They tell us no more than what people in former times took as Truth. Doesn't mean we have to share those beliefs now--but we cannot change the fact that they believed it. The names of the days of the week we use illustrate exactly the same concept.
Remember: if your true concern is not offending someone else's religious sensibilities, you can't just change the names. You have to change the reason(s) behind choosing those names, too. We live quite well with the names of the days of the week as we have them now, and until recently, we have also so lived with "B.C." and "A.D." If it ain't broke, there's no need to fix it.
Besides, it would work a real hardship on Johnny Hart to stop using "B.C." now.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
La Tour de Farce Continues
Lance Armstrong, cancer survivor and 7-time winner of the Tour de France, is being dogged yet again by allegations that he admitted to doping in 1986, three years before his first Tour win in 1999.
He, of course, emphatically denies the allegations.
French newspaper Le Monde says that Armstrong's former teammate Frankie Andreu and his wife Betsy testified under oath that they heard Armstrong admit to doping in response to his doctors' questions while he was in the hospital in 1986, after undergoing brain surgery to remove tumors that had spread there from his testicular cancer.
I am of two minds about this. On one hand, NO competent doctor would ever ask such a question in anything other than a confidential setting. There is nothing to suggest that Armstrong's doctors were not competent. There is nothing in his medical records confirming that the doctors ever elicited such information from him, or that he volunteered such information. If Armstrong ever had made such statements, they would have been included in his medical records because such information would be critical to the course and nature of his treatment and recovery.
Besides, the man had just undergone brain surgery. I have a suspicion that his speech may not have been totally clear or coherent given what he'd just undergone. Who knows what it may have sounded like he said?
On the other hand, testicular cancer is a known risk of using steroids and other illegal doping agents. It is also a relatively rare cancer--and, I suspect, its presence played a role in outing Jason Giambi's past steroid use in major league baseball (but that's a story for another day).
In addition, the testimony from the Andreus came as part of the defense against a suit Armstrong brought against a company which was refusing to pay Armstrong a multimillion dollar bonus for his 2004 Tour win. The company lost the suit, and had to pay Armstrong the bonus plus an additional two million dollar penalty. The arbitration panel did not believe the Andreus' testimony in light of all the other evidence to the contrary.
So why would the Andreus make such questionable allegations? Armstrong says that they all at one time were good friends, but that Betsy now hated him and Frankie felt he had to support his wife. [Who knows? Maybe the company trying not to pay Armstrong promised them a lesser, but still substantial amount of money for their testimony. This is PURE speculation on my part, but someone ought to look into it.--Ed.]
I know the French press has it in for Armstrong. I know that people are capable of lying about things to an absurd degree for whatever perceived personal justifications they may have. I know that normally, one can deduce that the person who is lying is the one who has more to lose if the truth be revealed. But I cannot get past the fact that competent doctors would never ask a patient for such information in a non-confidential setting. So for now, I remain in Armstrong's corner in the face of this latest round of vitriol.
He, of course, emphatically denies the allegations.
French newspaper Le Monde says that Armstrong's former teammate Frankie Andreu and his wife Betsy testified under oath that they heard Armstrong admit to doping in response to his doctors' questions while he was in the hospital in 1986, after undergoing brain surgery to remove tumors that had spread there from his testicular cancer.
I am of two minds about this. On one hand, NO competent doctor would ever ask such a question in anything other than a confidential setting. There is nothing to suggest that Armstrong's doctors were not competent. There is nothing in his medical records confirming that the doctors ever elicited such information from him, or that he volunteered such information. If Armstrong ever had made such statements, they would have been included in his medical records because such information would be critical to the course and nature of his treatment and recovery.
Besides, the man had just undergone brain surgery. I have a suspicion that his speech may not have been totally clear or coherent given what he'd just undergone. Who knows what it may have sounded like he said?
On the other hand, testicular cancer is a known risk of using steroids and other illegal doping agents. It is also a relatively rare cancer--and, I suspect, its presence played a role in outing Jason Giambi's past steroid use in major league baseball (but that's a story for another day).
In addition, the testimony from the Andreus came as part of the defense against a suit Armstrong brought against a company which was refusing to pay Armstrong a multimillion dollar bonus for his 2004 Tour win. The company lost the suit, and had to pay Armstrong the bonus plus an additional two million dollar penalty. The arbitration panel did not believe the Andreus' testimony in light of all the other evidence to the contrary.
So why would the Andreus make such questionable allegations? Armstrong says that they all at one time were good friends, but that Betsy now hated him and Frankie felt he had to support his wife. [Who knows? Maybe the company trying not to pay Armstrong promised them a lesser, but still substantial amount of money for their testimony. This is PURE speculation on my part, but someone ought to look into it.--Ed.]
I know the French press has it in for Armstrong. I know that people are capable of lying about things to an absurd degree for whatever perceived personal justifications they may have. I know that normally, one can deduce that the person who is lying is the one who has more to lose if the truth be revealed. But I cannot get past the fact that competent doctors would never ask a patient for such information in a non-confidential setting. So for now, I remain in Armstrong's corner in the face of this latest round of vitriol.
Friday, June 16, 2006
Questions For Which I'd Really Like Some Sensible Answers
The Supremes are at it again. In a 5-4 vote, the US Supreme Court just said that the police do not have to "knock and announce" before implementing a search warrant. If the cops went right on in, any evidence they found pursuant to the warrant would not be excluded just because they didn't first let the occupants know they were coming. Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion, and the newest justice, Samuel Alito, apparently was the swing vote. The case had been argued twice, once before Sandra Day O'Connor retired, and once after. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the dissent. [So we also get a clearer picture of how the balance of power has moved to the right on the Court.--Ed.]
My question pertains to Scalia's logic. He asserted at one point in the majority opinion that since the police had a warrant, it simply didn't matter whether they "knocked and announced." If it makes no difference, why not just do it? The only answer I can come up with is that this opinion is an early volley in the extreme right wing attack to end the exclusionary rule and eviscerate the Fourth Amendment. That is an answer I do not like and of which I am deeply afraid. I have to agree with Justice Kennedy in his dissent, who asserted that the exclusionary rule is settled law. Changing it now is blatant judicial activism.
Nevertheless, I'll bet the right-wingers who froth at the mouth at activist judges won't bat an eye at Scalia's opinion in this case. After all, the results agree with their predilections. So that's my next question: why can't people just be honest about their prejudices instead of hiding behind so-called "higher principles"?
Or do people really not see the contradictions in their claimed beliefs vs. their actual behavior? Are we really collectively so imprecise and uncaring? Or so dumb?
* * * * * * * * * *
This brings another subject to mind. I heard a Spanish radio announcer on NPR yesterday railing against the idea to make English the official language of the United States. His argument seemed to be that since Spanish was here already anyway, we cannot stop it, so we shouldn't even try. Besides, he claimed, no one is going to stop anyone from speaking Spanish at home, in their cars, at restaurants and grocery stores, and the like.
But that's NOT what the "English as official language" notion is about. It pertains strictly to official business, like dealings with the government at every level. An official language means only that the government's business is done in English. People in their personal lives are free to speak as they wish. What is wrong with that?
One of my uncles says it's unfair, because it takes a full three generations for immigrants to assimilate. But I'm not talking about assimilation. I'm talking about simple, basic transactions. When I lived in Germany, I wouldn't have dreamed of trying to force the Germans to deal with me in English. My German, bad as it was, would have to do. After all, I was a guest in their country. If they spoke English to me because their English was better than my German, so be it. But it's always the host's choice, not the guest's.
Don't get me wrong. I continued to use English in my personal life--it is, after all, my native tongue. Besides, I do have some heartburn about the fact that my great grandparents were so eager to assimilate that they lost their native Irish and didn't pass it along to their children and their children's children and their children's children's children. I'm as proud of my ethnic heritage as anyone. But I am an American first.
Too many people in this entire debate seem to forget that for a nation to survive, it needs a fundamental unified identity. Traditionally, language and ethnicity did the trick. But we are in the "melting pot" (personally, I prefer the idea of a "salad bowl," because the contents are diverse and clearly identified individually, but exist in harmony with the other ingredients). Language is what's left. That, and the dedication to the American ideal as expressed through the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Being an American is being in a certain state of mind . . . and to an awful lot of us, forcing official multilingualism on us takes away that state of mind. It makes us no longer America.
Please do not misinterpret me. I am all for multilingualism--the better we can understand each other, the less likely we are to have a world-demolishing war. But we also need to preserve the core of what America is if we are to preserve America. There are no easy answers. I do know that insisting we must yield American English is not the best way to foster understanding or to come to an answer that satisfies everyone. Or that satisfies no one, entirely. That's the genius of compromise, and that, too, is part of the essence of being American. Of course, a lot of Americans don't get that, either, so I guess I should not be surprised.
* * * * * * * * * *
I see that Tom Delay is now officially gone. Thank goodness! Not only is he corrupt. He also is one of the Americans who doesn't "get it." In his farewell to Congress, he was as defiant as ever; he said if he had it to do all over again, he'd be even less willing to compromise than he was before. For him, "compromise" seems to be a dirty word. Where the heck was he during civics classes? Not paying attention, obviously.
This whole "my way or the highway" approach to government is why we are in a lot of the mess we are in at the moment, with gridlock, deadlock, and partisan acrimony. So where are true statesmen when we need them, anyway?
My question pertains to Scalia's logic. He asserted at one point in the majority opinion that since the police had a warrant, it simply didn't matter whether they "knocked and announced." If it makes no difference, why not just do it? The only answer I can come up with is that this opinion is an early volley in the extreme right wing attack to end the exclusionary rule and eviscerate the Fourth Amendment. That is an answer I do not like and of which I am deeply afraid. I have to agree with Justice Kennedy in his dissent, who asserted that the exclusionary rule is settled law. Changing it now is blatant judicial activism.
Nevertheless, I'll bet the right-wingers who froth at the mouth at activist judges won't bat an eye at Scalia's opinion in this case. After all, the results agree with their predilections. So that's my next question: why can't people just be honest about their prejudices instead of hiding behind so-called "higher principles"?
Or do people really not see the contradictions in their claimed beliefs vs. their actual behavior? Are we really collectively so imprecise and uncaring? Or so dumb?
* * * * * * * * * *
This brings another subject to mind. I heard a Spanish radio announcer on NPR yesterday railing against the idea to make English the official language of the United States. His argument seemed to be that since Spanish was here already anyway, we cannot stop it, so we shouldn't even try. Besides, he claimed, no one is going to stop anyone from speaking Spanish at home, in their cars, at restaurants and grocery stores, and the like.
But that's NOT what the "English as official language" notion is about. It pertains strictly to official business, like dealings with the government at every level. An official language means only that the government's business is done in English. People in their personal lives are free to speak as they wish. What is wrong with that?
One of my uncles says it's unfair, because it takes a full three generations for immigrants to assimilate. But I'm not talking about assimilation. I'm talking about simple, basic transactions. When I lived in Germany, I wouldn't have dreamed of trying to force the Germans to deal with me in English. My German, bad as it was, would have to do. After all, I was a guest in their country. If they spoke English to me because their English was better than my German, so be it. But it's always the host's choice, not the guest's.
Don't get me wrong. I continued to use English in my personal life--it is, after all, my native tongue. Besides, I do have some heartburn about the fact that my great grandparents were so eager to assimilate that they lost their native Irish and didn't pass it along to their children and their children's children and their children's children's children. I'm as proud of my ethnic heritage as anyone. But I am an American first.
Too many people in this entire debate seem to forget that for a nation to survive, it needs a fundamental unified identity. Traditionally, language and ethnicity did the trick. But we are in the "melting pot" (personally, I prefer the idea of a "salad bowl," because the contents are diverse and clearly identified individually, but exist in harmony with the other ingredients). Language is what's left. That, and the dedication to the American ideal as expressed through the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Being an American is being in a certain state of mind . . . and to an awful lot of us, forcing official multilingualism on us takes away that state of mind. It makes us no longer America.
Please do not misinterpret me. I am all for multilingualism--the better we can understand each other, the less likely we are to have a world-demolishing war. But we also need to preserve the core of what America is if we are to preserve America. There are no easy answers. I do know that insisting we must yield American English is not the best way to foster understanding or to come to an answer that satisfies everyone. Or that satisfies no one, entirely. That's the genius of compromise, and that, too, is part of the essence of being American. Of course, a lot of Americans don't get that, either, so I guess I should not be surprised.
* * * * * * * * * *
I see that Tom Delay is now officially gone. Thank goodness! Not only is he corrupt. He also is one of the Americans who doesn't "get it." In his farewell to Congress, he was as defiant as ever; he said if he had it to do all over again, he'd be even less willing to compromise than he was before. For him, "compromise" seems to be a dirty word. Where the heck was he during civics classes? Not paying attention, obviously.
This whole "my way or the highway" approach to government is why we are in a lot of the mess we are in at the moment, with gridlock, deadlock, and partisan acrimony. So where are true statesmen when we need them, anyway?
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Just Because You're A Super-Bowl-Winning QB Doesn't Mean You Have A Brain
I am relieved to learn that Ben Roethlisberger, the youngest quarterback to take his team (the Pittsburgh Steelers) to a Super Bowl victory, has not in fact injured his knees in the motorcycle accident in which he was involved yesterday. Early news reports said it wasn't just his face that got smashed when a car turned into the lane in which he was riding his Suzuki--and if those news reports had been correct, Roethlisberger's career may well have been over. As it is, his injuries were nothing to pooh-pooh. He broke his jaw, had several facial fractures, and lost some teeth.
All this because he wasn't wearing a helmet. Pennsylvania has no mandatory helmet law. He doesn't "feel free" when riding with a helmet on, so he won't wear one when he doesn't have to do so. And no one who is not his boss will ever tell him what to do. [Ah, excess testosterone! It can be wonderful--on the football field, ferinstance--and it can be bad news indeed--nearly everywhere else.--Ed.] Ben actually said these things on camera in an ESPN interview last year, after Kellen Winslow crashed his motorcycle and suffered probable career-ending injuries.
Ben, Ben, Ben! At the age of 24, you've achieved fame and fortune few ever experience . . . and you've mastered a complicated play book and obviously are good at making snap (pun intended) decisions on the football field . . . but you sure haven't applied your brains to your off-the-field behavior.
There are two vital things you've forgotten to consider in your need to "feel free," to wit: (1) concrete has a 100% record. It always wins. (2) You cannot control what the other people on the road are doing. You can say you are a safe and cautious rider and that you don't take chances, but you share the road with vehicles which are much heavier than your bike, and which may well be driven by drunk, drugged-out, or otherwise distracted drivers--who might not even see you before they plow their SUVs [Jay Leno once called them SubUrban assault Vehicles. He's not just funny--he's smart.--Ed] into you and your unprotected head and body.
Let's all hope that Ben learns something from what happened to him. Let's all hope that Ben doesn't take the lucky break (pun intended) that he suffered relatively minor injuries, considering, as a vindication of his need to "feel free" and ride without a helmet. Let's all hope that we never again hear the name Roethlisberger connected to news reports from outside a hospital of a horrible accident he suffered on his motorcycle.
In fine, let's all hope that Ben literally got some sense knocked into him.
All this because he wasn't wearing a helmet. Pennsylvania has no mandatory helmet law. He doesn't "feel free" when riding with a helmet on, so he won't wear one when he doesn't have to do so. And no one who is not his boss will ever tell him what to do. [Ah, excess testosterone! It can be wonderful--on the football field, ferinstance--and it can be bad news indeed--nearly everywhere else.--Ed.] Ben actually said these things on camera in an ESPN interview last year, after Kellen Winslow crashed his motorcycle and suffered probable career-ending injuries.
Ben, Ben, Ben! At the age of 24, you've achieved fame and fortune few ever experience . . . and you've mastered a complicated play book and obviously are good at making snap (pun intended) decisions on the football field . . . but you sure haven't applied your brains to your off-the-field behavior.
There are two vital things you've forgotten to consider in your need to "feel free," to wit: (1) concrete has a 100% record. It always wins. (2) You cannot control what the other people on the road are doing. You can say you are a safe and cautious rider and that you don't take chances, but you share the road with vehicles which are much heavier than your bike, and which may well be driven by drunk, drugged-out, or otherwise distracted drivers--who might not even see you before they plow their SUVs [Jay Leno once called them SubUrban assault Vehicles. He's not just funny--he's smart.--Ed] into you and your unprotected head and body.
Let's all hope that Ben learns something from what happened to him. Let's all hope that Ben doesn't take the lucky break (pun intended) that he suffered relatively minor injuries, considering, as a vindication of his need to "feel free" and ride without a helmet. Let's all hope that we never again hear the name Roethlisberger connected to news reports from outside a hospital of a horrible accident he suffered on his motorcycle.
In fine, let's all hope that Ben literally got some sense knocked into him.
Monday, June 05, 2006
Ain't Vindication Grand?
I just heard on NPR's Marketplace Morning Report that General Nutrition Centers (GNC) will stop carrying televangelist Pat Robertson's protein shake . . . because the powers that be at GNC have determined that Robertson is lying about being able to leg press 2,000 pounds.
As anyone who is reading this thing knows, I surmised last week that he was making that absurd claim in order to sell his concoction. And that's before I knew that GNC was the retailer doing the merchandising!
Pardon me while I "pat" myself on the back. (Actually, I am gloating, but I try not to be too obvious!)
As anyone who is reading this thing knows, I surmised last week that he was making that absurd claim in order to sell his concoction. And that's before I knew that GNC was the retailer doing the merchandising!
Pardon me while I "pat" myself on the back. (Actually, I am gloating, but I try not to be too obvious!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)