If I didn't know better, I'd begin to believe that my name was Alice and I have found myself down a rabbit hole . . . because there seems to be an ever-increasing disconnect between reality and how people are reacting to certain events of the world.
Ferinstance: the White Sox?!?!?!? In a sweep!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Ferinstance the second: Harriet Miers's withdrawal of her nomination to the Supreme Court. I never found her lack of judicial experience a flaw--the Constitution does not require that judges only are eligible for selection to the highest court in the land. Heck, the Constitution doesn't even require that nominees be attorneys!
The Founding Fathers were onto something there. The Court could use a non-lawyer or two. And I am speaking as someone who graduated in the top 10 (not top 10%, top ten) of her law school class. Lawyers get so caught up in the niceties of the law that they can forget how reality works. An example: there is a legal concept that someone who is drunk has diminished capacity and thus is less responsible than a sober person would be for his actions which resulted in harm to another. As a purely intellectual exercise, I understand that. However, as a human being I object to the entire concept. No one poured the booze down the drinker's throat. Why can't it be said that since the drinker knew he was drinking, which by definition put him at risk of drinking to excess, he assumed the risk of having to take full responsibility for whatever harm he caused while drunk?
Anyway, I seemed to be in the minority, but I actually thought Miers's lack of ivory tower experience in exchange for "real world" experience was a plus for her. Oh, well. It's moot now.
My objection to Miers was that she seemed to be the sort of person who would say whatever she thought her audience wanted to hear . . . and that she didn't seem to have a serious grasp of certain Constitutional issues and principles to boot. In a written questionnaire submitted to her some time ago by a right wing group, she said she would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned. Yet some time later, in a speech before a women's group in Texas, she said she would work to protect a woman's right to choose. I do think that, lawyer or not, judge or not, someone who is nominated to sit on the Supreme Court ought to have a basic philosophy of life other than (and higher than) naked expediency.
As I said, however, it's moot now. But before I thank the gods for that, I must warn us all to brace ourselves--because whomever Dubya nominates now may be 1000 times worse than Miers ever could have been. I sense a "be careful what you ask for" moment coming. That leaves me in a state of generalized dread.
Another, but milder, disconnect: "Scooter" Libby has been indicted, not for violating any laws about revealing the name of a covert CIA agent, but for lying about whether he revealed the name. As with Watergate, it's not the act, it's the coverup, that's going to bring the bad guys down. And yet Karl Rove remains unindicted . . . for the moment. Don't get me wrong: I understand entirely prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's rationale for indicting Libby as he has. Fitzgerald knows he can prove the lies, which constitute perjury, making false statements, and obstruction of justice; he doesn't yet have the evidence, largely because of the lies, to indict for the underlying violation. Emphasize yet. I hope he doesn't stop there, despite what George Stephanopolous said about Fitzpatrick's body language indicating that he's done, because there is obviously more dastardliness to be revealed.
Will the true believers get it, however? No. They are still claiming that Dubya was not wrong to go into Iraq because "the intelligence was faulty." They are conveniently ignoring the fact that Dubya knew the intelligence was faulty and insisted on using it anyway, but that's because that's not what they want to hear.
And more than 2000 of our precious troops are dead. I agree with John Kerry on this one. It's time to get our act together in terms of pulling out. The Iraqis have their new constitution; let them fight it out amongst themselves as to what final form it will take. The longer we stay, the more we are naught but a recruiting tool for Al Quaida.
And a few random disconnects to complete the missive: have you ever noticed that the people who assure us that "money isn't everything" are the people who have all the money?
Likewise, the people who say "money can't buy happiness" are in complete denial about the misery that the lack of money can cause--especially when the lack of money interferes with getting decent health care or other basic necessities of life.
Likewise, the people who squawk the most about people needing to take "personal responsibility" for their actions are the ones who won't take same for their own misdeeds. Whenever this is pointed out to them, they switch to the tactic of blaming the victim. Neither leopards nor cheetahs (say it with a Bostonian accent to get "cheaters") ever change their spots, apparently.
And now for something completely different: God bless Rosa Parks. I'll bet she's sitting at the very front of St. Peter's bus.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Saturday, October 15, 2005
On Hurricanes And Other Actors On The Human Condition
I have been overwhelmed by the events surrounding hurricanes Katrina and Rita and their aftermaths. And yet the natural disasters just keep coming. New Jersey and New Hampshire, among other places along the Atlantic coast, presently seem to be under water . . . Pakistan is shaking itself to pieces, literally; it's already snowing blizzards in Colorado; and we're experiencing long-term drought in eastern Nebraska.
Right after Katrina, a lot of "pundits" wrote letters to the editor of the Omaha World-Herald, suggesting (often in impolite terms) that New Orleans did not deserve to be rebuilt and that it would be a waste of money to do so.
If we followed that philosophy, no one would be able to live anywhere. We'd have abandoned San Francisco in 1906 (and 1988), Tucson in 1983 (flooding), Galveston at the turn of the last century, much of Florida after hurricane season (pick your year), Grand Island, Nebraska after the night of the 9 tornadoes, and so on.
Face it, folks. Life is risk. There is no place 100% safe to live. [Personally, and after having lived in/near all of the above-mentioned areas and in Southeast Asia besides, I prefer to stay in Nebraska: if a tornado comes, one has a possibility of NOT being smacked, but when any of the other named natural disasters occur, if you're where they are happening, you are smacked.--Ed.] Besides, we need to live in these "dangerous" places: they have ports, natural resources, gorgeous scenery, and other advantages we deem necessary for modern life.
What we need to stop doing is trying to control nature, for that seems only to increase the magnitude of the inevitable disasters when they occur. We must not destroy our wetlands (indeed, we must restore them), we must work to stop global warming, we must build with known technologies (and also develop new technologies) that let buildings survive earthquakes, storm surges, mudslides, and the like . . . and we need to remember that we are all in this together. More cooperation and less sniping are always in order.
If we'd learn to build and inhabit with nature and each other in mind, we'd better survive the storms of life, and better preserve the planet for our progeny to boot.
* * * * * * * * *
Coincidentally, I've just finished reading two books with widely divergent subjects, yet each deeply resonant after the present spate of natural disasters. The Children's Blizzard, by David Laskin, recounts the events and aftermath of a blizzard that hit the northern Midwest on January 12 and 13, 1888, wherein an inordinate number of children died because the storm came up suddenly just as they were leaving their rural schools for the day. "In three minutes, the front subtracted eighteen decrees from the air's temperature. Then evening gathered in and temperatures kept dropping in the northwest gale. By morning on Friday, January 13, 1888, more than a hundred children lay dead on the Dakota-Nebraska prairie . . ." (emphasis added)
The Great Mortality, by John Kelly, tells "the intimate History of the Black Death, the Most Devastating Plague of All Time."
Both books are so well-written that they read like novels, not like dry, dusty, self-important "History." Both books reveal the spectrum of human reaction, from selfless bravery to selfish venality, in the face of nearly incomprehensible events. And both books in their analysis show that some things don't change, no matter the time, the place, or the circumstances.
In The Children's Blizzard, one of the sub-stories is that of the fledgling federal weather service, some of its members' interactions with local bigwigs with clout, and those members' ouster in the face of the need always to find and punish scapegoats while letting the real architects of disaster off the hook. [Whatever happened to 'the buck stops here,' anyway?--Ed.] In The Great Mortality, one of the sub-stories contrasts what happened in the aftermath of plague in England as opposed to on the continent, concluding that "[s]ocial cohesion is a complex phenomenon, but applied gently--with respect for the vast differences in time and place--the Broken Windows theory of human behavior may speak to the relatively low level of upheaval in Black Death England.
"The theory, which informs much modern police work, holds that the physical environment buttresses the psychological environment the way a beam buttresses a roof. Why? Broken windows, dirty streets, abandoned cars, boarded-up storefronts, empty grass- and refuse-covered lots send the message: 'No one is in charge here.' And when authority and leadership break down, people become more prone to lawlessness, violence, and despair."
Eerie, isn't it? The hair on the back of my neck stood up when I read that, because the reported chaos in New Orleans fit that description exactly.
And yet, I wonder. Does the theory drive our perceptions, or do our perceptions drive the theory? After all, much of what was alleged to have happened in New Orleans in the wake of Katrina in actuality did not--I refer to the rapes, the robberies, the massively reported looting, and the shootings and beatings and what not. As more time passes, and better perspective is gained, we are finding that members of the Fourth Estate were so eager to get scoops on the air that they didn't check their facts first. And then the alleged horror stories took on lives of their own, and became embedded in our memories AS IF they were 100% fact, when they were in fact mostly false.
We have a microcosm of the birth of an urban legend here, methinks.
Don't misunderstand me. I do think the Broken Windows theory of human behavior is a good one. I've seen it myself. Neighborhoods that clean up and erase gang-related graffiti quickly after it appears have much less trouble with gang-related crimes than do neighborhoods which allow the graffiti to stay and besmirch them. But it's like any other stereotype: rooted in an observable fact, it can and has become so distorted and rigid that it becomes 100% true in people's minds despite being an incomplete description of isolated, specific behavior in one particular instance. So, did we see the rampant violence and lawlessness in New Orleans because that's what we expected to see, or did what we (thought we) saw shape our interpretation of events?
I am not sure what all this means. Every generation bemoans the declines in civilization and civility it sees as its children and grandchildren take over running the world . . . and this has been true for thousands upon thousands of years. Seems to me that we'd have hit bottom long ago if the naysayers in the older generations were completely right.
We must remember that difference does not inevitably equal decay.
And yet, when I compare "Cry havoc! And let slip the dogs of war!" to "Who let the dogs out?" I wonder.
Right after Katrina, a lot of "pundits" wrote letters to the editor of the Omaha World-Herald, suggesting (often in impolite terms) that New Orleans did not deserve to be rebuilt and that it would be a waste of money to do so.
If we followed that philosophy, no one would be able to live anywhere. We'd have abandoned San Francisco in 1906 (and 1988), Tucson in 1983 (flooding), Galveston at the turn of the last century, much of Florida after hurricane season (pick your year), Grand Island, Nebraska after the night of the 9 tornadoes, and so on.
Face it, folks. Life is risk. There is no place 100% safe to live. [Personally, and after having lived in/near all of the above-mentioned areas and in Southeast Asia besides, I prefer to stay in Nebraska: if a tornado comes, one has a possibility of NOT being smacked, but when any of the other named natural disasters occur, if you're where they are happening, you are smacked.--Ed.] Besides, we need to live in these "dangerous" places: they have ports, natural resources, gorgeous scenery, and other advantages we deem necessary for modern life.
What we need to stop doing is trying to control nature, for that seems only to increase the magnitude of the inevitable disasters when they occur. We must not destroy our wetlands (indeed, we must restore them), we must work to stop global warming, we must build with known technologies (and also develop new technologies) that let buildings survive earthquakes, storm surges, mudslides, and the like . . . and we need to remember that we are all in this together. More cooperation and less sniping are always in order.
If we'd learn to build and inhabit with nature and each other in mind, we'd better survive the storms of life, and better preserve the planet for our progeny to boot.
* * * * * * * * *
Coincidentally, I've just finished reading two books with widely divergent subjects, yet each deeply resonant after the present spate of natural disasters. The Children's Blizzard, by David Laskin, recounts the events and aftermath of a blizzard that hit the northern Midwest on January 12 and 13, 1888, wherein an inordinate number of children died because the storm came up suddenly just as they were leaving their rural schools for the day. "In three minutes, the front subtracted eighteen decrees from the air's temperature. Then evening gathered in and temperatures kept dropping in the northwest gale. By morning on Friday, January 13, 1888, more than a hundred children lay dead on the Dakota-Nebraska prairie . . ." (emphasis added)
The Great Mortality, by John Kelly, tells "the intimate History of the Black Death, the Most Devastating Plague of All Time."
Both books are so well-written that they read like novels, not like dry, dusty, self-important "History." Both books reveal the spectrum of human reaction, from selfless bravery to selfish venality, in the face of nearly incomprehensible events. And both books in their analysis show that some things don't change, no matter the time, the place, or the circumstances.
In The Children's Blizzard, one of the sub-stories is that of the fledgling federal weather service, some of its members' interactions with local bigwigs with clout, and those members' ouster in the face of the need always to find and punish scapegoats while letting the real architects of disaster off the hook. [Whatever happened to 'the buck stops here,' anyway?--Ed.] In The Great Mortality, one of the sub-stories contrasts what happened in the aftermath of plague in England as opposed to on the continent, concluding that "[s]ocial cohesion is a complex phenomenon, but applied gently--with respect for the vast differences in time and place--the Broken Windows theory of human behavior may speak to the relatively low level of upheaval in Black Death England.
"The theory, which informs much modern police work, holds that the physical environment buttresses the psychological environment the way a beam buttresses a roof. Why? Broken windows, dirty streets, abandoned cars, boarded-up storefronts, empty grass- and refuse-covered lots send the message: 'No one is in charge here.' And when authority and leadership break down, people become more prone to lawlessness, violence, and despair."
Eerie, isn't it? The hair on the back of my neck stood up when I read that, because the reported chaos in New Orleans fit that description exactly.
And yet, I wonder. Does the theory drive our perceptions, or do our perceptions drive the theory? After all, much of what was alleged to have happened in New Orleans in the wake of Katrina in actuality did not--I refer to the rapes, the robberies, the massively reported looting, and the shootings and beatings and what not. As more time passes, and better perspective is gained, we are finding that members of the Fourth Estate were so eager to get scoops on the air that they didn't check their facts first. And then the alleged horror stories took on lives of their own, and became embedded in our memories AS IF they were 100% fact, when they were in fact mostly false.
We have a microcosm of the birth of an urban legend here, methinks.
Don't misunderstand me. I do think the Broken Windows theory of human behavior is a good one. I've seen it myself. Neighborhoods that clean up and erase gang-related graffiti quickly after it appears have much less trouble with gang-related crimes than do neighborhoods which allow the graffiti to stay and besmirch them. But it's like any other stereotype: rooted in an observable fact, it can and has become so distorted and rigid that it becomes 100% true in people's minds despite being an incomplete description of isolated, specific behavior in one particular instance. So, did we see the rampant violence and lawlessness in New Orleans because that's what we expected to see, or did what we (thought we) saw shape our interpretation of events?
I am not sure what all this means. Every generation bemoans the declines in civilization and civility it sees as its children and grandchildren take over running the world . . . and this has been true for thousands upon thousands of years. Seems to me that we'd have hit bottom long ago if the naysayers in the older generations were completely right.
We must remember that difference does not inevitably equal decay.
And yet, when I compare "Cry havoc! And let slip the dogs of war!" to "Who let the dogs out?" I wonder.
What I Did On My Autumn Vacation
Mens sana in corpore sano.
Well, those of you who know me know that I was forced to give up on the corpore sano part quite some time ago . . . but I am doing my best to maintain a sound mind. Believe it or not!
How do I do that? I like to do the NY Times Sunday crossword puzzle--in ink. My goal is not just to finish it, but to finish it without making any errors. I have even achieved that goal more than once. I would have achieved it even more than I have if I were more careful about making sure I was entering answers in the right boxes.
I recently got hooked on the new puzzle craze, Sudoku. I completely wrecked 2 of the first 5 puzzles I tried, but I think I have the hang of it now. The goal is to enter each of the numbers 1 through 9 into a grid of 81 squares (subdivided into 9 three by three mini grids) so that each number appears once and only once across each row of 9, down each column of 9, and in each mini grid of 9. A few numbers are already filled in to get one started.
It's really a process of elimination. My approach is to figure out what numbers can possibly fit in each open square. This is done by seeing what numbers cannot be entered because they are already in the intersecting column, row, or mini grid. Then, looking at each available possibility, one will find at least one open square that has only one possible entry. Enter that, then remove it as a possibility from each other open square in its column, row, or mini grid, and so on and so forth.
If you get stuck, look at a row or column that has most of its numbers entered, and figure out what numbers must be used to complete the 1 through 9 sequence. That will eliminate certain other possibilities (which still must be used in the appropriate mini grid), and allow you to enter another number or two.
And you proceed, thinking outside the box while working within the boxes, until you get to a point where there's only one possible number left for each open square, and then complete the puzzle.
But my real passion of late has become the three dimensional jigsaw puzzles known as Puzz 3-D.
Alas, my kitties like them too. The foam on the back of each piece, which is what makes it suitable for 3-D construction, is wonderfully firm yet chewy. So I must be very careful about when and where I construct, and I have to keep my finished products in a room closed off from the "kids."
I've done the Cologne Cathedral, Notre Dame de Paris, Neuschwanstein (that was close to being irritating: just how many subtle variations in the color white are there, anyway?), the Sistine Chapel--which is neat because many of the pieces have pictures on both sides, so that you can open the roof and see Michangelo's famous ceiling and his Last Judgment--a Bavarian wall clock, with working clockworks, a mini (33" tall) grandfather clock, also with working clockworks, the Eiffel Tower, the Leaning Tower of Pisa, the London clocktower we Americans mistakenly call Big Ben, and la piece de la resistance, "New York, New York."
That's the largest and most complicated Puzz 3-D of all, with over 3100 pieces, and it includes not only the Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building, but the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center.
It took me the better part of two weeks. It was worth every second.
I wonder if I'll live long enough to be able to transplant my brain into a working body.
Well, those of you who know me know that I was forced to give up on the corpore sano part quite some time ago . . . but I am doing my best to maintain a sound mind. Believe it or not!
How do I do that? I like to do the NY Times Sunday crossword puzzle--in ink. My goal is not just to finish it, but to finish it without making any errors. I have even achieved that goal more than once. I would have achieved it even more than I have if I were more careful about making sure I was entering answers in the right boxes.
I recently got hooked on the new puzzle craze, Sudoku. I completely wrecked 2 of the first 5 puzzles I tried, but I think I have the hang of it now. The goal is to enter each of the numbers 1 through 9 into a grid of 81 squares (subdivided into 9 three by three mini grids) so that each number appears once and only once across each row of 9, down each column of 9, and in each mini grid of 9. A few numbers are already filled in to get one started.
It's really a process of elimination. My approach is to figure out what numbers can possibly fit in each open square. This is done by seeing what numbers cannot be entered because they are already in the intersecting column, row, or mini grid. Then, looking at each available possibility, one will find at least one open square that has only one possible entry. Enter that, then remove it as a possibility from each other open square in its column, row, or mini grid, and so on and so forth.
If you get stuck, look at a row or column that has most of its numbers entered, and figure out what numbers must be used to complete the 1 through 9 sequence. That will eliminate certain other possibilities (which still must be used in the appropriate mini grid), and allow you to enter another number or two.
And you proceed, thinking outside the box while working within the boxes, until you get to a point where there's only one possible number left for each open square, and then complete the puzzle.
But my real passion of late has become the three dimensional jigsaw puzzles known as Puzz 3-D.
Alas, my kitties like them too. The foam on the back of each piece, which is what makes it suitable for 3-D construction, is wonderfully firm yet chewy. So I must be very careful about when and where I construct, and I have to keep my finished products in a room closed off from the "kids."
I've done the Cologne Cathedral, Notre Dame de Paris, Neuschwanstein (that was close to being irritating: just how many subtle variations in the color white are there, anyway?), the Sistine Chapel--which is neat because many of the pieces have pictures on both sides, so that you can open the roof and see Michangelo's famous ceiling and his Last Judgment--a Bavarian wall clock, with working clockworks, a mini (33" tall) grandfather clock, also with working clockworks, the Eiffel Tower, the Leaning Tower of Pisa, the London clocktower we Americans mistakenly call Big Ben, and la piece de la resistance, "New York, New York."
That's the largest and most complicated Puzz 3-D of all, with over 3100 pieces, and it includes not only the Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building, but the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center.
It took me the better part of two weeks. It was worth every second.
I wonder if I'll live long enough to be able to transplant my brain into a working body.
Monday, September 19, 2005
Please Don't Tell Me You Didn't See This Coming
Dubya wants to pay for reconstructing New Orleans (and by extension, everywhere along the Gulf Coast damaged by Hurricane Katrina) by cutting spending to other federal programs. He has rejected outright raising taxes, and he does not want to increase the federal deficit beyond its already (thanks largely to him) astronomical levels.
The majority of Americans apparently agrees with him. Two polls discussed on NPR this morning reveal that the public also believes cutting other federal spending is the way to go . . . though when given the choice of which federal spending to cut, most Americans say cut spending on the war in Iraq. Somehow, I don't think Dubya will go for that one.
The problem is that many in Congress, including Republicans, think there's no more fat to delete from the federal budget.
You know what's coming, don't you?
Wait for it . . .
Ah, it will be the end of the dreaded social programs, a/k/a entitlements, which is what Dubya's goal has been all along.
So we are going back to the Gilded Age in more ways than one. The stable middle class will disappear, and we're going to wind up with a permanent underclass--and eventually, I fear, a shooting war, right here in River City. And that's Trouble with a capital T and that rimes with P and that stands for Phooey.
I will not make the claim that Dubya is responsible for the hurricane itself, though his head-in-the-sand approach to clear evidence of global warming hasn't helped. He sure knows how to take advantage of an opportunity when he gets one, though, doesn't he?
This is mostly old news to those of us who have been paying attention. My current outrage is at the pollsters, who seem entirely incapable of asking questions to get the answers that really reflect what the public thinks and not just reflecting what the pollsters want to establish.
If pollsters would either (1) ask open-ended questions, instead of making people choose among too-limited options, and/or (2) give complete options if they must use multiple-choice questions, I think the pollsters would find out that almost no one wants to cut assistance to the elderly and disabled or to the truly poor and destitute, and that no one wants to wipe out all the safety nets currently in place in federal law, like effective and enforced clean air and water standards, safe working conditions and livable union wages, automobile safety and fuel efficiency standards, and the like. Yet these are the very things that Dubya already is attacking in his quest to pay for Reconstruction, Part Deux.
But if someone just says, "Do you want the government to pay for this by cutting other spending or raising taxes," of course people are going to choose cutting spending. No one wants to pay more than they now pay, even though in many cases what they now pay is simply not enough.
People forget that "taxes are the price we pay for civilization." Thank Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes for that astute observation. Cut taxes enough, and civilization will eventually disappear in a hail of gunfire.
People also forget that we formed the United States in the first place to create "a more perfect Union." OK, so originally that meant that we adopted the Constitution because the Articles of Confederation were not strong enough . . . but stop and think about that for a minute. Why should we go back to a type of Articles of Confederation system in fact though not in name?
The short answer, of course, is that we shouldn't. It would mean the end of the United States, again in fact if not in name. But that's what is going to happen if Dubya gets his way on how to pay for Reconstruction, Part Deux.
When are people going to realize that the past was no idyllic Golden Age? Not for Joe Schmoe, anyway, even if it was for the Morgans and the Vanderbilts and their ilk.
Consider, however: even if it were for Joe Schmoe, there is never any going back. I liken this to being a college student vs. being a job-holding adult who then loses his/her job. College students, most of whom have never had significant money, have no problem with living on a minimal budget. But once they've had a job and have had a serious, steady income, cutting that income makes their lives much harder. It is always harder to give something up than never to have had something to begin with.
Thus, if Dubya doesn't get his way about further cuts to federal spending, we're just going to run even bigger deficits than we do now. Unless the populace gets religion, that is, and realizes that it's well past the time to pay the piper. An old Fram oil filters advertising campaign had it right: "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later." Later is always more expensive, be it in time or money lost, options lost, mutual goodwill lost, or (most frighteningly) social cohesion obliterated.
Are you quaking in your boots yet? You should be.
The majority of Americans apparently agrees with him. Two polls discussed on NPR this morning reveal that the public also believes cutting other federal spending is the way to go . . . though when given the choice of which federal spending to cut, most Americans say cut spending on the war in Iraq. Somehow, I don't think Dubya will go for that one.
The problem is that many in Congress, including Republicans, think there's no more fat to delete from the federal budget.
You know what's coming, don't you?
Wait for it . . .
Ah, it will be the end of the dreaded social programs, a/k/a entitlements, which is what Dubya's goal has been all along.
So we are going back to the Gilded Age in more ways than one. The stable middle class will disappear, and we're going to wind up with a permanent underclass--and eventually, I fear, a shooting war, right here in River City. And that's Trouble with a capital T and that rimes with P and that stands for Phooey.
I will not make the claim that Dubya is responsible for the hurricane itself, though his head-in-the-sand approach to clear evidence of global warming hasn't helped. He sure knows how to take advantage of an opportunity when he gets one, though, doesn't he?
This is mostly old news to those of us who have been paying attention. My current outrage is at the pollsters, who seem entirely incapable of asking questions to get the answers that really reflect what the public thinks and not just reflecting what the pollsters want to establish.
If pollsters would either (1) ask open-ended questions, instead of making people choose among too-limited options, and/or (2) give complete options if they must use multiple-choice questions, I think the pollsters would find out that almost no one wants to cut assistance to the elderly and disabled or to the truly poor and destitute, and that no one wants to wipe out all the safety nets currently in place in federal law, like effective and enforced clean air and water standards, safe working conditions and livable union wages, automobile safety and fuel efficiency standards, and the like. Yet these are the very things that Dubya already is attacking in his quest to pay for Reconstruction, Part Deux.
But if someone just says, "Do you want the government to pay for this by cutting other spending or raising taxes," of course people are going to choose cutting spending. No one wants to pay more than they now pay, even though in many cases what they now pay is simply not enough.
People forget that "taxes are the price we pay for civilization." Thank Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes for that astute observation. Cut taxes enough, and civilization will eventually disappear in a hail of gunfire.
People also forget that we formed the United States in the first place to create "a more perfect Union." OK, so originally that meant that we adopted the Constitution because the Articles of Confederation were not strong enough . . . but stop and think about that for a minute. Why should we go back to a type of Articles of Confederation system in fact though not in name?
The short answer, of course, is that we shouldn't. It would mean the end of the United States, again in fact if not in name. But that's what is going to happen if Dubya gets his way on how to pay for Reconstruction, Part Deux.
When are people going to realize that the past was no idyllic Golden Age? Not for Joe Schmoe, anyway, even if it was for the Morgans and the Vanderbilts and their ilk.
Consider, however: even if it were for Joe Schmoe, there is never any going back. I liken this to being a college student vs. being a job-holding adult who then loses his/her job. College students, most of whom have never had significant money, have no problem with living on a minimal budget. But once they've had a job and have had a serious, steady income, cutting that income makes their lives much harder. It is always harder to give something up than never to have had something to begin with.
Thus, if Dubya doesn't get his way about further cuts to federal spending, we're just going to run even bigger deficits than we do now. Unless the populace gets religion, that is, and realizes that it's well past the time to pay the piper. An old Fram oil filters advertising campaign had it right: "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later." Later is always more expensive, be it in time or money lost, options lost, mutual goodwill lost, or (most frighteningly) social cohesion obliterated.
Are you quaking in your boots yet? You should be.
Thursday, September 15, 2005
M-V-P! M-V-P!
It's that time of year again, when those of us with nothing better to do (or even if we do have better things to do) start debating the annual baseball individual all-season performance awards, such as the Most Valuable Player in each league, National and American.
To me, the MVP is the player whose presence made the biggest impact on the success of his team, not just the player with the gaudiest statistics. In the National League, my MVP is Andruw Jones of the Atlanta Braves. So many Braves players were injured at some points during the season that the team was fielding 7 rookies in its starting lineup . . . and yet Andruw Jones made sure that Atlanta got to (and stayed in) first place in the NL East by his defensive prowess, his offensive skills, and his sheer leadership.
I know that several people want to give the MVP to Albert Pujols of the St. Louis Cardinals. He's a stellar player on a stellar team, and over the past several years has been overshadowed in the MVP voting by Barry Bonds, the epitome of gaudy statistics; so, it has been said that Pujols should win because he's deserved it for so long.
However, the Cardinals would most probably be exactly where they are (in first in the NL Central) whether Pujols was there or not, so I don't think he should win the MVP this year. Now, the Roberto Clemente award for community service, that's another matter. Pujols' work with Down's Syndrome and other disabled kids is fabulous, and deserves more recognition than it seems to be getting.
Some folks are even rooting for Derrick Lee of the Chicago Cubs to get the MVP. It's true that Lee is having a career year--he was in the lead in all 3 of the vaunted "Triple Crown" categories (home runs, RBI, and batting average) for most of the first half of the season, and is still in first, second, or third place in each of the categories as I post this)--but the Cubs are mired in the miasma of 4th place, about two games under .500. Thus, Lee's performance this season, as great and sustained as it has been, is not to my mind MVP calibre. The Cubs are just too miserable and underperforming a team this year.
So let's just give the NL MVP award to Andruw Jones and be done with it.
I do not follow the AL as closely as I follow the NL. I'm with Crash Davis: Congress ought to pass a constitutional amendment against artificial turf and the designated hitter rule. Nevertheless, my personal favorite for AL MVP is someone who's done mostly designated hitting this year, to wit: David Ortiz of the Boston Red Sox.
"Big Papi," as Ortiz is known, has hit more game-breaking home runs in his limited playing time than anyone else I can think of in recent memory. His bat has kept Boston in first place in the AL East, ahead of the dreaded NY Yankees, nearly every time Boston has seemed like it was going to slip out of the lead and thus make defending its 2004 World Series Championship less and less likely.
I can't even think of anyone else in the AL worth considering for the MVP right now. I do not think pitchers should be in the running for the MVP, mostly because they have their own Cy Young awards to compete for.
And that's the news from Lake Wobegon.
To me, the MVP is the player whose presence made the biggest impact on the success of his team, not just the player with the gaudiest statistics. In the National League, my MVP is Andruw Jones of the Atlanta Braves. So many Braves players were injured at some points during the season that the team was fielding 7 rookies in its starting lineup . . . and yet Andruw Jones made sure that Atlanta got to (and stayed in) first place in the NL East by his defensive prowess, his offensive skills, and his sheer leadership.
I know that several people want to give the MVP to Albert Pujols of the St. Louis Cardinals. He's a stellar player on a stellar team, and over the past several years has been overshadowed in the MVP voting by Barry Bonds, the epitome of gaudy statistics; so, it has been said that Pujols should win because he's deserved it for so long.
However, the Cardinals would most probably be exactly where they are (in first in the NL Central) whether Pujols was there or not, so I don't think he should win the MVP this year. Now, the Roberto Clemente award for community service, that's another matter. Pujols' work with Down's Syndrome and other disabled kids is fabulous, and deserves more recognition than it seems to be getting.
Some folks are even rooting for Derrick Lee of the Chicago Cubs to get the MVP. It's true that Lee is having a career year--he was in the lead in all 3 of the vaunted "Triple Crown" categories (home runs, RBI, and batting average) for most of the first half of the season, and is still in first, second, or third place in each of the categories as I post this)--but the Cubs are mired in the miasma of 4th place, about two games under .500. Thus, Lee's performance this season, as great and sustained as it has been, is not to my mind MVP calibre. The Cubs are just too miserable and underperforming a team this year.
So let's just give the NL MVP award to Andruw Jones and be done with it.
I do not follow the AL as closely as I follow the NL. I'm with Crash Davis: Congress ought to pass a constitutional amendment against artificial turf and the designated hitter rule. Nevertheless, my personal favorite for AL MVP is someone who's done mostly designated hitting this year, to wit: David Ortiz of the Boston Red Sox.
"Big Papi," as Ortiz is known, has hit more game-breaking home runs in his limited playing time than anyone else I can think of in recent memory. His bat has kept Boston in first place in the AL East, ahead of the dreaded NY Yankees, nearly every time Boston has seemed like it was going to slip out of the lead and thus make defending its 2004 World Series Championship less and less likely.
I can't even think of anyone else in the AL worth considering for the MVP right now. I do not think pitchers should be in the running for the MVP, mostly because they have their own Cy Young awards to compete for.
And that's the news from Lake Wobegon.
Sunday, September 11, 2005
A Tidbit
I am sick to death of getting emails from friends with maudlin stories about how the whole world is turning out with Stars and Stripes awaving to honor our military dead from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Why? Because the moral of those stories seems to be "aren't we so wonderful for the way we support the troops!" and to my way of thinking, that is NOT how best to support them.
You want to support the troops? Don't sit around and forward emails and wave your flag and say you are supporting our troops.
Rather, press Congress and especially the President to make sure those troops have enough of the proper equipment and supplies to do the jobs given them; make sure their pay and benefits are not cut to the bone behind their backs; give of your time and energy to the families left behind by baby sitting, sharing a meal, or running some errands; and make sure all our elected representatives know that we won't put up with them talking a good game--we want substance, not style.
Why? Because the moral of those stories seems to be "aren't we so wonderful for the way we support the troops!" and to my way of thinking, that is NOT how best to support them.
You want to support the troops? Don't sit around and forward emails and wave your flag and say you are supporting our troops.
Rather, press Congress and especially the President to make sure those troops have enough of the proper equipment and supplies to do the jobs given them; make sure their pay and benefits are not cut to the bone behind their backs; give of your time and energy to the families left behind by baby sitting, sharing a meal, or running some errands; and make sure all our elected representatives know that we won't put up with them talking a good game--we want substance, not style.
Friday, September 09, 2005
Did You Miss Me?
Well, it's been a while since I've posted anything. Not because I haven't had anything to say . . . quite the contrary. I am so overwhelmed by all the things rattling around in my brain that I am having trouble sorting them out to make a sensible, readable post. Nevertheless, I will now attempt to clear out the clutter and comment on Life, the Universe, and Everything . . . or at least, the NCAA, the hurricane aftermath, and the nature of history.
But first, an aside: I believe there is a great cosmic significance in the close time proximity of the deaths of Bob Denver and William Rehnquist. What that significance is, however, I do not want to know.
On the NCAA
The NCAA, in its non-infinite wisdom, recently issued an edict forbidding schools in any NCAA playoffs to use mascots or nicknames that are stereotypes or otherwise offensive. Read: you can't use any Native American symbols/names/themes.
Several schools, most prominently among them Florida State, protested. After all, Florida State's nickname, the Seminoles, and its mascot, Osceola, have been carefully constructed with the help of Florida's Seminole population not to be stereotypical, but to be accurate and positive images. Since Florida's Seminole population largely agreed with Florida State, the NCAA relented and gave Florida State a waiver from its new policy.
And that is as it should be. If we are outlawing stereotypes, accurate and positive portrayals are by definition exempt. Besides, what's the point of banning the use of such stereotypes only during NCAA playoffs? If the stereotype is offensive, it's offensive 100% of the time. [You want to get rid of an offensive nickname? Make the Washington DC NFL team change its name. "Redskins" is offensive, period. After all, you wouldn't call a team the N*****s, now would you?--Ed.]
I, for one, might be happy to see the NCAA ban the use of the "Fighting Irish" leprechaun at Notre Dame. The belligerent little fellow w/ his fists and his shillelagh is not my idea of an accurate and positive image at all. On the other hand, I feel about it not unlike how Whoopi Goldberg feels about bad ethnic stereotypes in old advertising and the like. She collects examples of such stereotyping to keep everyone's memories alive as to how bad it was, to show how far we've come, and to acknowledge that history cannot be changed to make it pretty. It is what it is.
The Hurricane Aftermath
First, let me say I am glad to see that the vaunted generosity of the American public deserves its reputation. The outpouring of help and support so far has been enormous, as it should be. And it extends not just to the people devastated by Katrina, but also to their pets. The Humane Society is making huge efforts to find and rescue pets lost to their families because of the storm, and to give them necessary medical treatment and to try to reunite them with their humans.
I am particularly pleased about that because I believe that since pets cannot speak for themselves, if we do not care for them, we reveal ourselves as lesser beings by our indifference.
I guess it's part and parcel of the notion that how great a society is becomes plain when examining how that society treates the least of its members. By that standard, the federal government has failed miserably along the Gulf Coast.
A right-wing friend (yes, I have them; it is important to keep the lines of communication open. Besides, we all have more in common than some of us might be willing to admit) sent me a email positing that the reason for all the looting and violence in New Orleans was because the welfare state has created a permanent underclass that acts and reacts more like Iraqi insurgents than like human beings trying to cope with a crisis.
I knew at some fundamental level that that was just wrong. It not only blames the victim, it smacks of racism. But not until this morning did I realize WHY that reasoning was wrong: the looting and violence did not start until AFTER it was clear that the federal government and just about everyone else was blowing off helping these people. It is akin to the news photos of white people and black people in the aftermath of the storm: white people were said to be finding food; blacks, on the other hand, were said to be looting.
Do not get me wrong. I know there is truth to the looting reports. But it started only after several days of federal inaction had passed. If the National Guard had been put in place right away, as it would have been had, say, Kennebunkport been devastated by a hurricane, the total breakdown of the social compact that we saw would not have happened.
And why weren't National Guard troops put in place right away? Because most of them were off fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Why did the flooding happen in the first place? Because the budget for levee maintenance had been siphoned off to finance the so-called war on terror.
I heard in an NPR report this morning that Republicans are saying that there was more than enough money given to infrastructure maintenance in Louisiana even though the money spent was less than 1/3 of what the Army Corps of Engineers said it needed. Why was it more than enough money? According to one of the Republican Congressmen who made the decision, Louisiana got $.4 billion more than California, and "California has 7 times the population."
What's wrong with this picture? You don't base infrastructure spending on the size of the population most immediately affected. You base it on the need. I daresay that Louisiana has at least 7 times the risk of flooding from hurricanes as does California.
The congressman in question also implied that the money that WAS given was not all spent where it was supposed to be used (remember, Louisiana still has a lot of Democrats in official positions in high places, like the governorship).
But there's no sense in finger-pointing and making accusations against the Bush administration's inadequacies, because we have a job to do, and we cannot afford to be divisive when there is so much work to be done.
Talk about "Things That Make You Go Wha?!?!?!"
We are not all incapable of multitasking. Furthermore, we need to assess what went wrong, why, and who is responsible, so that we can keep it from happening again. If we wait until the clean-up is done and everything is back to normal, two things will happen: (1) no one will care any longer. Americans do have notoriously short attention spans; and (2) those who should be held accountable will get off scotfree.
And that tain't right, Magee.
It is not impossible to examine what happened and make corrections and assign blame where needed while at the same time working to help those whose lives have been demolished by the storm. And I don't mean poor Trent Lott and his "beautiful house" that was destroyed by the storm--you know, the one Dubya is going to help him rebuild so that he and Lott can sit on the porch together. It's not exactly as if Lott has no other home to go to, and no job because the storm wiped out his place of employment, and no other income or resources on which to draw.
The Emperor is still naked. It's long, long past the time we faced up to that and dealt with it.
The Nature of History
I've been discussing with a friend what is the nature of history. Humans have an inborn need to organize and categorize things, and the way we choose to organize our history reveals much about ourselves.
(OK, I should say most humans have a need to organize. One of my best friends rightly says his desk is "The Black Hole of Calcutta." I cannot work in such clutter and chaos; it seems to short-circuit my brain cells, and I literally cannot think amongst such a mess. He, on the other hand, thrives on it. Chacun a son gout.)
The Victorians gave us the notion of history as inevitable progress. This notion was majorly discredited in the wake of things like the sinking of the HMS Titanic and the publishing of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, but its echoes can still be heard, especially in elementary and high school history textbooks.
Some believe that history is a cyclical thing: "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it." Just compare the attitude of those in power in the federal government now with that of those in power in the 1890s if you doubt it. Others think history moves like a pendulum: every generation reacts against its parents, so the 60s begat the 80s, 90s, and 00s (think "Family Ties" and Alex P. Keaton), and with any luck, the 80s, 90s, and 00s will beget a revival of the best attitudes of the 60s somehere down the road. (And I'm not talking Lava Lamps, people.)
My own take is that aspects of all these things are true, as long as one is able to add a pinch of irony. Lincoln wanted a "soft" Reconstruction of the Union, but his assassination made that impossible-yet his assassin's goal and aim (pun intended) in killing Lincoln was to help and protect the South. JFK wanted civil rights legislation, but didn't push hard for it, and it wasn't going to pass even if he had--until he was assassinated, that is.
I don't know. Maybe history is on an ever-downward spiral. (I cite the existence of Gangsta Rap in support.) No, I don't seriously believe that. But I do believe (as the two examples in the previous paragraph attest) that history has a large measure of "be careful what you ask for, for you just might get it" kind of a "gotcha" karma to it. Part of me wonders why we have to put any characterizations on history at all, but the better part of me knows that human nature makes it inevitable that we do so.
Here endeth the lesson.
But first, an aside: I believe there is a great cosmic significance in the close time proximity of the deaths of Bob Denver and William Rehnquist. What that significance is, however, I do not want to know.
On the NCAA
The NCAA, in its non-infinite wisdom, recently issued an edict forbidding schools in any NCAA playoffs to use mascots or nicknames that are stereotypes or otherwise offensive. Read: you can't use any Native American symbols/names/themes.
Several schools, most prominently among them Florida State, protested. After all, Florida State's nickname, the Seminoles, and its mascot, Osceola, have been carefully constructed with the help of Florida's Seminole population not to be stereotypical, but to be accurate and positive images. Since Florida's Seminole population largely agreed with Florida State, the NCAA relented and gave Florida State a waiver from its new policy.
And that is as it should be. If we are outlawing stereotypes, accurate and positive portrayals are by definition exempt. Besides, what's the point of banning the use of such stereotypes only during NCAA playoffs? If the stereotype is offensive, it's offensive 100% of the time. [You want to get rid of an offensive nickname? Make the Washington DC NFL team change its name. "Redskins" is offensive, period. After all, you wouldn't call a team the N*****s, now would you?--Ed.]
I, for one, might be happy to see the NCAA ban the use of the "Fighting Irish" leprechaun at Notre Dame. The belligerent little fellow w/ his fists and his shillelagh is not my idea of an accurate and positive image at all. On the other hand, I feel about it not unlike how Whoopi Goldberg feels about bad ethnic stereotypes in old advertising and the like. She collects examples of such stereotyping to keep everyone's memories alive as to how bad it was, to show how far we've come, and to acknowledge that history cannot be changed to make it pretty. It is what it is.
The Hurricane Aftermath
First, let me say I am glad to see that the vaunted generosity of the American public deserves its reputation. The outpouring of help and support so far has been enormous, as it should be. And it extends not just to the people devastated by Katrina, but also to their pets. The Humane Society is making huge efforts to find and rescue pets lost to their families because of the storm, and to give them necessary medical treatment and to try to reunite them with their humans.
I am particularly pleased about that because I believe that since pets cannot speak for themselves, if we do not care for them, we reveal ourselves as lesser beings by our indifference.
I guess it's part and parcel of the notion that how great a society is becomes plain when examining how that society treates the least of its members. By that standard, the federal government has failed miserably along the Gulf Coast.
A right-wing friend (yes, I have them; it is important to keep the lines of communication open. Besides, we all have more in common than some of us might be willing to admit) sent me a email positing that the reason for all the looting and violence in New Orleans was because the welfare state has created a permanent underclass that acts and reacts more like Iraqi insurgents than like human beings trying to cope with a crisis.
I knew at some fundamental level that that was just wrong. It not only blames the victim, it smacks of racism. But not until this morning did I realize WHY that reasoning was wrong: the looting and violence did not start until AFTER it was clear that the federal government and just about everyone else was blowing off helping these people. It is akin to the news photos of white people and black people in the aftermath of the storm: white people were said to be finding food; blacks, on the other hand, were said to be looting.
Do not get me wrong. I know there is truth to the looting reports. But it started only after several days of federal inaction had passed. If the National Guard had been put in place right away, as it would have been had, say, Kennebunkport been devastated by a hurricane, the total breakdown of the social compact that we saw would not have happened.
And why weren't National Guard troops put in place right away? Because most of them were off fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Why did the flooding happen in the first place? Because the budget for levee maintenance had been siphoned off to finance the so-called war on terror.
I heard in an NPR report this morning that Republicans are saying that there was more than enough money given to infrastructure maintenance in Louisiana even though the money spent was less than 1/3 of what the Army Corps of Engineers said it needed. Why was it more than enough money? According to one of the Republican Congressmen who made the decision, Louisiana got $.4 billion more than California, and "California has 7 times the population."
What's wrong with this picture? You don't base infrastructure spending on the size of the population most immediately affected. You base it on the need. I daresay that Louisiana has at least 7 times the risk of flooding from hurricanes as does California.
The congressman in question also implied that the money that WAS given was not all spent where it was supposed to be used (remember, Louisiana still has a lot of Democrats in official positions in high places, like the governorship).
But there's no sense in finger-pointing and making accusations against the Bush administration's inadequacies, because we have a job to do, and we cannot afford to be divisive when there is so much work to be done.
Talk about "Things That Make You Go Wha?!?!?!"
We are not all incapable of multitasking. Furthermore, we need to assess what went wrong, why, and who is responsible, so that we can keep it from happening again. If we wait until the clean-up is done and everything is back to normal, two things will happen: (1) no one will care any longer. Americans do have notoriously short attention spans; and (2) those who should be held accountable will get off scotfree.
And that tain't right, Magee.
It is not impossible to examine what happened and make corrections and assign blame where needed while at the same time working to help those whose lives have been demolished by the storm. And I don't mean poor Trent Lott and his "beautiful house" that was destroyed by the storm--you know, the one Dubya is going to help him rebuild so that he and Lott can sit on the porch together. It's not exactly as if Lott has no other home to go to, and no job because the storm wiped out his place of employment, and no other income or resources on which to draw.
The Emperor is still naked. It's long, long past the time we faced up to that and dealt with it.
The Nature of History
I've been discussing with a friend what is the nature of history. Humans have an inborn need to organize and categorize things, and the way we choose to organize our history reveals much about ourselves.
(OK, I should say most humans have a need to organize. One of my best friends rightly says his desk is "The Black Hole of Calcutta." I cannot work in such clutter and chaos; it seems to short-circuit my brain cells, and I literally cannot think amongst such a mess. He, on the other hand, thrives on it. Chacun a son gout.)
The Victorians gave us the notion of history as inevitable progress. This notion was majorly discredited in the wake of things like the sinking of the HMS Titanic and the publishing of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, but its echoes can still be heard, especially in elementary and high school history textbooks.
Some believe that history is a cyclical thing: "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it." Just compare the attitude of those in power in the federal government now with that of those in power in the 1890s if you doubt it. Others think history moves like a pendulum: every generation reacts against its parents, so the 60s begat the 80s, 90s, and 00s (think "Family Ties" and Alex P. Keaton), and with any luck, the 80s, 90s, and 00s will beget a revival of the best attitudes of the 60s somehere down the road. (And I'm not talking Lava Lamps, people.)
My own take is that aspects of all these things are true, as long as one is able to add a pinch of irony. Lincoln wanted a "soft" Reconstruction of the Union, but his assassination made that impossible-yet his assassin's goal and aim (pun intended) in killing Lincoln was to help and protect the South. JFK wanted civil rights legislation, but didn't push hard for it, and it wasn't going to pass even if he had--until he was assassinated, that is.
I don't know. Maybe history is on an ever-downward spiral. (I cite the existence of Gangsta Rap in support.) No, I don't seriously believe that. But I do believe (as the two examples in the previous paragraph attest) that history has a large measure of "be careful what you ask for, for you just might get it" kind of a "gotcha" karma to it. Part of me wonders why we have to put any characterizations on history at all, but the better part of me knows that human nature makes it inevitable that we do so.
Here endeth the lesson.
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Pondering Some Imponderables
Or, I didn't steal this from George Carlin, honest! These are all my own thoughts. Can I help it if great minds think alike?
(1) Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Obviously, the egg. Something that was not quite a chicken laid an egg that hatched a chicken, or so evolution suggests.
(2) What's more important, great hitting or great pitching? Harry Caray and Steve Stone used to argue about this all the time on WGN-TV broadcasts of Cubs' games. I forget which of them took which side, but for my money, the answer is simple: great hitting. To win a game, you have to score at least once. While there are ways to score without getting a hit, all you can do with great pitching is to keep the other guy from scoring. In that case, if everyone plays to his/her best, you'd wind up w/ a 0-0 tie. Great pitching cannot give you a win; it can only keep you from losing. Great hitting is they way to go.
(3) I wonder why all the fundamentalists out there who refuse modern medical treatments have stopped to consider that the treatments they are refusing may well be the miracles God promised them in the first place. Where is it written in stone that the only things that can be miracles are totally out-of-the-blue and off-the-wall? Why can't miracles be things God's wisdom has inspired mankind to develop?
(4) [A bit of an Andy Rooneyish observation for varied flavor.--Ed.] Don't you just hate getting a fortune cookie that contains advice instead of a fortune? When did that change, anyway? Probably had something to do with oversensitivity to "political correctness," I'd guess. I about fell out of my chair last night when I got a fortune cookie that had a real fortune in it: "You will soon find someone sympathetic to your cause."
I have no idea which cause is meant; I am just thrilled that it's a fortune and not some wimpy "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" advice for a change.
(1) Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Obviously, the egg. Something that was not quite a chicken laid an egg that hatched a chicken, or so evolution suggests.
(2) What's more important, great hitting or great pitching? Harry Caray and Steve Stone used to argue about this all the time on WGN-TV broadcasts of Cubs' games. I forget which of them took which side, but for my money, the answer is simple: great hitting. To win a game, you have to score at least once. While there are ways to score without getting a hit, all you can do with great pitching is to keep the other guy from scoring. In that case, if everyone plays to his/her best, you'd wind up w/ a 0-0 tie. Great pitching cannot give you a win; it can only keep you from losing. Great hitting is they way to go.
(3) I wonder why all the fundamentalists out there who refuse modern medical treatments have stopped to consider that the treatments they are refusing may well be the miracles God promised them in the first place. Where is it written in stone that the only things that can be miracles are totally out-of-the-blue and off-the-wall? Why can't miracles be things God's wisdom has inspired mankind to develop?
(4) [A bit of an Andy Rooneyish observation for varied flavor.--Ed.] Don't you just hate getting a fortune cookie that contains advice instead of a fortune? When did that change, anyway? Probably had something to do with oversensitivity to "political correctness," I'd guess. I about fell out of my chair last night when I got a fortune cookie that had a real fortune in it: "You will soon find someone sympathetic to your cause."
I have no idea which cause is meant; I am just thrilled that it's a fortune and not some wimpy "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" advice for a change.
Saturday, August 06, 2005
The "Lady" Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks
Do you remember Katherine Harris? She's the erstwhile Florida Secretary of State (who threw the 2000 FL election results to her boss's brother, Dubya) and currently a Congresswoman who is now running for a US Senate seat from the Sunshine State.
Maybe a visual will help: she's the one who was all over the TV news in November, 2000, wearing positively garish makeup much too heavily applied. She looked like a cartoon. Or a strumpet. My mother thought she was a "forty-plus" something trying--unsuccessfully--to look like a college-age sylph. I can agree with that.
Well, she doesn't like that image of herself, poor thing. Judging from the black and white news photo accompanying the AP article in yesterday's paper, however, nothing has changed. Her lipstick is way, way too dark in color value, and even in black and white, her blush is visible.
But she claims that the newspapers "colorized her photograph[s]" and that she does not actually wear her makeup in the gaudy way "the Democrats" have lampooned. [How does one "colorize" a black and white photograph that way, I wonder?--Ed.]
She apparently never saw any rebroadcasts of her live TV appearances in 2000. If she had, she'd realize she couldn't use the "they colorized my photograph[s]" excuse. Her makeup was way too obvious, and way too heavy . . . while in contrast, absolutely everyone else on screen looked entirely normal. So my TV color wasn't out of adjustment, either.
Who is she trying to fool? Is she that clueless? Or is she angling for the "poor me, I'm so put upon" sympathy vote? I find it impossible to believe that anyone with even 1/2 a brain will take her seriously, but then again, P.T. Barnum was right: no one ever went broke underestimating the taste [read that "sense"--Ed.] of the American public.
Robert Burns must be laughing his ghostly head off over this! ("Oh would the power some giftie gie us, to see ourseles as ithers see us.")
Maybe a visual will help: she's the one who was all over the TV news in November, 2000, wearing positively garish makeup much too heavily applied. She looked like a cartoon. Or a strumpet. My mother thought she was a "forty-plus" something trying--unsuccessfully--to look like a college-age sylph. I can agree with that.
Well, she doesn't like that image of herself, poor thing. Judging from the black and white news photo accompanying the AP article in yesterday's paper, however, nothing has changed. Her lipstick is way, way too dark in color value, and even in black and white, her blush is visible.
But she claims that the newspapers "colorized her photograph[s]" and that she does not actually wear her makeup in the gaudy way "the Democrats" have lampooned. [How does one "colorize" a black and white photograph that way, I wonder?--Ed.]
She apparently never saw any rebroadcasts of her live TV appearances in 2000. If she had, she'd realize she couldn't use the "they colorized my photograph[s]" excuse. Her makeup was way too obvious, and way too heavy . . . while in contrast, absolutely everyone else on screen looked entirely normal. So my TV color wasn't out of adjustment, either.
Who is she trying to fool? Is she that clueless? Or is she angling for the "poor me, I'm so put upon" sympathy vote? I find it impossible to believe that anyone with even 1/2 a brain will take her seriously, but then again, P.T. Barnum was right: no one ever went broke underestimating the taste [read that "sense"--Ed.] of the American public.
Robert Burns must be laughing his ghostly head off over this! ("Oh would the power some giftie gie us, to see ourseles as ithers see us.")
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Happy Cows No Longer Come From California
OK--let me begin by saying I was half asleep when I heard what I think I heard on NPR this morning. So, what I am about to say may be merely the product of my fevered imagination. Nevertheless, . . .
Some group of scientists has tested the amount of pollution (methane, mostly) produced by cows in California, and determined that cows pollute more than cars now do.
As a result, the state is going to implement pollution-control requirements. Expensive pollution-control requirements. And the dairy farmers are most emphatically not happy about it. It may cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars, each, to comply.
A lobbying group for the dairy farmers has started lawsuits challenging both the measurement methods and the results in the hopes that the proposed requirements will not be forced on them.
Several Central Valley dairy farmers are threatening to take their cows and the jobs their farms provide and leave the state.
If this isn't "real California cheese," I don't know what is!
Some group of scientists has tested the amount of pollution (methane, mostly) produced by cows in California, and determined that cows pollute more than cars now do.
As a result, the state is going to implement pollution-control requirements. Expensive pollution-control requirements. And the dairy farmers are most emphatically not happy about it. It may cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars, each, to comply.
A lobbying group for the dairy farmers has started lawsuits challenging both the measurement methods and the results in the hopes that the proposed requirements will not be forced on them.
Several Central Valley dairy farmers are threatening to take their cows and the jobs their farms provide and leave the state.
If this isn't "real California cheese," I don't know what is!
The Bad News Bears Have Nothing On R. Palmeiro
I have been following the steroid-use controversy concerning Rafael Palmeiro with trepidation. Let me say first that when Rafael came up w/ the Cubs, I thought he was going to be a really good ballplayer, and I never did understand why the Cubs traded him.
My respect for him dwindled when he started hawking Viagra a few years ago.
My respect regrew once he quit doing that and when I realized the record-breaking hitting achievements he'd posted in the interim.
I was entirely stunned to learn of his suspension for steroid use. After all, back in March during the Congressional hearings on steroid use in baseball, he was adamant that he was not a user, despite what Jose Canseco wrote in his book. [I now hear echoes of "I did not have sex with that woman."--Ed.] At the time, I was not the only one to think that Palmeiro's stature increased to the same degree that Mark McGwire's decreased when contrasting Palmeiro's statements with McGwire's evasive testimony.
I was willing to give Palmeiro the benefit of the doubt about his testing positive: perhaps it was due to a minor ingredient in an over-the-counter concoction he'd taken. I knew he had nothing to gain and tons to lose (especially at this late stage of his career) by taking steroids and getting caught . . . and then I learned that the steroid in his system was stanozolol, the same steroid that felled Olympic and world-champion sprinter Ben Johnson. It is not something that just shows up in trace amounts in anything OTC.
The very next day, a Seattle Mariners pitcher (whose name escapes me at the moment) was also suspended for testing positive. He offered the same increasingly-lame-sounding explanation: "I have no idea how the steroids got into my system."
Right. And all unicorns will be destroyed if the guy doesn't share his Emerald nuts with his little girl.
All the facts must be revealed and evaluated in each and every case before we simply choose to ignore the accomplishments of the current major leaguers. Every little relevation, however, especially about someone so high profile due to his on-field exploits, chips away a bit more at my resolve to hear all the evidence before making up my mind.
Palmeiro eventually may still be elected to the Hall of Fame, but certainly not on the first ballot. Maybe not on the first five or ten ballots. Of course, if even more bad news comes out about his steroid use, he may have demolished his chances to be enshrined at all. We can but wait and see.
Contrast the weekend induction of Wade Boggs and Ryne Sandburg into the Hall. Boggs's tribute to his mentor, his father, was incredibly moving. Sandburg's speech, focusing on how he approached everything he did to show his respect for the game, was genuinely inspiring. (I know the already-inducted HOF members liked Sandburg's speech a lot. They were nodding in agreement all the way through it.) Boggs was only the 41st player to be voted in on his very first eligibility; Sandburg should have been voted in on his first appearance on the ballot. Nevertheless, they both embody what baseball can produce when those who play the game play it right.
This week's suspensions cannot sully or tarnish the weekend's ceremonies, but they sure do muck up the game today.
My respect for him dwindled when he started hawking Viagra a few years ago.
My respect regrew once he quit doing that and when I realized the record-breaking hitting achievements he'd posted in the interim.
I was entirely stunned to learn of his suspension for steroid use. After all, back in March during the Congressional hearings on steroid use in baseball, he was adamant that he was not a user, despite what Jose Canseco wrote in his book. [I now hear echoes of "I did not have sex with that woman."--Ed.] At the time, I was not the only one to think that Palmeiro's stature increased to the same degree that Mark McGwire's decreased when contrasting Palmeiro's statements with McGwire's evasive testimony.
I was willing to give Palmeiro the benefit of the doubt about his testing positive: perhaps it was due to a minor ingredient in an over-the-counter concoction he'd taken. I knew he had nothing to gain and tons to lose (especially at this late stage of his career) by taking steroids and getting caught . . . and then I learned that the steroid in his system was stanozolol, the same steroid that felled Olympic and world-champion sprinter Ben Johnson. It is not something that just shows up in trace amounts in anything OTC.
The very next day, a Seattle Mariners pitcher (whose name escapes me at the moment) was also suspended for testing positive. He offered the same increasingly-lame-sounding explanation: "I have no idea how the steroids got into my system."
Right. And all unicorns will be destroyed if the guy doesn't share his Emerald nuts with his little girl.
All the facts must be revealed and evaluated in each and every case before we simply choose to ignore the accomplishments of the current major leaguers. Every little relevation, however, especially about someone so high profile due to his on-field exploits, chips away a bit more at my resolve to hear all the evidence before making up my mind.
Palmeiro eventually may still be elected to the Hall of Fame, but certainly not on the first ballot. Maybe not on the first five or ten ballots. Of course, if even more bad news comes out about his steroid use, he may have demolished his chances to be enshrined at all. We can but wait and see.
Contrast the weekend induction of Wade Boggs and Ryne Sandburg into the Hall. Boggs's tribute to his mentor, his father, was incredibly moving. Sandburg's speech, focusing on how he approached everything he did to show his respect for the game, was genuinely inspiring. (I know the already-inducted HOF members liked Sandburg's speech a lot. They were nodding in agreement all the way through it.) Boggs was only the 41st player to be voted in on his very first eligibility; Sandburg should have been voted in on his first appearance on the ballot. Nevertheless, they both embody what baseball can produce when those who play the game play it right.
This week's suspensions cannot sully or tarnish the weekend's ceremonies, but they sure do muck up the game today.
Saturday, July 30, 2005
Praise The Lord, And DON'T Pass The Ammunition
According to the Associated Press on Thursday past, "[t]he Irish Republican Army [has] announced . . . it will renounce violence and resume disarmament in a declaration designed to revive Northern Ireland's peace process."
Well, Hallelujah!
The IRA has said it will not disband, but will limit its actions (starting at 4 p.m. Irish time on the 28th) to the political process. The IRA further said it would allow both Catholic and Protestant clergy to observe its disarmament work, and that its members must henceforth avoid all violent activities. Indeed, it has promised to use "exclusively peaceful means" from now on.
It's about bloody time!
I know that Protestants in Northern Ireland are skeptical, but I think this is for real. Why? Well, look at the world-wide response to the the Muslim attacks in London. The IRA has finally figured out that even when it warns of bombs and tries to limit/avoid civilian injury, the violence will not get it what it wants. All the violence ever did was harden resistance to the IRA's goals of true power-sharing in Northern Ireland.
I can just imagine a bunch of IRA leaders sitting around in a pub, drinking stout and bemoaning the fact that the Muslim terrorists have given "real freedom fighters" a bad name. But at least the IRA leadership finally got the sense to bow to the inevitable.
The British are taking it seriously, too. A follow-up article said the British Army has already begun closing/demolishing military installations in Northern Ireland. Three BA army positions in South Armagh (near the border with the Irish Republic) are already disappearing. They will keep 7 watchtowers on the border with the Republic, but that is half the number that were in place in 2001.
Of course, the Protestants in Northern Ireland are saying it's too much, too soon. They say until there is proof to back the IRA's words, "it's criminally irresponsible of the [British] government to do this." But the Catholic minority in Armagh is tired of the occupation, knowing that the British Army used the watchtowers to monitor people's movements and high-tech microphones on the towers to eavesdrop on private conversations. The Catholics say any reduction in the "Big Brother is watching you" atmosphere in Armagh can but move the peace process forward.
It's wonderful news. The one thing that irritates me about this is that the Omaha World-Herald did not see fit to publish it earlier than page 7 (Thursday's paper) and the follow-up on page 9 (Friday's). At least the articles were "above the fold," as it were.
Here's hoping that at least one troubled place in this world finally finds lasting peace.
Well, Hallelujah!
The IRA has said it will not disband, but will limit its actions (starting at 4 p.m. Irish time on the 28th) to the political process. The IRA further said it would allow both Catholic and Protestant clergy to observe its disarmament work, and that its members must henceforth avoid all violent activities. Indeed, it has promised to use "exclusively peaceful means" from now on.
It's about bloody time!
I know that Protestants in Northern Ireland are skeptical, but I think this is for real. Why? Well, look at the world-wide response to the the Muslim attacks in London. The IRA has finally figured out that even when it warns of bombs and tries to limit/avoid civilian injury, the violence will not get it what it wants. All the violence ever did was harden resistance to the IRA's goals of true power-sharing in Northern Ireland.
I can just imagine a bunch of IRA leaders sitting around in a pub, drinking stout and bemoaning the fact that the Muslim terrorists have given "real freedom fighters" a bad name. But at least the IRA leadership finally got the sense to bow to the inevitable.
The British are taking it seriously, too. A follow-up article said the British Army has already begun closing/demolishing military installations in Northern Ireland. Three BA army positions in South Armagh (near the border with the Irish Republic) are already disappearing. They will keep 7 watchtowers on the border with the Republic, but that is half the number that were in place in 2001.
Of course, the Protestants in Northern Ireland are saying it's too much, too soon. They say until there is proof to back the IRA's words, "it's criminally irresponsible of the [British] government to do this." But the Catholic minority in Armagh is tired of the occupation, knowing that the British Army used the watchtowers to monitor people's movements and high-tech microphones on the towers to eavesdrop on private conversations. The Catholics say any reduction in the "Big Brother is watching you" atmosphere in Armagh can but move the peace process forward.
It's wonderful news. The one thing that irritates me about this is that the Omaha World-Herald did not see fit to publish it earlier than page 7 (Thursday's paper) and the follow-up on page 9 (Friday's). At least the articles were "above the fold," as it were.
Here's hoping that at least one troubled place in this world finally finds lasting peace.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
If You're Rummy And You Know It, Raise Your Glass
Please tell me I am not the only person who thinks that Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld's lecturing the Iraqis earlier today on "politics requir[ing] compromise" is hypocritical bordering on ludicrous.
I can see it now--the Iraqis respond by saying that they watch how he and Dubya and all the minions behave in the US domestic political sphere, and inform Rummy that what they are doing is no different.
He then tells them that it is different, because he's just pandering to the extremists in his support base, that it's strictly for domestic consumption, and that when push comes to shove, he will compromise to get even part of his agenda accomplished (for "half a loaf is better than none") . . . and they respond by asking how that differs, exactly, from what they are doing.
Does anyone but me realize that the ironies of this situation are totally lost on the Rummy one?
I have a headache. I am going to take a huge quantity of Motrin (or a good stiff drink) and hide under a large pillow in a dark room. Wake me when the war is over.
I can see it now--the Iraqis respond by saying that they watch how he and Dubya and all the minions behave in the US domestic political sphere, and inform Rummy that what they are doing is no different.
He then tells them that it is different, because he's just pandering to the extremists in his support base, that it's strictly for domestic consumption, and that when push comes to shove, he will compromise to get even part of his agenda accomplished (for "half a loaf is better than none") . . . and they respond by asking how that differs, exactly, from what they are doing.
Does anyone but me realize that the ironies of this situation are totally lost on the Rummy one?
I have a headache. I am going to take a huge quantity of Motrin (or a good stiff drink) and hide under a large pillow in a dark room. Wake me when the war is over.
Monday, July 25, 2005
Oh, Me Of Little Faith! And A Few More Cobwebs To Blow Out, To Boot
Between the ridiculously high heat we've had here in Eastern Nebraska over the last few days and the Cubs winning their series against the Cardinals in St. Louis, I am thoroughly exhausted.
The heat index has been around 110° for the last three days. I have studiously avoided going outside to confirm that. But we are supposedly in for some big thunderstorms later today, and if we are lucky, things may go back to normal. That is, normal for this time of year. That is, highs in the high 80s and extremely muggy. I'm still not going to go outside if I can help it. Heck, once it's warmer than about 70°, it's too hot for me!
This year's edition of the Cubs will give me heart failure yet. It wasn't just that they took the series from the Cardinals; it was the way they did it. Last night's game is the perfect example. They go down by 3 runs early; they take the lead in the top of the 8th, only to lose it as St. Louis ties the game in the bottom of the 9th (with two out, by the way) . . . and then they get a grand slam in the top of the 11th and hold on to win 8-4.
Just thinking about it is exhausting!
Exhilirating, nevertheless
Boy, I hope they make the playoffs this year. Better yet, I hope they make the World Series this year. If they WIN the World Series this year, I will die from shock . . . but I will be a happy camper.
**********
Cobwebs? We don't need no stinking cobwebs!
Anyway . . . I've not yet commented on Dubya's nomination of Judge John G. Roberts to the USSCt vacancy lately created by Justice O'Connor's retirement announcement. There isn't a lot to say, except that I have to admire Dubya's instincts to play political hardball.
Judge Roberts is just the sort of jurist the Democrats cannot put up too much of a fight against, or they will pay for it come the next round of elections. As an advocate, Judge Roberts did what he had to do: articulately state the most extreme version of his client's positions (e.g., see his briefs on Roe v. Wade while in the US Attorney General's office during Bush pater's reign). As an appellate court judge, his opinions have been much more circumspect. Thus, Dubya has kept the radical right wing of the Republican Party happy, but he hasn't so outraged the Democrats and the populace in general that they can stridently protest Judge Roberts' nomination to fill O'Connor's seat.
Politically, the only way it could have been better for Dubya is if Judge Roberts had been a Latina.
And Roberts seems to know how to do the Senate-schmooze thing really well, too. He is no wild-eyed philosophically adamant Robert Bork . . . or at least, he doesn't come across that way . . . and thus his nomination most probably will be confirmed after some resistance. But the resistance cannot rise to much above the token level, or else Dubya's minions will have a lot of extra ammo to shoot at the Democrats come 2006.
I do think Dubya could have done better; I am forced to admit that he is getting exactly what he thinks he needs, politically, out of this nomination.
**********
And for all the people out there who say that passing laws banning all fireworks, say, "will do no good because people will just break the law," you are missing the point. Laws exist to give society an ostensibly rational way to deal with those who choose not to live in accord with general social standards of (dare I say it?) civilized behavior. Laws do not usually change people's behavior. The real reason Prohibition failed was that the system could not cope with the ridiculously vast numbers of people who chose to break that law.
Worse, due to the unwritten Law of Unintended Consequences, Prohibition gave organized crime the hook it needed to become the organized behemoth it since became. If people had in fact stopped drinking once Prohibition was the law, organized crime had nothing to organize around. But people wanted their booze, and if they couldn't get it legally, they'd get it howsoever they could. And so the mob bosses stepped in and supplied the demand. QED
**********
I just finished reading a book called History Lessons: How Textbooks from Around the World Portray U.S. History, by Dana Lindaman and Kyle Ward. Please let me commend it to your attention.
Reading the Cubans' version of the Cuban Missile Crisis is eye-opening, as is reading the North Koreans' version of the Korean War. Eye-opening and frightening, because they both are so totally at odds with what we think we know. And yes, both countries' official textbooks read like propaganda more than history . . . but that doesn't mean we can just ignore them. After all, this is what they are teaching their people. How in the world can we begin to improve our country's relations with these places when we are just talking past each other from the get-go?
Along those same lines, the Arab textbook telling of US history in the Middle East is downright scary. Even our putative allies present us as little more than 21st century Crusaders, bound on destroying them, their belief system, and their way of life. I dare to suggest that for most of us, the Crusades are "ancient history," old news, something to which we do not relate at all. But to the Muslims, the Crusades are quite immediate and still entirely relevant to how they perceive and interpret the West.
And that is deeply frightening. Because of their framework for their history, we cannot have any credibility with them at all, especially when we say we just want to "live and let live." That concept is foreign--literally--to their experience, and they will not believe us no matter how often we repeat it. And so they interpret our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq NOT as ending the threat of terror to us all, but as a means to impose our way of life on them. It doesn't help when we say we are just trying to strengthen democracy around the globe. They don't want it.
It doesn't make them right . . . but it does explain why we have so much trouble accomplishing our official aims. And while we officially interpret internal dissent as our strength, they interpret it as moral weakness, meaning we do not deserve to tell them what to do or how to do it.
This also demonstrates the trouble of our notion of establishing Arab peace with Israel. Arabs and Hebrews have been fighting each other for thousands upon thousands of years. It is naught but arrogance on our part to think that we can go in, wave the magic wand of "democracy," and solve everyone's problems.
We collectively need to get a better grasp of how the rest of the world sees us before we go running around telling everyone what to do and how to do it. Even though we do have the most bombs. Or else we are nothing but the playground bully much of the rest of the world already thinks we are.
The heat index has been around 110° for the last three days. I have studiously avoided going outside to confirm that. But we are supposedly in for some big thunderstorms later today, and if we are lucky, things may go back to normal. That is, normal for this time of year. That is, highs in the high 80s and extremely muggy. I'm still not going to go outside if I can help it. Heck, once it's warmer than about 70°, it's too hot for me!
This year's edition of the Cubs will give me heart failure yet. It wasn't just that they took the series from the Cardinals; it was the way they did it. Last night's game is the perfect example. They go down by 3 runs early; they take the lead in the top of the 8th, only to lose it as St. Louis ties the game in the bottom of the 9th (with two out, by the way) . . . and then they get a grand slam in the top of the 11th and hold on to win 8-4.
Just thinking about it is exhausting!
Exhilirating, nevertheless
Boy, I hope they make the playoffs this year. Better yet, I hope they make the World Series this year. If they WIN the World Series this year, I will die from shock . . . but I will be a happy camper.
**********
Cobwebs? We don't need no stinking cobwebs!
Anyway . . . I've not yet commented on Dubya's nomination of Judge John G. Roberts to the USSCt vacancy lately created by Justice O'Connor's retirement announcement. There isn't a lot to say, except that I have to admire Dubya's instincts to play political hardball.
Judge Roberts is just the sort of jurist the Democrats cannot put up too much of a fight against, or they will pay for it come the next round of elections. As an advocate, Judge Roberts did what he had to do: articulately state the most extreme version of his client's positions (e.g., see his briefs on Roe v. Wade while in the US Attorney General's office during Bush pater's reign). As an appellate court judge, his opinions have been much more circumspect. Thus, Dubya has kept the radical right wing of the Republican Party happy, but he hasn't so outraged the Democrats and the populace in general that they can stridently protest Judge Roberts' nomination to fill O'Connor's seat.
Politically, the only way it could have been better for Dubya is if Judge Roberts had been a Latina.
And Roberts seems to know how to do the Senate-schmooze thing really well, too. He is no wild-eyed philosophically adamant Robert Bork . . . or at least, he doesn't come across that way . . . and thus his nomination most probably will be confirmed after some resistance. But the resistance cannot rise to much above the token level, or else Dubya's minions will have a lot of extra ammo to shoot at the Democrats come 2006.
I do think Dubya could have done better; I am forced to admit that he is getting exactly what he thinks he needs, politically, out of this nomination.
**********
And for all the people out there who say that passing laws banning all fireworks, say, "will do no good because people will just break the law," you are missing the point. Laws exist to give society an ostensibly rational way to deal with those who choose not to live in accord with general social standards of (dare I say it?) civilized behavior. Laws do not usually change people's behavior. The real reason Prohibition failed was that the system could not cope with the ridiculously vast numbers of people who chose to break that law.
Worse, due to the unwritten Law of Unintended Consequences, Prohibition gave organized crime the hook it needed to become the organized behemoth it since became. If people had in fact stopped drinking once Prohibition was the law, organized crime had nothing to organize around. But people wanted their booze, and if they couldn't get it legally, they'd get it howsoever they could. And so the mob bosses stepped in and supplied the demand. QED
**********
I just finished reading a book called History Lessons: How Textbooks from Around the World Portray U.S. History, by Dana Lindaman and Kyle Ward. Please let me commend it to your attention.
Reading the Cubans' version of the Cuban Missile Crisis is eye-opening, as is reading the North Koreans' version of the Korean War. Eye-opening and frightening, because they both are so totally at odds with what we think we know. And yes, both countries' official textbooks read like propaganda more than history . . . but that doesn't mean we can just ignore them. After all, this is what they are teaching their people. How in the world can we begin to improve our country's relations with these places when we are just talking past each other from the get-go?
Along those same lines, the Arab textbook telling of US history in the Middle East is downright scary. Even our putative allies present us as little more than 21st century Crusaders, bound on destroying them, their belief system, and their way of life. I dare to suggest that for most of us, the Crusades are "ancient history," old news, something to which we do not relate at all. But to the Muslims, the Crusades are quite immediate and still entirely relevant to how they perceive and interpret the West.
And that is deeply frightening. Because of their framework for their history, we cannot have any credibility with them at all, especially when we say we just want to "live and let live." That concept is foreign--literally--to their experience, and they will not believe us no matter how often we repeat it. And so they interpret our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq NOT as ending the threat of terror to us all, but as a means to impose our way of life on them. It doesn't help when we say we are just trying to strengthen democracy around the globe. They don't want it.
It doesn't make them right . . . but it does explain why we have so much trouble accomplishing our official aims. And while we officially interpret internal dissent as our strength, they interpret it as moral weakness, meaning we do not deserve to tell them what to do or how to do it.
This also demonstrates the trouble of our notion of establishing Arab peace with Israel. Arabs and Hebrews have been fighting each other for thousands upon thousands of years. It is naught but arrogance on our part to think that we can go in, wave the magic wand of "democracy," and solve everyone's problems.
We collectively need to get a better grasp of how the rest of the world sees us before we go running around telling everyone what to do and how to do it. Even though we do have the most bombs. Or else we are nothing but the playground bully much of the rest of the world already thinks we are.
Friday, July 15, 2005
The Cobwebs In My Mind
Cleaning out the cobwebs in my mind is a lot more fun than cleaning out the cobwebs in my house, believe me! Which is why I am sitting here, posting this, and not doing my housework.
Anyway, cobweb the first: I am not surprised to hear that Chief Justice Rehnquist has said he will serve on the USSCt as long as his health will permit. Indeed, I suggest that you read that to mean "until his death." Don't forget that Rehnquist has an ego bigger than just about anything I can think of: after more than 200 years of tradition saying the Chief Justice is merely the "first among equals," who was the one and only (so far) justice to put chevrons on the sleeves of his judicial robes to make it plain that HE was in charge? Rehnquist, that's who.
I thought it was cheezy when he did it; I think it's cheezy now. But I have to admit, it does provide a useful bit of insight into our current CJ's mindset.
Cobweb the second: has anyone noticed how much Karl Rove and the late Senator Joseph McCarthy resemble each other? The same round head, the same double chin, the same evil mentality, the same desire to control by smearing the (in-fact) loyal opposition (OK, so McCarthy also had a receeding forehead and a permanent 5-o'clock shadow, whereas Rove has a high forehead and is just pasty-faced). Where, oh where, is our champion who will confront Rove directly and ask him, "At long last, sir, have you no decency?"
Cobweb the third: baseball, like all sports, provides useful instruction in how to approach life's more critical situations. Consider one example: the Cubs have been playing generally stinkily except when they are not expected (by even themselves) to win. Then, since all hope is already gone, they play loose, do not press, and behold! A miracle! They win! They have been losing a lot of the games their talent suggests they should win because then they are playing tight, as if they have something to lose . . . and so they do. Lose, that is.
So no matter what confronts you, act as if there is already no hope, and be loose. You may well be surprised at how favorable an outcome you'll then get. It's a Zen thing, really.
Cobweb the fourth: is anyone as ticked off as I am about how the media report the daily stock market fibrullations? What seems to matter most, as the media report in breathless tones, is whether the market went up or down on any given day. But wait! If you listen for the actual closing NUMBERS, the market is essentially flat. The media seem to believe that closing at 10,500 is a bad thing if the market went down to get there, but a good thing if it went up to get there. What the heck is wrong with this picture?
I think we'd all have a lot less uncontrollable stress in our lives if we looked more at the actual numbers and less at the day-to-day, moment-to-moment fluctuations of the market.
After all, despite what people say about businesses being rational, the market reacts quite emotionally to news of the day, every single day. Even the media recognize this whenever they report on the reasons the market did what it did on any given day. "Traders worried about high fuel prices . . ." is a classic. It is better to take a longer, calmer view. Zen strikes again.
Cobweb the fifth: I wonder whether the neocons will ever grasp the concept that while their means and methods differ, their aims are not dissimilar from any other fundamentalist group, even ones like the Muslim terrorists which they claim to hate. Each and every one of them wants everyone else to think just like they do, to be just like they are, and act only as they permit, or to suffer the consequences. A conundrum results. How can we tolerate the intolerant? Better yet, how can we get them to tolerate us?
Cobweb the sixth: Whenever people complain about "evolutionists" being reluctant to debate "creationists" or "proponents of intelligent design" or whatever they are calling themselves this week, I cringe. How can you have a rational debate with people whose essential precept is based on faith, on something that cannot be demonstrated experimentally in the first place? Especially when the creationists refuse to acknowledge correctly the evolutionists' positions. I am going to vomit the next time I hear someone dismiss evolution because "we did not descend from apes."
That is NOT what evolution posits. The anthropological and paleontological EVIDENCE indicates that both the apes and humans descended from a common ancestor that was neither exactly ape nor human.
So, all you creationists out there: get your facts straight, and then we may talk.
Besides, as I have said before, there's really no conflict between science and religion in the first place. Science asks "How?" Religion asks "Why?" What we could all use is a little more clear-headed thinking and a little less emotionalism. Look out! More Zen!
In any event, it's only the insecure who are so adamant about being the bringers of Revealed Truth on any subject. The only people who insist that their world view is the only correct one, no matter what that world view is, are the ones who deep inside are shakiest about whether they are correct. The only way they can find to live with their secret, inner doubts is to forestall any and all debate. Most of them probably don't even realize on a conscious level that this is what they are doing. The rest of us, however, are capable of living with some uncertainty and ambiguity. I ask again, how can we tolerate the intolerant? Moreover, how can we get them to leave us be?
Cobweb the seventh: How in the world can Dubya be so intractibly stupid? By continuing to claim that we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to keep from having to fight the terrorists here, he is not only insulting the British in the wake of the London bombings, he is utterly refusing to acknowledge the role that his own approach to US policy has had in heightening the risks of terrorism we all face in the first place.
Garry Trudeau is currently visiting "Rummyworld," and he makes the cogent point that our own (official, as a country) behavior is the best recruiting tool al-Quaida has ever had.
Which leads me to cobweb the eighth: this is not unlike the traditional British inability to see that their own behavior produced a lot of the IRA crap "up with which they had to put."
Do not get me wrong: I do NOT have any truck with terror or violence anywhere. I am a firm believer in non-violent resistance to social inequities. But I can understand why the violent react as they do. And I am sorry, Mr. Rove, but that doesn't make me an unpatriotic liberal wimp. It makes me a wise liberal thinker. It makes me someone who is capable of finding a real solution to the problems of terror, not someone whose intractibility knee-jerkingly increases the risks of terror to us all.
Cobweb the ninth: "popular" and "high quality" are not mutually exclusive terms, though in the short term, they can be. This is why we need a longer view--that's where we get history, literature, and great art, among other things, as opposed to the fads of the moment.
In other words, the test of time is the true test of greatness.
Cobweb the tenth: to whomever it was on NPR the other day who claims that all the recent home run and other baseball records should be stricken from the books because it's obvious that they were all steroid-driven and thus tainted: WHOA! Whatever happened to the concept of fair play? That everyone is innocent until proven guilty? That just looking at a lot of amazing numbers in the books is not, in and of itself, evidence of wrongdoing?
Did Babe Ruth take steroids? His records, in their day, were are remarkable and shocking as the more recent records are now. Did Lou Gehrig? Did Joe DiMaggio?
The fact is, when one considers the history of the game (there's that pesky historical perspective again!), every generation or so gets a lot of large leaps in the level of the records set. One cannot presume that all home run records are tainted and steroid-induced. Pitching is more diluted now than it was 50 or 60 or 70 years ago . . . there are a lot more teams, and the talent is more spread out than ever before. There are also a lot more people playing the game. Who knows what kind of records we'd have seen in the 1930s if there had been as many major leaguers from as many ethnic groups as there are today . . . conversely, there have been times when pitching dominated. Do the names Bob Gibson and Sandy Koufax ring any bells?
The game changes over time. In its current incarnation, almost no one in the game steals bases the way Maury Wills did in the 60s.
Besides, the nature of what the fans want to see has changed, too, producing a "natural selection" of big fly hitters being at a premium in this day and age.
I am not saying that steroids are not and have not been a problem. I am saying that there are any number of other plausible explanations for at least part of the recent home run explosion, and that we cannot condemn anyone until we have actual evidence of steroid abuse. So let's just let the facts be determined, and let those facts be our guide, before we start trashing the record books because we can.
Cobweb the last (for the moment): and I do sincerely and deeply apologize for what I am about to say. My first reaction to the London bombings last week was to spend several tense hours tracking down my cousin who is in London taking some graduate international studies courses. Thank God she's OK . . . but she was in King's Cross Station less than an hour before the bomb there went off, so it was a close thing.
My second reaction, and the one for which I am so sorry, is that my next thought on hearing of the bombings was, "Well, Tube Steak has just taken on a whole new meaning."
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!
Anyway, cobweb the first: I am not surprised to hear that Chief Justice Rehnquist has said he will serve on the USSCt as long as his health will permit. Indeed, I suggest that you read that to mean "until his death." Don't forget that Rehnquist has an ego bigger than just about anything I can think of: after more than 200 years of tradition saying the Chief Justice is merely the "first among equals," who was the one and only (so far) justice to put chevrons on the sleeves of his judicial robes to make it plain that HE was in charge? Rehnquist, that's who.
I thought it was cheezy when he did it; I think it's cheezy now. But I have to admit, it does provide a useful bit of insight into our current CJ's mindset.
Cobweb the second: has anyone noticed how much Karl Rove and the late Senator Joseph McCarthy resemble each other? The same round head, the same double chin, the same evil mentality, the same desire to control by smearing the (in-fact) loyal opposition (OK, so McCarthy also had a receeding forehead and a permanent 5-o'clock shadow, whereas Rove has a high forehead and is just pasty-faced). Where, oh where, is our champion who will confront Rove directly and ask him, "At long last, sir, have you no decency?"
Cobweb the third: baseball, like all sports, provides useful instruction in how to approach life's more critical situations. Consider one example: the Cubs have been playing generally stinkily except when they are not expected (by even themselves) to win. Then, since all hope is already gone, they play loose, do not press, and behold! A miracle! They win! They have been losing a lot of the games their talent suggests they should win because then they are playing tight, as if they have something to lose . . . and so they do. Lose, that is.
So no matter what confronts you, act as if there is already no hope, and be loose. You may well be surprised at how favorable an outcome you'll then get. It's a Zen thing, really.
Cobweb the fourth: is anyone as ticked off as I am about how the media report the daily stock market fibrullations? What seems to matter most, as the media report in breathless tones, is whether the market went up or down on any given day. But wait! If you listen for the actual closing NUMBERS, the market is essentially flat. The media seem to believe that closing at 10,500 is a bad thing if the market went down to get there, but a good thing if it went up to get there. What the heck is wrong with this picture?
I think we'd all have a lot less uncontrollable stress in our lives if we looked more at the actual numbers and less at the day-to-day, moment-to-moment fluctuations of the market.
After all, despite what people say about businesses being rational, the market reacts quite emotionally to news of the day, every single day. Even the media recognize this whenever they report on the reasons the market did what it did on any given day. "Traders worried about high fuel prices . . ." is a classic. It is better to take a longer, calmer view. Zen strikes again.
Cobweb the fifth: I wonder whether the neocons will ever grasp the concept that while their means and methods differ, their aims are not dissimilar from any other fundamentalist group, even ones like the Muslim terrorists which they claim to hate. Each and every one of them wants everyone else to think just like they do, to be just like they are, and act only as they permit, or to suffer the consequences. A conundrum results. How can we tolerate the intolerant? Better yet, how can we get them to tolerate us?
Cobweb the sixth: Whenever people complain about "evolutionists" being reluctant to debate "creationists" or "proponents of intelligent design" or whatever they are calling themselves this week, I cringe. How can you have a rational debate with people whose essential precept is based on faith, on something that cannot be demonstrated experimentally in the first place? Especially when the creationists refuse to acknowledge correctly the evolutionists' positions. I am going to vomit the next time I hear someone dismiss evolution because "we did not descend from apes."
That is NOT what evolution posits. The anthropological and paleontological EVIDENCE indicates that both the apes and humans descended from a common ancestor that was neither exactly ape nor human.
So, all you creationists out there: get your facts straight, and then we may talk.
Besides, as I have said before, there's really no conflict between science and religion in the first place. Science asks "How?" Religion asks "Why?" What we could all use is a little more clear-headed thinking and a little less emotionalism. Look out! More Zen!
In any event, it's only the insecure who are so adamant about being the bringers of Revealed Truth on any subject. The only people who insist that their world view is the only correct one, no matter what that world view is, are the ones who deep inside are shakiest about whether they are correct. The only way they can find to live with their secret, inner doubts is to forestall any and all debate. Most of them probably don't even realize on a conscious level that this is what they are doing. The rest of us, however, are capable of living with some uncertainty and ambiguity. I ask again, how can we tolerate the intolerant? Moreover, how can we get them to leave us be?
Cobweb the seventh: How in the world can Dubya be so intractibly stupid? By continuing to claim that we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to keep from having to fight the terrorists here, he is not only insulting the British in the wake of the London bombings, he is utterly refusing to acknowledge the role that his own approach to US policy has had in heightening the risks of terrorism we all face in the first place.
Garry Trudeau is currently visiting "Rummyworld," and he makes the cogent point that our own (official, as a country) behavior is the best recruiting tool al-Quaida has ever had.
Which leads me to cobweb the eighth: this is not unlike the traditional British inability to see that their own behavior produced a lot of the IRA crap "up with which they had to put."
Do not get me wrong: I do NOT have any truck with terror or violence anywhere. I am a firm believer in non-violent resistance to social inequities. But I can understand why the violent react as they do. And I am sorry, Mr. Rove, but that doesn't make me an unpatriotic liberal wimp. It makes me a wise liberal thinker. It makes me someone who is capable of finding a real solution to the problems of terror, not someone whose intractibility knee-jerkingly increases the risks of terror to us all.
Cobweb the ninth: "popular" and "high quality" are not mutually exclusive terms, though in the short term, they can be. This is why we need a longer view--that's where we get history, literature, and great art, among other things, as opposed to the fads of the moment.
In other words, the test of time is the true test of greatness.
Cobweb the tenth: to whomever it was on NPR the other day who claims that all the recent home run and other baseball records should be stricken from the books because it's obvious that they were all steroid-driven and thus tainted: WHOA! Whatever happened to the concept of fair play? That everyone is innocent until proven guilty? That just looking at a lot of amazing numbers in the books is not, in and of itself, evidence of wrongdoing?
Did Babe Ruth take steroids? His records, in their day, were are remarkable and shocking as the more recent records are now. Did Lou Gehrig? Did Joe DiMaggio?
The fact is, when one considers the history of the game (there's that pesky historical perspective again!), every generation or so gets a lot of large leaps in the level of the records set. One cannot presume that all home run records are tainted and steroid-induced. Pitching is more diluted now than it was 50 or 60 or 70 years ago . . . there are a lot more teams, and the talent is more spread out than ever before. There are also a lot more people playing the game. Who knows what kind of records we'd have seen in the 1930s if there had been as many major leaguers from as many ethnic groups as there are today . . . conversely, there have been times when pitching dominated. Do the names Bob Gibson and Sandy Koufax ring any bells?
The game changes over time. In its current incarnation, almost no one in the game steals bases the way Maury Wills did in the 60s.
Besides, the nature of what the fans want to see has changed, too, producing a "natural selection" of big fly hitters being at a premium in this day and age.
I am not saying that steroids are not and have not been a problem. I am saying that there are any number of other plausible explanations for at least part of the recent home run explosion, and that we cannot condemn anyone until we have actual evidence of steroid abuse. So let's just let the facts be determined, and let those facts be our guide, before we start trashing the record books because we can.
Cobweb the last (for the moment): and I do sincerely and deeply apologize for what I am about to say. My first reaction to the London bombings last week was to spend several tense hours tracking down my cousin who is in London taking some graduate international studies courses. Thank God she's OK . . . but she was in King's Cross Station less than an hour before the bomb there went off, so it was a close thing.
My second reaction, and the one for which I am so sorry, is that my next thought on hearing of the bombings was, "Well, Tube Steak has just taken on a whole new meaning."
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!
Saturday, July 02, 2005
And I Thought I Was Good At Coming From Left Field!
Associate Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has announced her retirement from that esteemed bench--sort of. She will continue to sit until her replacement has not only been nominated, but confirmed.
Justice O'Connor caught me, as she did nearly everyone else (including those in the White House if the news reports are correct), off guard. I fully expected ailing Chief Justice Rehnquist to resign soon, but not her.
The next several months will be fascinating. To begin, O'Connor, as the first female Supreme Court justice, probably cannot be replaced by an old white man. Dubya's going to have to find a nominee who can pass his litmus tests (otherwise he won't nominate that person) and yet not undo the Court's current gender and ethnic diversity. Most likely, Dubya will have to broaden it further. (Remember, everyone, the Court unofficially has a "Jewish" seat and a "black" seat and a "Catholic" seat and at least one "female" seat . . .) About the only way Dubya can nominate a man to replace O'Connor is if he gets yet another ethnic group into the mix. I thus suspect that he may push for current Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales to accept nomination even though Gonzales has already indicated he doesn't want it.
Back in 1981, when President Reagan appointed O'Connor, I felt (and still feel) that it was more important to women to have someone--male or female--of open judicial mind and temperment appointed than it was to have just any woman appointed. I was less than thrilled by her ascention to the nation's highest court. Nevertheless, she has proven to be reasonable and moderate in much of her judicial output. Indeed, in the vast majority of the Court's most provocative cases over the last 24 years, she was the crucial swing vote preserving key civil rights gains established in earlier Court decisions.
In other words, having a judicial conservative on the bench is not all bad when conservation means not overturning prior decisions willy-nilly. And most certainly by the standards of Dubya's favored potential nominees, O'Connor is downright moderate . . . hence, unacceptable.
Therefore, her resignation is much more troublesome than would have been CJ Rehnquist's. Dubya could nominate a replacement for him and it wouldn't change the Court's balance of power. Take away one neocon and add one neocon and you get one neocon. But take away one moderate and add one neocon, and you have trouble with a capital "T." O'Connor's replacement may be able to do tons of damage, especially if s/he does not care a whit about judicial restraint in its classic sense. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Finally, with the Senate's filibuster rules and "nuclear option" powers still in play (ref. my earlier post about when is a compromise not really a compromise), the confirmation process for whomever Dubya nominates is guaranteed to turn brutal.
But this is where O'Connor was smart. She isn't giving up her seat until her replacement is confirmed. She might still be on the bench come October, 2005. I never thought I'd say this, but that is not a bad thing.
Buckle your seatbelts, boys. It's going to be a bumpy flight.
Justice O'Connor caught me, as she did nearly everyone else (including those in the White House if the news reports are correct), off guard. I fully expected ailing Chief Justice Rehnquist to resign soon, but not her.
The next several months will be fascinating. To begin, O'Connor, as the first female Supreme Court justice, probably cannot be replaced by an old white man. Dubya's going to have to find a nominee who can pass his litmus tests (otherwise he won't nominate that person) and yet not undo the Court's current gender and ethnic diversity. Most likely, Dubya will have to broaden it further. (Remember, everyone, the Court unofficially has a "Jewish" seat and a "black" seat and a "Catholic" seat and at least one "female" seat . . .) About the only way Dubya can nominate a man to replace O'Connor is if he gets yet another ethnic group into the mix. I thus suspect that he may push for current Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales to accept nomination even though Gonzales has already indicated he doesn't want it.
Back in 1981, when President Reagan appointed O'Connor, I felt (and still feel) that it was more important to women to have someone--male or female--of open judicial mind and temperment appointed than it was to have just any woman appointed. I was less than thrilled by her ascention to the nation's highest court. Nevertheless, she has proven to be reasonable and moderate in much of her judicial output. Indeed, in the vast majority of the Court's most provocative cases over the last 24 years, she was the crucial swing vote preserving key civil rights gains established in earlier Court decisions.
In other words, having a judicial conservative on the bench is not all bad when conservation means not overturning prior decisions willy-nilly. And most certainly by the standards of Dubya's favored potential nominees, O'Connor is downright moderate . . . hence, unacceptable.
Therefore, her resignation is much more troublesome than would have been CJ Rehnquist's. Dubya could nominate a replacement for him and it wouldn't change the Court's balance of power. Take away one neocon and add one neocon and you get one neocon. But take away one moderate and add one neocon, and you have trouble with a capital "T." O'Connor's replacement may be able to do tons of damage, especially if s/he does not care a whit about judicial restraint in its classic sense. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Finally, with the Senate's filibuster rules and "nuclear option" powers still in play (ref. my earlier post about when is a compromise not really a compromise), the confirmation process for whomever Dubya nominates is guaranteed to turn brutal.
But this is where O'Connor was smart. She isn't giving up her seat until her replacement is confirmed. She might still be on the bench come October, 2005. I never thought I'd say this, but that is not a bad thing.
Buckle your seatbelts, boys. It's going to be a bumpy flight.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
The Best Tribute I Can Pay
Shelby Foote, noted novelist, esteemed historian, and thoroughgoing Mississippi gentleman, has died at the age of 88. I knew he'd been ill for quite some time; I had no idea just how serious it was.
He will be missed. He will not be forgotten.
Modern Library ranked his 3 volume The Civil War: A Narrative as # 15 on its top 100 list of the best nonfiction works of the 20th century. Truly a well-deserved accolade.
The best and nicest thing I can say is that it is impossible to read any of that work without actually hearing Shelby Foote's voice speaking his words.
For this we must thank Ken Burns, whose PBS series on the Civil War opened our eyes to Mr. Foote's existence in the first place.
The second best thing I can say about Shelby Foote is that he was no Southern sentimentalist: he did not approach his work with the attitude that the Confederacy was some idealized, romanticized Lost Cause. He stuck to facts. He hated slavery, racism, and all their implications. He was a voice of sanity and gentility in an increasingly crazy and stridently rude world.
As I said, he will be missed.
He will be missed. He will not be forgotten.
Modern Library ranked his 3 volume The Civil War: A Narrative as # 15 on its top 100 list of the best nonfiction works of the 20th century. Truly a well-deserved accolade.
The best and nicest thing I can say is that it is impossible to read any of that work without actually hearing Shelby Foote's voice speaking his words.
For this we must thank Ken Burns, whose PBS series on the Civil War opened our eyes to Mr. Foote's existence in the first place.
The second best thing I can say about Shelby Foote is that he was no Southern sentimentalist: he did not approach his work with the attitude that the Confederacy was some idealized, romanticized Lost Cause. He stuck to facts. He hated slavery, racism, and all their implications. He was a voice of sanity and gentility in an increasingly crazy and stridently rude world.
As I said, he will be missed.
Monday, June 27, 2005
Missed It By That Much!
Well, the results are in. According to Matt Lauer, the number one Greatest American, by a margin of less than one-half of one percent, or .444 %, of the votes cast, is Ronald Reagan!?!?
Yes, I lost my lunch. I told you to have a barf bag at the ready. I know I did.
Abraham Lincoln finished second; Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was third; George Washington was fourth; and Benjamin Franklin was fifth.
In an interview done during the live broadcast revealing the Number One, even Reagan's son Ron said his dad would have voted for Lincoln. Get a clue, all you people who voted for Reagan. In fact, take two. They're small.
Let's reprise "One of These Things is Not Like the Others," shall we?
Reagan does most emphatically NOT belong anywhere in the top 5, let alone at Number 1.
Why? Well, there's Iran-Contra, for starters. There's also my argument that he didn't really end the Cold War. Besides, even if he did, the consequences for us have not been universally good, now, have they? Remember, there had not been any 9/11s while the USSR kept the lid on the fanatics in the Middle East. We should have let the USSR keep doing the dirty work. It would have saved us several thousand young American lives, among other things.
There's also the simple fact that Reagan was a Grade B actor delivering his lines, and not really a leader. He didn't want to move the country forward. He wanted to go backwards, and boy, have we been paying for it ever since. He dreamed of a WWII-era America, where no one could question that we were the good guys, and battleships ruled the waves, and Norman Rockwell was a realist, not an idealist. That world vanished a long time ago (if it ever really existed at all), and there is no bringing it back.
Now JFK was a leader. "Ask not . . .," the Peace Corps, and the space program are ample examples. Reagan was everybody's easygoing grandpa. I, for one, was energized by Kennedy's vision for the country. But I wanted to curl up into a ball and hide when forced to contemplate Reagan's. "Government is the problem, but we're making it even bigger at the same time we complain about it, so we are going in hock past our eyeballs. But isn't it good to be an American?" The hypocrisy and sheer stupidity of it still stun me.
Finally, and most telling of all: it's just too soon after Reagan's presidency to judge. As recently as the 1940s, American History courses stopped at the year 1877. Anything more recent was considered not history, but political science (if that). History needs time to render its final judgments. I would say we are just now getting far enough away from JFK's 1000 days to be able to evaluate his presidency properly. Reagan's administration is much too near in time to get more than the forementioned political-science-type treatment.
Reagan's selection as the Number One "Greatest American" actually proves the point. Americans have notoriously short attention spans. Enough of them remembered Reagan to vote for him based on his having been around during their lifetimes. In the broadcast that announced the top 5 candidates, at least one woman complained that the top 5 were all dead. ("Now there's someone with a keen grasp of history," she said, sarcastically.) The woman eventually threw her support to Reagan, illustrating my point: he was alive in her lifetime, and that is what mattered to her, so she voted for him.
Besides, the whole thing most probably was rigged to begin with. One allegedly could vote up to 3 times per mechanism PER WEEK for one's choice. By the Discovery Channel's own terms, I should have been able to vote again ON the 26th . . . but every time I tried, I was locked out; this at the very moment Matt Lauer was saying that the polls were still open. I smell a big rat.
But it doesn't really matter anyway. No one is taking this for any kind of scientific, or rational, or even reasonable, evaluation of the nominees. I mean, c'mon. We're talking about the same people who voted Elvis the # 8 all-time greatest American, and who wouldn't even list Duke Ellington in the top 100. It's disappointing to me because I always thought better of Americans in general than that. I should have listened to P.T. Barnum: no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. (By the way, which way to the egress?)
But the exercise does say a lot, and nothing good, about the state of education in America today. Apparently as long as all the children are limited to the same degree, no child is considered left behind. Scary.
It's also a very useful warning to anyone who expects to get the neocons out of office come the next election. They aren't going to be able to beat the neocons by saying "we're correct and you know it." About half the populace does NOT know it. The pols are going to have to come up with other tactics.
What those tactics might be, I have no idea.
Yes, I lost my lunch. I told you to have a barf bag at the ready. I know I did.
Abraham Lincoln finished second; Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was third; George Washington was fourth; and Benjamin Franklin was fifth.
In an interview done during the live broadcast revealing the Number One, even Reagan's son Ron said his dad would have voted for Lincoln. Get a clue, all you people who voted for Reagan. In fact, take two. They're small.
Let's reprise "One of These Things is Not Like the Others," shall we?
Reagan does most emphatically NOT belong anywhere in the top 5, let alone at Number 1.
Why? Well, there's Iran-Contra, for starters. There's also my argument that he didn't really end the Cold War. Besides, even if he did, the consequences for us have not been universally good, now, have they? Remember, there had not been any 9/11s while the USSR kept the lid on the fanatics in the Middle East. We should have let the USSR keep doing the dirty work. It would have saved us several thousand young American lives, among other things.
There's also the simple fact that Reagan was a Grade B actor delivering his lines, and not really a leader. He didn't want to move the country forward. He wanted to go backwards, and boy, have we been paying for it ever since. He dreamed of a WWII-era America, where no one could question that we were the good guys, and battleships ruled the waves, and Norman Rockwell was a realist, not an idealist. That world vanished a long time ago (if it ever really existed at all), and there is no bringing it back.
Now JFK was a leader. "Ask not . . .," the Peace Corps, and the space program are ample examples. Reagan was everybody's easygoing grandpa. I, for one, was energized by Kennedy's vision for the country. But I wanted to curl up into a ball and hide when forced to contemplate Reagan's. "Government is the problem, but we're making it even bigger at the same time we complain about it, so we are going in hock past our eyeballs. But isn't it good to be an American?" The hypocrisy and sheer stupidity of it still stun me.
Finally, and most telling of all: it's just too soon after Reagan's presidency to judge. As recently as the 1940s, American History courses stopped at the year 1877. Anything more recent was considered not history, but political science (if that). History needs time to render its final judgments. I would say we are just now getting far enough away from JFK's 1000 days to be able to evaluate his presidency properly. Reagan's administration is much too near in time to get more than the forementioned political-science-type treatment.
Reagan's selection as the Number One "Greatest American" actually proves the point. Americans have notoriously short attention spans. Enough of them remembered Reagan to vote for him based on his having been around during their lifetimes. In the broadcast that announced the top 5 candidates, at least one woman complained that the top 5 were all dead. ("Now there's someone with a keen grasp of history," she said, sarcastically.) The woman eventually threw her support to Reagan, illustrating my point: he was alive in her lifetime, and that is what mattered to her, so she voted for him.
Besides, the whole thing most probably was rigged to begin with. One allegedly could vote up to 3 times per mechanism PER WEEK for one's choice. By the Discovery Channel's own terms, I should have been able to vote again ON the 26th . . . but every time I tried, I was locked out; this at the very moment Matt Lauer was saying that the polls were still open. I smell a big rat.
But it doesn't really matter anyway. No one is taking this for any kind of scientific, or rational, or even reasonable, evaluation of the nominees. I mean, c'mon. We're talking about the same people who voted Elvis the # 8 all-time greatest American, and who wouldn't even list Duke Ellington in the top 100. It's disappointing to me because I always thought better of Americans in general than that. I should have listened to P.T. Barnum: no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. (By the way, which way to the egress?)
But the exercise does say a lot, and nothing good, about the state of education in America today. Apparently as long as all the children are limited to the same degree, no child is considered left behind. Scary.
It's also a very useful warning to anyone who expects to get the neocons out of office come the next election. They aren't going to be able to beat the neocons by saying "we're correct and you know it." About half the populace does NOT know it. The pols are going to have to come up with other tactics.
What those tactics might be, I have no idea.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
My Brain Hurts!
Miscellany from the files inside my head:
I am still trying to recover from Nebraska's elimination from the College World Series. They lost on Tuesday to Arizona State, 8 to 7, in 11 innings, in a game that ESPN rightfully considers worthy of being an "Instant Classic." Lead changes, errors, dramatic three-run homers, strange decisions to steal, dropped foul balls, dramatic catches and other defensive gems . . . this game had enough excitement to replace any number of Viagra prescriptions.
My own take on why Nebraska lost is simple: they had a lot to play for; they were ranked # 3 in the nation coming into the CWS; and after previous CWS appearances both were 0-for-2 and out (also known as "oh-for-two-and barbeque"), they knew expectations were high. They didn't want to let the home state crowds down. So they were nervous, and they played like it. But they did beat Arizona State once before going down in flames to Florida then losing to ASU in the elimination game rematch.
[Just an aside: I still don't think I like this twin bracket, modified double elimination format. I much prefer the traditional round-robin double elimination, because then you didn't have to play the same team every other time you turned around. I do understand why the format was changed . . . the needs of TV. TV people must schedule with some certainty, and the old format could let things go on way too long for their abilities to plan. At least this way, we know for sure how long the CWS will last and when (w/in a 48-hour time frame) the final game will be played.--Ed.]
Arizona State, on the other hand, was not even ranked in the top 25 nationally coming into the CWS; they had nothing to lose and could play as loose as they needed to win. They are playing Florida right now in a rematch of yesterday's game to see which of them goes on to play Texas in the best of 3 Championship Series.
In watching the CWS, however, I missed the telecast of the American Film Institute's top 100 film lines of all time. I did see the list in the paper. I am pleasantly surprised to admit that with only 1 or 2 or maybe 3 exceptions, I had no quarrel with what was on the list . . . though I might have adjusted the rankings of some of them. Ferinstance: I think "You're going to need a bigger boat," from Jaws, should have been higher than # 35. I also think "Gentlemen! You can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" from Dr. Strangelove should have been much higher than # 64.
Oh, well. That's what makes all this list-making fun . . . debating the results.
Some friends have suggested that I start posting info about the books I am reading. I am taking that under advisement. Apparently people are reading this thing, even if they aren't posting comments. But I'd really like to see some comments! I started this not just to rant my rants, but to get some intelligent dialogues going. Agree w/ me, disagree w/ me, have suggestions for me--I don't care what you post as comments--just please post some comments!
Finally, don't forget to watch the Discovery Channel Sunday, the 26th, to find out who got voted as "The Greatest American." Keep a barf bag by your chair, just in case.
I am still trying to recover from Nebraska's elimination from the College World Series. They lost on Tuesday to Arizona State, 8 to 7, in 11 innings, in a game that ESPN rightfully considers worthy of being an "Instant Classic." Lead changes, errors, dramatic three-run homers, strange decisions to steal, dropped foul balls, dramatic catches and other defensive gems . . . this game had enough excitement to replace any number of Viagra prescriptions.
My own take on why Nebraska lost is simple: they had a lot to play for; they were ranked # 3 in the nation coming into the CWS; and after previous CWS appearances both were 0-for-2 and out (also known as "oh-for-two-and barbeque"), they knew expectations were high. They didn't want to let the home state crowds down. So they were nervous, and they played like it. But they did beat Arizona State once before going down in flames to Florida then losing to ASU in the elimination game rematch.
[Just an aside: I still don't think I like this twin bracket, modified double elimination format. I much prefer the traditional round-robin double elimination, because then you didn't have to play the same team every other time you turned around. I do understand why the format was changed . . . the needs of TV. TV people must schedule with some certainty, and the old format could let things go on way too long for their abilities to plan. At least this way, we know for sure how long the CWS will last and when (w/in a 48-hour time frame) the final game will be played.--Ed.]
Arizona State, on the other hand, was not even ranked in the top 25 nationally coming into the CWS; they had nothing to lose and could play as loose as they needed to win. They are playing Florida right now in a rematch of yesterday's game to see which of them goes on to play Texas in the best of 3 Championship Series.
In watching the CWS, however, I missed the telecast of the American Film Institute's top 100 film lines of all time. I did see the list in the paper. I am pleasantly surprised to admit that with only 1 or 2 or maybe 3 exceptions, I had no quarrel with what was on the list . . . though I might have adjusted the rankings of some of them. Ferinstance: I think "You're going to need a bigger boat," from Jaws, should have been higher than # 35. I also think "Gentlemen! You can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" from Dr. Strangelove should have been much higher than # 64.
Oh, well. That's what makes all this list-making fun . . . debating the results.
Some friends have suggested that I start posting info about the books I am reading. I am taking that under advisement. Apparently people are reading this thing, even if they aren't posting comments. But I'd really like to see some comments! I started this not just to rant my rants, but to get some intelligent dialogues going. Agree w/ me, disagree w/ me, have suggestions for me--I don't care what you post as comments--just please post some comments!
Finally, don't forget to watch the Discovery Channel Sunday, the 26th, to find out who got voted as "The Greatest American." Keep a barf bag by your chair, just in case.
Sunday, June 19, 2005
The Discovery Channel's Greatest American: Update
Well, it's now down to the top 5 in the Discovery Channel's search for "the Greatest American."
In alphabetical order, the top 5 are: Benjamin Franklin, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, and George Washington.
Everybody sing along: "One of these things is not like the others, . . ."
Dubya was said to be # 6. Gag me with a spoon!
Elvis was in the top 10 . . . and Walt Disney was ranked way ahead of John F. Kennedy in the top 25.
As I said earlier, many people do not seem to grasp the concept of "greatness." They're voting for some personal favorite, not for whom has done the most good for America. There is no other reason for Dubya to be anywhere on the top 100, and certainly no reason for Ronald McD--oops! I mean--Reagan to be in the top 5.
After all, Ann Coulter is defending both of them. Res ipsa loquitur.
In any event, the phone numbers with which you can vote (up to three times per week) have changed. To vote for Lincoln, call (toll free) 1-866-669-3103.
You can also vote online. Go to www.aol.com/greatestamerican and click just beneath Lincoln's picture. You can cast up to 3 votes per week by this method in addition to your telephone votes.
You can also get information at that web site on how to vote (again, up to 3 times per week in addition to the other methods) via text messaging. I am afraid I do not have a phone that text messages, so I neglected that. Mea culpa!
This is important, everyone--don't let the idiots and ideologues have their way. Cast serious votes for a proper candidate!
The final results are to be tabulated and revealed live on the Discovery Channel next Sunday, June 26th, at 9 p.m. Eastern/8 p.m. Central time.
Remember: vote early, and often!
In alphabetical order, the top 5 are: Benjamin Franklin, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, and George Washington.
Everybody sing along: "One of these things is not like the others, . . ."
Dubya was said to be # 6. Gag me with a spoon!
Elvis was in the top 10 . . . and Walt Disney was ranked way ahead of John F. Kennedy in the top 25.
As I said earlier, many people do not seem to grasp the concept of "greatness." They're voting for some personal favorite, not for whom has done the most good for America. There is no other reason for Dubya to be anywhere on the top 100, and certainly no reason for Ronald McD--oops! I mean--Reagan to be in the top 5.
After all, Ann Coulter is defending both of them. Res ipsa loquitur.
In any event, the phone numbers with which you can vote (up to three times per week) have changed. To vote for Lincoln, call (toll free) 1-866-669-3103.
You can also vote online. Go to www.aol.com/greatestamerican and click just beneath Lincoln's picture. You can cast up to 3 votes per week by this method in addition to your telephone votes.
You can also get information at that web site on how to vote (again, up to 3 times per week in addition to the other methods) via text messaging. I am afraid I do not have a phone that text messages, so I neglected that. Mea culpa!
This is important, everyone--don't let the idiots and ideologues have their way. Cast serious votes for a proper candidate!
The final results are to be tabulated and revealed live on the Discovery Channel next Sunday, June 26th, at 9 p.m. Eastern/8 p.m. Central time.
Remember: vote early, and often!
Thursday, June 16, 2005
A Correction (With A Caveat), A Postscript, And A Bit Of Foolishness
A Correction
Terri Schiavo's autopsy results show extensive brain atrophy from the lack of oxygen her brain suffered some 14 years ago, according to the medical examiner's report released yesterday. The report interprets this to mean that no amount of therapy could have helped her, seeming to vindicate her husband in his efforts to "let her die in peace."
OK, so I was wrong when I interpreted the video of Terri showing what seemed to be awareness and purposeful movement.
But I still say it was wrong to starve and dehydrate her to death. It was unnecessarily cruel. Every human will die without food and water, so withholding food and water is heinous in any circumstance where the person is otherwise alive. While I was wrong about Terri's prognosis, I maintain I was right to protest the means of her death.
A Postscript
The Bellevue Public Schools Board of Education announced at its most recent Monday meeting that it's sending a letter to College World Series, Inc., to get CWS to let the tournament teams come back to practice at BPS facilities.
Essentially, the Board of Ed. is pleading like a dog w/ its tail between its legs to get CWS to forgive its attempt to extort money from CWS this year by demanding outrageous fees for use of BPS facilities.
And oh, by the way, any grants CWS wants to give BPS for use of the facilities in 2006 and beyond will be accepted gratefully.
The motion to send the letter was passed unanimously by the Board; the letter will be signed by both the President of the Board of Education and by the Superintendent of the Bellevue Public Schools.
One of the Board of Ed. members said of its previous actions this year regarding the CWS, "I think we've been misunderstood and miscommunicated."
What's to misunderstand? As I said in a previous post, the Board tried a bit of legal extortion, got caught, and is now frantically backpedalling to undo the damage its greed caused.
But BPS is still money-grubbing; the Superintendent said BPS would in any event incur extra expenses in connection with the CWS and that the community of Bellevue should help raise the funds to offset those expenses. (This after the Mayor said "no, thank you" to BPS's suggestion that the City pay BPS the exhorbitant $10,000 per facility fee BPS initially tried to get from CWS, Inc.)
The Superintedent's position would be a lot more credible if he could state it without revealing the dollar signs in his eyes.
While I would very, very much like to see the CWS resume using BPS facilities for the tournament teams' practices, I also think it would serve BPS right if CWS never comes back.
A Bit Of Foolishness--Actually, Two Bits Of Foolishness
Bit the First: There's an alligator in Carter Lake! Carter Lake, for those who may not know, is an oxbow formed when the Missouri River changed course several decades ago; the surrounding community, also Carter Lake, is officially in Iowa though it's on the Nebraska side of the main river channel. (When the state borders were made official, Carter Lake was the main channel; after it became an oxbow, no one changed the status of the town as being in Iowa.)
Anyway, last week several fishermen discovered an alligator in the lake. Really. It's officially a 3-foot-long caiman; the informed speculation is that it was a pet that either escaped or was released when its owner tired of dealing with it. (Either way, it's illegal in both Carter Lake and Omaha to own such an animal and board it within city limits . . . unless you're the Zoo.)
No one is too worried. It may eat a few fish, but people and properly domesticated pets like dogs and cats are not at much risk. It won't survive the winter in any event, according to Dr. Lee Simmons, head of Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo.
A humane trap was put out; the caiman was caught at one point and its jaws duct-taped shut . . . but it got away.
I do not know whether it freed itself from the duct tape; nor do I know whether further attempts have been made to recapture it. All I know is that I am not going swimming in Carter Lake in the foreseeable future.
Bit the Second: If I ever get a new (to me, at least) car, I must buy an Accord. I want to get personalized license plates that say "Fenry."
Get it? I'd then own the "Fenry Honda."
>>>ahem<<<
Terri Schiavo's autopsy results show extensive brain atrophy from the lack of oxygen her brain suffered some 14 years ago, according to the medical examiner's report released yesterday. The report interprets this to mean that no amount of therapy could have helped her, seeming to vindicate her husband in his efforts to "let her die in peace."
OK, so I was wrong when I interpreted the video of Terri showing what seemed to be awareness and purposeful movement.
But I still say it was wrong to starve and dehydrate her to death. It was unnecessarily cruel. Every human will die without food and water, so withholding food and water is heinous in any circumstance where the person is otherwise alive. While I was wrong about Terri's prognosis, I maintain I was right to protest the means of her death.
A Postscript
The Bellevue Public Schools Board of Education announced at its most recent Monday meeting that it's sending a letter to College World Series, Inc., to get CWS to let the tournament teams come back to practice at BPS facilities.
Essentially, the Board of Ed. is pleading like a dog w/ its tail between its legs to get CWS to forgive its attempt to extort money from CWS this year by demanding outrageous fees for use of BPS facilities.
And oh, by the way, any grants CWS wants to give BPS for use of the facilities in 2006 and beyond will be accepted gratefully.
The motion to send the letter was passed unanimously by the Board; the letter will be signed by both the President of the Board of Education and by the Superintendent of the Bellevue Public Schools.
One of the Board of Ed. members said of its previous actions this year regarding the CWS, "I think we've been misunderstood and miscommunicated."
What's to misunderstand? As I said in a previous post, the Board tried a bit of legal extortion, got caught, and is now frantically backpedalling to undo the damage its greed caused.
But BPS is still money-grubbing; the Superintendent said BPS would in any event incur extra expenses in connection with the CWS and that the community of Bellevue should help raise the funds to offset those expenses. (This after the Mayor said "no, thank you" to BPS's suggestion that the City pay BPS the exhorbitant $10,000 per facility fee BPS initially tried to get from CWS, Inc.)
The Superintedent's position would be a lot more credible if he could state it without revealing the dollar signs in his eyes.
While I would very, very much like to see the CWS resume using BPS facilities for the tournament teams' practices, I also think it would serve BPS right if CWS never comes back.
A Bit Of Foolishness--Actually, Two Bits Of Foolishness
Bit the First: There's an alligator in Carter Lake! Carter Lake, for those who may not know, is an oxbow formed when the Missouri River changed course several decades ago; the surrounding community, also Carter Lake, is officially in Iowa though it's on the Nebraska side of the main river channel. (When the state borders were made official, Carter Lake was the main channel; after it became an oxbow, no one changed the status of the town as being in Iowa.)
Anyway, last week several fishermen discovered an alligator in the lake. Really. It's officially a 3-foot-long caiman; the informed speculation is that it was a pet that either escaped or was released when its owner tired of dealing with it. (Either way, it's illegal in both Carter Lake and Omaha to own such an animal and board it within city limits . . . unless you're the Zoo.)
No one is too worried. It may eat a few fish, but people and properly domesticated pets like dogs and cats are not at much risk. It won't survive the winter in any event, according to Dr. Lee Simmons, head of Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo.
A humane trap was put out; the caiman was caught at one point and its jaws duct-taped shut . . . but it got away.
I do not know whether it freed itself from the duct tape; nor do I know whether further attempts have been made to recapture it. All I know is that I am not going swimming in Carter Lake in the foreseeable future.
Bit the Second: If I ever get a new (to me, at least) car, I must buy an Accord. I want to get personalized license plates that say "Fenry."
Get it? I'd then own the "Fenry Honda."
>>>ahem<<<
Monday, June 13, 2005
California Criminal Court Conundrums, Part III
Michael Jackson was just acquitted on all 10 of the child-molestation-related charges against him.
Maybe he didn't do it, but as the Amish say, "It just doesn't look."
All that can be said with certainty is that he is not guilty--which is NOT to say that he is innocent [despite how it will be reported by the press, especially the print media--Ed.].
All that the verdicts mean is that the prosecution failed to prove its case to the jury "beyond a reasonable doubt." It doesn't even mean that the jury thinks Jackson didn't do it; it just means that the prosecution failed to convince the jury sufficiently that he did. In plain English, the DA botched the case.
[At least part of this is because the victim and his family looked like a bunch of money-grubbing extortionists . . . no one seems to care that even if they were, if Jackson did what they alleged, they were entitled to justice. Even a prostitute can say "No," and if she does but the guy proceeds anyway, it's still a rape.--Ed.]
Add this verdict to the Robert Blake and OJ Simpson verdicts, and you get a sum of poor prosecution of high-profile cases. I wonder when California DAs are going to realize that to succeed in high-profile cases, they'll have to be 100 times more thorough and careful than they'd have to be in a Joe Schmo case.
I also wonder whether the jury would have convicted Jackson if he had been Joe Schmo, and all other elements in the case were equal.
Not that any of this will matter in the popular media. There's going to be a great deal of spinning going on.
Batten down the hatches for a lot of talking head nonsense! And bring me a barf bag; I think I am going to be sick. I'm certain to be dizzy!
Maybe he didn't do it, but as the Amish say, "It just doesn't look."
All that can be said with certainty is that he is not guilty--which is NOT to say that he is innocent [despite how it will be reported by the press, especially the print media--Ed.].
All that the verdicts mean is that the prosecution failed to prove its case to the jury "beyond a reasonable doubt." It doesn't even mean that the jury thinks Jackson didn't do it; it just means that the prosecution failed to convince the jury sufficiently that he did. In plain English, the DA botched the case.
[At least part of this is because the victim and his family looked like a bunch of money-grubbing extortionists . . . no one seems to care that even if they were, if Jackson did what they alleged, they were entitled to justice. Even a prostitute can say "No," and if she does but the guy proceeds anyway, it's still a rape.--Ed.]
Add this verdict to the Robert Blake and OJ Simpson verdicts, and you get a sum of poor prosecution of high-profile cases. I wonder when California DAs are going to realize that to succeed in high-profile cases, they'll have to be 100 times more thorough and careful than they'd have to be in a Joe Schmo case.
I also wonder whether the jury would have convicted Jackson if he had been Joe Schmo, and all other elements in the case were equal.
Not that any of this will matter in the popular media. There's going to be a great deal of spinning going on.
Batten down the hatches for a lot of talking head nonsense! And bring me a barf bag; I think I am going to be sick. I'm certain to be dizzy!
Friday, June 10, 2005
On The Nature Of Greatness
I have to give it to the Discovery Channel: even when it ticks me off, it makes me think. I watched the first installment of "The Greatest American" last night, and I was appalled to see some of people included.
Actually, I should be mad not at the Discovery Channel, but at the bozos who voted some of the selectees onto the list.
In justifying my own ideas about who should not be on the list, however, I had to contemplate the nature of greatness itself. For too many people who voted, greatness seems to have more to do with being recently in the headlines or representative of some political point one wants to make--or of just being someone's favorite--than it has to do with real character or impact on the country as a whole.
It certainly is not the same as Time magazine's criterion for its Person of the Year. Time's editors require themselves to choose the person who, for good or for ill, has had the most impact on the world in the past year. Thus was Hitler selected, in 1937 I think.
Greatness is different. It necessarily implies a positive impact; the great American has done something to benefit the country and beyond that, the world, in a measurable and remarkable way.
Madonna, Michael Jackson, Brett Favre, Rush Limbaugh, and Michael Moore, among others, have all had massive effects on American society and culture . . . but those effects are not necessarily positive. They were all voted onto the Discovery Channel's list . . . none of them should have been.
Richard M. Nixon is quintessential. He'd have been an ideal Time Man of the Year, and he did do some important things, such as opening China and signing the Clean Air and Water Acts. But Watergate is his legacy. His total disregard for the true nature of our system of government and his utter disrespect for the US Constitution render him unfit to be considered a Great American.
Personal courage, dignity, and decency are all examples of American greatness in action, but I doubt anyone displaying these traits should be on the list just for showing grace under pressure. Lance Armstrong, for instance, is a man with a ton of grit, drive, competitiveness, and determination, not to mention skill and stamina . . . but is conquering his own case of cancer while winning 6 straight Tours de France enough to make him a candidate for Greatest American? I think not. His story is inspiring, but what has it done for America?
An aside: one person not on the list was Ernest Hemmingway. I am no fan of Hemmingway's work, but in my more raffish moments, I think he deserves to be on the list just because he inspired whomever first wrote: "Why did the chicken cross the road? To die. In the rain. Alone."
But that's just my sense of humor talking.
The other major question regarding the list is ranking. I find it very easy to name my own top two, and to name enough others to make for a sound list, but after the top two, ranking the others becomes impossible for me. Who can say, with comfort and certainty, that Edison belongs higher on the list than the Wright Brothers? Not I.
My top two are (1) Abraham Lincoln, and (2) Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. They both had stirring visions of what America could be, and they eloquently dragged the rest of the country along. Both were cut down for their efforts . . . and while martyrdom alone does not indicate greatness, it can indicate (by the way the country responds to an assassination) how deeply a person affected the country.
For that reason, I have no quarrel with either JFK or RFK also being on the list. And the eloquence thing means I have no quarrel with Mark Twain being on the list. The vision thing also justifies FDR's and Eleanor Roosevelt's both being on the list . . . and, I would argue, for adding Gene Roddenberry to the list (though at a lower ranking). He gave the nation a vision of a hopeful, decent, integrated, positive future in the original Star Trek that the country sorely needed at the time . . . and still does.
Thomas Edison clearly belongs on the list, just because I wouldn't be sitting here, doing this, if not for what others were able to build from his creations.
And Bill Gates does belong on the list, but more for what he has done with the ridiculous amounts of money he's made than how he made it. His and his wife's charitable foundation truly has bettered not just the country, but the world.
Ditto for Oprah Winfrey, who carries the additional cachet of being a superb role model for anyone.
Ditto for George Washington, who set the standard for the American Presidency: he would not become a king; nor would he serve more than two terms. Giving up power voluntarily is truly greatness in action.
But Martha Stewart? No way. Nor Henry Ford. No matter the effect their business empires have had on the country; they have personal shortcomings that disqualify them both. Likewise Charles Lindbergh.
Because to be a truly great American is not just to positively affect the course of America . . . it also has to do with personal decency. And for that reason, I can argue against JFK, Bill Clinton, and slave-holding Thomas Jefferson from being at the top of the list, even if I cannot keep them off it entirely.
Dubya? Not in a million years should he, his father, his mother, his wife, or anyone in his family be anywhere near the list, let alone on it. Why? If for no other reason, then try this: it is rightly said of the Bush family that its members are gracious--when they get their own way.
True greatness has a component requiring someone to be gracious especially when NOT getting his own way.
The Bushes seem to regard the country as their personal fiefdom and birthright, something they own, not something they serve. That's just wrong. And it should keep every last one of them off the list.
The Discovery Channel has fixed numbers 100-26. If you want to vote for the greatest amongst its top 25, go to www.aol.com/greatestamerican for details. You can also make a toll free call to 1-866-669-3117 to vote for Abraham Lincoln as the single greatest American.
Hey, I never claimed to be impartial!
Actually, I should be mad not at the Discovery Channel, but at the bozos who voted some of the selectees onto the list.
In justifying my own ideas about who should not be on the list, however, I had to contemplate the nature of greatness itself. For too many people who voted, greatness seems to have more to do with being recently in the headlines or representative of some political point one wants to make--or of just being someone's favorite--than it has to do with real character or impact on the country as a whole.
It certainly is not the same as Time magazine's criterion for its Person of the Year. Time's editors require themselves to choose the person who, for good or for ill, has had the most impact on the world in the past year. Thus was Hitler selected, in 1937 I think.
Greatness is different. It necessarily implies a positive impact; the great American has done something to benefit the country and beyond that, the world, in a measurable and remarkable way.
Madonna, Michael Jackson, Brett Favre, Rush Limbaugh, and Michael Moore, among others, have all had massive effects on American society and culture . . . but those effects are not necessarily positive. They were all voted onto the Discovery Channel's list . . . none of them should have been.
Richard M. Nixon is quintessential. He'd have been an ideal Time Man of the Year, and he did do some important things, such as opening China and signing the Clean Air and Water Acts. But Watergate is his legacy. His total disregard for the true nature of our system of government and his utter disrespect for the US Constitution render him unfit to be considered a Great American.
Personal courage, dignity, and decency are all examples of American greatness in action, but I doubt anyone displaying these traits should be on the list just for showing grace under pressure. Lance Armstrong, for instance, is a man with a ton of grit, drive, competitiveness, and determination, not to mention skill and stamina . . . but is conquering his own case of cancer while winning 6 straight Tours de France enough to make him a candidate for Greatest American? I think not. His story is inspiring, but what has it done for America?
An aside: one person not on the list was Ernest Hemmingway. I am no fan of Hemmingway's work, but in my more raffish moments, I think he deserves to be on the list just because he inspired whomever first wrote: "Why did the chicken cross the road? To die. In the rain. Alone."
But that's just my sense of humor talking.
The other major question regarding the list is ranking. I find it very easy to name my own top two, and to name enough others to make for a sound list, but after the top two, ranking the others becomes impossible for me. Who can say, with comfort and certainty, that Edison belongs higher on the list than the Wright Brothers? Not I.
My top two are (1) Abraham Lincoln, and (2) Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. They both had stirring visions of what America could be, and they eloquently dragged the rest of the country along. Both were cut down for their efforts . . . and while martyrdom alone does not indicate greatness, it can indicate (by the way the country responds to an assassination) how deeply a person affected the country.
For that reason, I have no quarrel with either JFK or RFK also being on the list. And the eloquence thing means I have no quarrel with Mark Twain being on the list. The vision thing also justifies FDR's and Eleanor Roosevelt's both being on the list . . . and, I would argue, for adding Gene Roddenberry to the list (though at a lower ranking). He gave the nation a vision of a hopeful, decent, integrated, positive future in the original Star Trek that the country sorely needed at the time . . . and still does.
Thomas Edison clearly belongs on the list, just because I wouldn't be sitting here, doing this, if not for what others were able to build from his creations.
And Bill Gates does belong on the list, but more for what he has done with the ridiculous amounts of money he's made than how he made it. His and his wife's charitable foundation truly has bettered not just the country, but the world.
Ditto for Oprah Winfrey, who carries the additional cachet of being a superb role model for anyone.
Ditto for George Washington, who set the standard for the American Presidency: he would not become a king; nor would he serve more than two terms. Giving up power voluntarily is truly greatness in action.
But Martha Stewart? No way. Nor Henry Ford. No matter the effect their business empires have had on the country; they have personal shortcomings that disqualify them both. Likewise Charles Lindbergh.
Because to be a truly great American is not just to positively affect the course of America . . . it also has to do with personal decency. And for that reason, I can argue against JFK, Bill Clinton, and slave-holding Thomas Jefferson from being at the top of the list, even if I cannot keep them off it entirely.
Dubya? Not in a million years should he, his father, his mother, his wife, or anyone in his family be anywhere near the list, let alone on it. Why? If for no other reason, then try this: it is rightly said of the Bush family that its members are gracious--when they get their own way.
True greatness has a component requiring someone to be gracious especially when NOT getting his own way.
The Bushes seem to regard the country as their personal fiefdom and birthright, something they own, not something they serve. That's just wrong. And it should keep every last one of them off the list.
The Discovery Channel has fixed numbers 100-26. If you want to vote for the greatest amongst its top 25, go to www.aol.com/greatestamerican for details. You can also make a toll free call to 1-866-669-3117 to vote for Abraham Lincoln as the single greatest American.
Hey, I never claimed to be impartial!
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Bellevue Been Bery, Bery Bad To Beisbol
Or, Still More Local Governmental Greed, Ineptitude, And Folly Offered For Your Consideration And Edification
As anyone reading this [IS anyone reading this?-Ed.] probably knows, Omaha hosts one of the most fun NCAA tournaments every year, to wit: The College World Series. As part of the annual festivities, the participating teams use area high school baseball fields for practice. It's a win-win: it's fun for the players to get to know the community to which they've come, the fans get to watch some of the best college baseball there is (even if they can't make it to the actual games), and the kids get to collect autographs and otherwise dream big dreams.
For the past twenty or so years, Bellevue Public Schools has offered its facilities. In return, CWS, Inc., which runs the College World Series for the NCAA, has made donations of varying amounts (from $0 one year to $10,000 in another) to BPS as an offset for the additional wear and tear on the local facilities that their extra use entails.
This year, however, some idiot in BPS decided to REQUIRE a $10,000 fee per location from CWS, Inc., for the teams to use Bellevue's facilities. CWS, Inc., quite rightly, said, "Hasta la vista, Baby." The College World Series teams this year will practice way out west, in Millard.
So Bellevue has lost another thing that made living here special. Real bright, BPS! (Just what is it about holding a position in government that makes some people lose the few brain cells they had to begin with, anyway?)
In a lame attempt to limit the damage, Superintendent of BPS John Deegan has proposed a 10-year contract between the city, BPS, and CWS, Inc. The city will pick up the $10,000 per field cost of providing the facilities. CWS, Inc., will resume using Bellevue facilities for the annual two-week event. And if CWS, Inc., awards any grants for use of the facilities, that money will go to BPS.
This is not going to work, nor even help.
For one thing, CWS, Inc., will never agree to a 10-year term. The NCAA extends Omaha's contract for the College World Series itself on a 3-to-5-year term, max. And that's even though Omaha has hosted the thing since its inception back in the 1940s. (I mean, come on; the theme song for the tournament is "Back Home In Omaha.") Furthermore, Bellevue Mayor Jerry Ryan isn't really keen on the idea. He correctly thinks that BPS should just pick up the added expense of letting the CWS teams practice in Bellevue because of the inherent value to the community in doing so.
All I can say is that BPS stupidy and greedily tried a bit of legal extortion, got called on it, and now we've probably lost CWS, Inc.'s goodwill forever. Not to mention the loss of the delight of participating in a unique aspect of the College World Series. Not to mention the added inconvenience to the tournament players--most of them stay in downtown Omaha hotels due to their proximity to Rosenblatt Stadium, the tournament site. Practicing in Bellevue was much closer than will be practicing out in Millard. Given the weather we've had lately, if I were a CWS player, I'd not want to have to spend an extra 40 minutes or more per day on a non-air-conditioned bus going out to practice if I didn't have to do so.
I hope everyone else in Bellevue is as disgusted as I am by this entire mess. Judging from the editorial column in this week's Bellevue Leader, and judging from the published letters to the editor of both the Leader and the Omaha World-Herald, I think they are. I don't know that that will do any good for Bellevue's chances of again getting to provide the CWS practice locations, but at least it means people are paying attention to their local government's follies.
As anyone reading this [IS anyone reading this?-Ed.] probably knows, Omaha hosts one of the most fun NCAA tournaments every year, to wit: The College World Series. As part of the annual festivities, the participating teams use area high school baseball fields for practice. It's a win-win: it's fun for the players to get to know the community to which they've come, the fans get to watch some of the best college baseball there is (even if they can't make it to the actual games), and the kids get to collect autographs and otherwise dream big dreams.
For the past twenty or so years, Bellevue Public Schools has offered its facilities. In return, CWS, Inc., which runs the College World Series for the NCAA, has made donations of varying amounts (from $0 one year to $10,000 in another) to BPS as an offset for the additional wear and tear on the local facilities that their extra use entails.
This year, however, some idiot in BPS decided to REQUIRE a $10,000 fee per location from CWS, Inc., for the teams to use Bellevue's facilities. CWS, Inc., quite rightly, said, "Hasta la vista, Baby." The College World Series teams this year will practice way out west, in Millard.
So Bellevue has lost another thing that made living here special. Real bright, BPS! (Just what is it about holding a position in government that makes some people lose the few brain cells they had to begin with, anyway?)
In a lame attempt to limit the damage, Superintendent of BPS John Deegan has proposed a 10-year contract between the city, BPS, and CWS, Inc. The city will pick up the $10,000 per field cost of providing the facilities. CWS, Inc., will resume using Bellevue facilities for the annual two-week event. And if CWS, Inc., awards any grants for use of the facilities, that money will go to BPS.
This is not going to work, nor even help.
For one thing, CWS, Inc., will never agree to a 10-year term. The NCAA extends Omaha's contract for the College World Series itself on a 3-to-5-year term, max. And that's even though Omaha has hosted the thing since its inception back in the 1940s. (I mean, come on; the theme song for the tournament is "Back Home In Omaha.") Furthermore, Bellevue Mayor Jerry Ryan isn't really keen on the idea. He correctly thinks that BPS should just pick up the added expense of letting the CWS teams practice in Bellevue because of the inherent value to the community in doing so.
All I can say is that BPS stupidy and greedily tried a bit of legal extortion, got called on it, and now we've probably lost CWS, Inc.'s goodwill forever. Not to mention the loss of the delight of participating in a unique aspect of the College World Series. Not to mention the added inconvenience to the tournament players--most of them stay in downtown Omaha hotels due to their proximity to Rosenblatt Stadium, the tournament site. Practicing in Bellevue was much closer than will be practicing out in Millard. Given the weather we've had lately, if I were a CWS player, I'd not want to have to spend an extra 40 minutes or more per day on a non-air-conditioned bus going out to practice if I didn't have to do so.
I hope everyone else in Bellevue is as disgusted as I am by this entire mess. Judging from the editorial column in this week's Bellevue Leader, and judging from the published letters to the editor of both the Leader and the Omaha World-Herald, I think they are. I don't know that that will do any good for Bellevue's chances of again getting to provide the CWS practice locations, but at least it means people are paying attention to their local government's follies.
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
Oops! I Did It . . .
In a recent posting [I Didn't Know Indiana Had A Wine Industry--Ed.], I mentioned that there was no longer a separate women's professional bowlers' tour. I swear I got the idea from what an ESPN announcer said. However, last night ESPN televised a WIBC match play final, so I surmise my earlier assertion was in error.
The correct situation seems to be this: the men's professional bowlers' tour has eliminated the "men only" restriction from its tournament rules. Any woman pro bowler who so wishes may compete in a PBA event against the men, and if she makes the TV finals, so much the better. But the women's tour still exists as a separate entity.
I apologize for any confusion my earlier confusion may have caused. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!
The correct situation seems to be this: the men's professional bowlers' tour has eliminated the "men only" restriction from its tournament rules. Any woman pro bowler who so wishes may compete in a PBA event against the men, and if she makes the TV finals, so much the better. But the women's tour still exists as a separate entity.
I apologize for any confusion my earlier confusion may have caused. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!
Saturday, June 04, 2005
One Less Mystery Of Life
Former FBI Deputy Director W. Mark Felt has been identified as "Deep Throat," the mysterious anonymous source of much of the Washington Post's information used to unravel Watergate. He almost single-handedly saved this country from President Nixon's obsessive desire to control all aspects of our federal government and trample the US Constitution into dust.
Nevertheless, some of Nixon's old cronies are trying to trash Mr. Felt and the service he did for his country. Pat Buchanan, for one, claims that Nixon was brought down by "a snake in the FBI." Excuse me, Mr. Buchanan, but Nixon was brought down by his own illegal acts. It's not like Felt could have gone through channels to report what he knew--his superiors, FBI Director L. Patric Gray and Attorney General John Mitchell, both were implicated in Watergate themselves.
Charles Colson and G. Gordon Liddy, who both served time for their actions connected to Watergate, complain that Felt is just trying to make money and "violated law enforcement ethics." Talk about pots calling kettles black! They both have made lucrative livings by trading on their Watergate infamy . . . and Liddy, who engineered the 1972 break-in at the Democratic Party's National HQ in the Watergate building, has no business at all complaining about someone who violates law enforcement ethics. Breaking the law is far worse than violating ethics, especially when the violation results in justice being done: i.e., that the lawbreakers are found out and punished.
Some question Felt's motives. They claim he did what he did out of bitterness. He was passed over in favor of Gray to be FBI director when J. Edgar Hoover died. However, it's not like he made up what he told Post reporters Woodward and Bernstein. Even if he was bitter, and even if his bitterness prompted any part of his actions, he was telling the truth.
As a rule, I do not believe in the "either/or" scenario. To ask the question "was Felt a hero or a villain?" is improperly to limit the terms of the debate. There are normally more than two sides to any issue.
For those who insist on framing the debate as an "either/or" question, however, I for one will come down firmly on the side of Felt as hero. Who cares what his motives were? He did the right thing for the country when the country desparately needed it.
Nevertheless, some of Nixon's old cronies are trying to trash Mr. Felt and the service he did for his country. Pat Buchanan, for one, claims that Nixon was brought down by "a snake in the FBI." Excuse me, Mr. Buchanan, but Nixon was brought down by his own illegal acts. It's not like Felt could have gone through channels to report what he knew--his superiors, FBI Director L. Patric Gray and Attorney General John Mitchell, both were implicated in Watergate themselves.
Charles Colson and G. Gordon Liddy, who both served time for their actions connected to Watergate, complain that Felt is just trying to make money and "violated law enforcement ethics." Talk about pots calling kettles black! They both have made lucrative livings by trading on their Watergate infamy . . . and Liddy, who engineered the 1972 break-in at the Democratic Party's National HQ in the Watergate building, has no business at all complaining about someone who violates law enforcement ethics. Breaking the law is far worse than violating ethics, especially when the violation results in justice being done: i.e., that the lawbreakers are found out and punished.
Some question Felt's motives. They claim he did what he did out of bitterness. He was passed over in favor of Gray to be FBI director when J. Edgar Hoover died. However, it's not like he made up what he told Post reporters Woodward and Bernstein. Even if he was bitter, and even if his bitterness prompted any part of his actions, he was telling the truth.
As a rule, I do not believe in the "either/or" scenario. To ask the question "was Felt a hero or a villain?" is improperly to limit the terms of the debate. There are normally more than two sides to any issue.
For those who insist on framing the debate as an "either/or" question, however, I for one will come down firmly on the side of Felt as hero. Who cares what his motives were? He did the right thing for the country when the country desparately needed it.
No Wonder People Are Fed Up! Or, State and Local Governmental Incompetence, Part 2
I see that Gov. Heineman chose the Chimney Rock design for the upcoming Nebraska state quarter.
Great. Not only does it represent people passing through on their way to somewhere else; not only is it a total stereotype; it's also drawn so that the covered wagon is going the wrong way. So it's not only a cliche, it's embarrassing!
Gov. Heineman had a chance to do something truly impressive and select the Standing Bear design--he had a chance to show the rest of the country something about Nebraska that they probably didn't know, but should--but he copped out to his western Congressional 3rd District constituency, and foisted a worn out stereotype on us all. He denied that politics influenced his decision. The only reason he'd have to take the initiative to deny that, however, is if it were true in the first place.
Not that the westward migration was not important. We all know it was. But why settle for the story everyone knows when one could do something truly edifying and enlightening?
If it is true that people get the government they deserve, we are being punished, big time.
Further confirmation: the Bellevue City Planning Commission just denied the request of a local restaurant to relocate 1 block east of its present location. "That's Amore," a delightful pizza and pasta restaurant, and a great success in its 18 months of operation [They have a pizza called "The Pick of the Prince," with alfredo sauce, fresh basil and spinach, ham and feta cheese, that is heavenly--Ed.], right now is located in a little strip mall. Its back door is less than 50 feet away from the back side of a local Baptist church, which means the restaurant cannot have a liquor license under state laws and regulations.
The members of the church said they had no problem with That's Amore getting a liquor license. There is no provision for exemption from the 50' requirement under the law, however. The restauranteurs wanted the license to be able to serve wine with pasta and beer with pizza, not so they could foist a lot of drunks on the city. So moving just far enough away from the church to comply with the 50' limit seemed an obvious solution. But by moving 1 block east of its present location, That's Amore would be moving to a place with "inadequate parking" and closer to a residential area that would not like the added traffic flow and hassle the restaurant would bring.
The powers that be in this city are constantly whining about the need to revitalize Bellevue's historic "Olde Towne" business district . . . but every time a successful business wants to grow/expand/increase its success, the Planning Commission shoots it down.
What's up with that? Bellevue now has an official population of nearly 46,000, and it's still being run like a podunk town of 500 by an exceedingly parochial Planning Commission that wouldn't know a good idea if it bit them on their butts.
Willie is still in the world: what fools these mortals be!
Great. Not only does it represent people passing through on their way to somewhere else; not only is it a total stereotype; it's also drawn so that the covered wagon is going the wrong way. So it's not only a cliche, it's embarrassing!
Gov. Heineman had a chance to do something truly impressive and select the Standing Bear design--he had a chance to show the rest of the country something about Nebraska that they probably didn't know, but should--but he copped out to his western Congressional 3rd District constituency, and foisted a worn out stereotype on us all. He denied that politics influenced his decision. The only reason he'd have to take the initiative to deny that, however, is if it were true in the first place.
Not that the westward migration was not important. We all know it was. But why settle for the story everyone knows when one could do something truly edifying and enlightening?
If it is true that people get the government they deserve, we are being punished, big time.
Further confirmation: the Bellevue City Planning Commission just denied the request of a local restaurant to relocate 1 block east of its present location. "That's Amore," a delightful pizza and pasta restaurant, and a great success in its 18 months of operation [They have a pizza called "The Pick of the Prince," with alfredo sauce, fresh basil and spinach, ham and feta cheese, that is heavenly--Ed.], right now is located in a little strip mall. Its back door is less than 50 feet away from the back side of a local Baptist church, which means the restaurant cannot have a liquor license under state laws and regulations.
The members of the church said they had no problem with That's Amore getting a liquor license. There is no provision for exemption from the 50' requirement under the law, however. The restauranteurs wanted the license to be able to serve wine with pasta and beer with pizza, not so they could foist a lot of drunks on the city. So moving just far enough away from the church to comply with the 50' limit seemed an obvious solution. But by moving 1 block east of its present location, That's Amore would be moving to a place with "inadequate parking" and closer to a residential area that would not like the added traffic flow and hassle the restaurant would bring.
The powers that be in this city are constantly whining about the need to revitalize Bellevue's historic "Olde Towne" business district . . . but every time a successful business wants to grow/expand/increase its success, the Planning Commission shoots it down.
What's up with that? Bellevue now has an official population of nearly 46,000, and it's still being run like a podunk town of 500 by an exceedingly parochial Planning Commission that wouldn't know a good idea if it bit them on their butts.
Willie is still in the world: what fools these mortals be!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)