As a nurse, I look after a lot of terminally ill patients.
It's remarkable how imminent death focuses your attention.
They stop watching the news. They don't know anyone in Iraq, and they don't care what's happening over there, or over here, or to anyone they don't know.
They stop watching television, mostly. They watch the Olympics, and the occasional favorite movie, but they won't watch series. Soaps are out - they no longer care who Erica is sleeping with, and suspect they'll die before the pair break up. American Idol is also out - same reason.
They no longer care about politics. The next election may as well be in the next century, as far as they're concerned, and as far as the glacial speed of legislation is concerned, well, the status quo will last longer than they will.
They no longer care about money. If it runs out, what? Throw a dying woman out into the cold?
They do care about family, friends, favorite staff members, and visitors. They give out gifts just to see someone smile.
Most are VERY religious. Not Pat Robertson religious - they couldn't care less what gays do or who has an abortion - but they care about their relationship to God, and whether they have lived up to their responsibilities to Him.
That's how they put it - their RESPONSIBILITIES to Him. You don't hear much about responsibilities from people who expect to be alive next month. But when you're dying, you think about it.
Maybe if we all thought about it more, we would have a slightly better world to live in.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Mark Danner on American politics today
Journalist Mark Danner, on current events. A few excerpts you should read.
“That leads me to a conclusion I came to then: that in many stories it's not the information, it's the politics. It's not that we were lacking information. It's that, when that information came out, it was denied and those in power were able to impose their view of reality. Political power decided what reality was, despite clear information to the contrary. When I look at our time I see that phenomenon writ large. It's gone way beyond a massacre in a relatively obscure Central American country. It's gone to policies and statements that led the United States to invade a country that had not attacked us, to torture prisoners and deny we're doing it even when clear evidence says that we are, to domestic spying in which the government is clearly breaking the law and the president declares that he will continue to do so. In all these cases, it's not the information, it's the politics. This is a hard thing for journalists to admit because the model of journalistic behavior in our era is Watergate. It's very hard for journalists to come to grips with the reality that wrongdoing can indeed be exposed, and continue to be exposed again and again with no result, in a kind of tortuous eternal return.”
“There's been an interesting ambivalence in the administration when it comes to all these actions they've taken in the name of national security -- between the impulse to deny and stonewall and the impulse to come forward and very boldly assert that they took such actions in the name of national security. You see it in eavesdropping, where Karl Rove has clearly indicated a preference for declaring, in a very clever response to the NSA revelation, "If al-Qaida is talking to someone in the United States we want to know about it. Apparently some Democrats don't." Which is basically to say: If you're concerned about this, you're weakening the United States. All this human rights, Fourth Amendment stuff is so much hooey.”
“In essence, this is an assault on the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is in the Constitution because the framers understood that a lot of these rights, especially when under pressure in wartime, are not particularly popular. So they were put in permanently, so as not to be subject to majority control or majority abnegation. It's politics of the most savagely bare-knuckle and dangerous kind when you use that gap between the country's precepts as embodied in the Constitution and the fact that many of these become unpopular in time of war to destroy your political opponents, which is what this administration does.”
“Today in the New York Times, there was a striking report about the steady upsurge in the number of attacks since the beginning of the insurgency. This has been inexorable, which shows that the insurgency is growing more formidable, despite all these reports about American and Iraqi successes in the war. That story appeared on Page A12 of the New York Times. It wasn't even news. Accompanying it was a piece about the failure of infrastructure in Iraq. Though the United States has put roughly $16 billion of American money into the Iraqi infrastructure, the number of hours of average electricity available to an inhabitant of Baghdad has gone from 24 hours to 4. All the figures on infrastructure point downward, so that if you're an Iraqi, you have seen your standard of living steadily decline under the Americans even as you now have a much greater chance of being kidnapped or killed or blown up in an explosion or having your children kidnapped. Very little of this gets through to Americans.”
“I think it's widely known at the top of the administration that Iraq is a failure. It's also been recognized by many that, in strategic terms, the Iraq war could turn out to be a catastrophe because it's essentially created a Shia Islamist government sympathetic to Iran and, among other things, made it impossible for the U.S. to adequately pressure Iran on the nuclear issue. The result of this occupation is going to be a reversal of 50 years of American policy in the Gulf, which has been a reliance on the Sunni autocracies in the area. That policy had an awful lot wrong with it; its support of those autocracies over many decades certainly helped lead to al-Qaida and its epigones. The fact is, though, that the Bush administration has essentially overthrown that policy with nothing to put in its place.”
You can read the whole thing in Salon.com or TomDispatch.com.
“That leads me to a conclusion I came to then: that in many stories it's not the information, it's the politics. It's not that we were lacking information. It's that, when that information came out, it was denied and those in power were able to impose their view of reality. Political power decided what reality was, despite clear information to the contrary. When I look at our time I see that phenomenon writ large. It's gone way beyond a massacre in a relatively obscure Central American country. It's gone to policies and statements that led the United States to invade a country that had not attacked us, to torture prisoners and deny we're doing it even when clear evidence says that we are, to domestic spying in which the government is clearly breaking the law and the president declares that he will continue to do so. In all these cases, it's not the information, it's the politics. This is a hard thing for journalists to admit because the model of journalistic behavior in our era is Watergate. It's very hard for journalists to come to grips with the reality that wrongdoing can indeed be exposed, and continue to be exposed again and again with no result, in a kind of tortuous eternal return.”
“There's been an interesting ambivalence in the administration when it comes to all these actions they've taken in the name of national security -- between the impulse to deny and stonewall and the impulse to come forward and very boldly assert that they took such actions in the name of national security. You see it in eavesdropping, where Karl Rove has clearly indicated a preference for declaring, in a very clever response to the NSA revelation, "If al-Qaida is talking to someone in the United States we want to know about it. Apparently some Democrats don't." Which is basically to say: If you're concerned about this, you're weakening the United States. All this human rights, Fourth Amendment stuff is so much hooey.”
“In essence, this is an assault on the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is in the Constitution because the framers understood that a lot of these rights, especially when under pressure in wartime, are not particularly popular. So they were put in permanently, so as not to be subject to majority control or majority abnegation. It's politics of the most savagely bare-knuckle and dangerous kind when you use that gap between the country's precepts as embodied in the Constitution and the fact that many of these become unpopular in time of war to destroy your political opponents, which is what this administration does.”
“Today in the New York Times, there was a striking report about the steady upsurge in the number of attacks since the beginning of the insurgency. This has been inexorable, which shows that the insurgency is growing more formidable, despite all these reports about American and Iraqi successes in the war. That story appeared on Page A12 of the New York Times. It wasn't even news. Accompanying it was a piece about the failure of infrastructure in Iraq. Though the United States has put roughly $16 billion of American money into the Iraqi infrastructure, the number of hours of average electricity available to an inhabitant of Baghdad has gone from 24 hours to 4. All the figures on infrastructure point downward, so that if you're an Iraqi, you have seen your standard of living steadily decline under the Americans even as you now have a much greater chance of being kidnapped or killed or blown up in an explosion or having your children kidnapped. Very little of this gets through to Americans.”
“I think it's widely known at the top of the administration that Iraq is a failure. It's also been recognized by many that, in strategic terms, the Iraq war could turn out to be a catastrophe because it's essentially created a Shia Islamist government sympathetic to Iran and, among other things, made it impossible for the U.S. to adequately pressure Iran on the nuclear issue. The result of this occupation is going to be a reversal of 50 years of American policy in the Gulf, which has been a reliance on the Sunni autocracies in the area. That policy had an awful lot wrong with it; its support of those autocracies over many decades certainly helped lead to al-Qaida and its epigones. The fact is, though, that the Bush administration has essentially overthrown that policy with nothing to put in its place.”
You can read the whole thing in Salon.com or TomDispatch.com.
Monday, February 27, 2006
Dubai again.
Well, Dubai is still in the news. The Republicans are right - ownership of the ports by an overseas company isn't going to mean wide-open portals for terrorists. The people at the dock level will still be the same people who have been there for the last few years, and I'm sure they will be the first to blow the whistle if orders come down from on-high saying "Let containers with the letters "BOOM" pass through without examination.
Having said that, the UAE have connections to Al-Qaida that are at least as firm as the ones America used to justify invading Iraq. I'm not saying that we should bomb the place, but out of a score of other possible companies willing and able to do the job, hiring this one seems a little suspect. It summons up memories of the close ties the UAE have with the Bush family, summons up suspicions of closet deals and hands washing each other.
Most of all, it summons up the idea that the Bush government is just playing with us. As in, terror levels are fine for election campaigns and discrediting liberals, but heaven forbid they be allowed to interfere with a Bush making a buck.
Having said that, the UAE have connections to Al-Qaida that are at least as firm as the ones America used to justify invading Iraq. I'm not saying that we should bomb the place, but out of a score of other possible companies willing and able to do the job, hiring this one seems a little suspect. It summons up memories of the close ties the UAE have with the Bush family, summons up suspicions of closet deals and hands washing each other.
Most of all, it summons up the idea that the Bush government is just playing with us. As in, terror levels are fine for election campaigns and discrediting liberals, but heaven forbid they be allowed to interfere with a Bush making a buck.
Friday, February 24, 2006
New Rule, part 2
More examples.
If you believe that addictive drugs must all be banned, and remain banned, then you must also support banning alcohol and nicotine. No more booze, no more cigarettes.
If you compare AIDS from dirty needles to liver disease, then alcohol kills more people each year than all the opiates combined. Crime? Does vehicular homicide count?
Throw in the lung cancers that smoke, and second hand smoke, cause each year, and you'll see that the coca and poppy crops are a distant third to tobacco in the Bane of Mankind race.
The only things that keeps tobacco and alcohol possession out of the law books are the corporations that profit from their sales. If profits are a suitable reason to keep a drug lawfully on the market, then surely the crack sales alone justify legalization.
But if you think the damage narcotics do to our society require them to be banned, then you can't allow a couple to remain available just because American companies refuse to grow something else.
Finally, if you believe in the free market, then you must allow the sales of everything. You have to believe that the power of the free market will protect the people from porn and poison. You have to let the internet provider censor chinese sites, and let the foreign company work your ports. To do otherwise is to admit that corporations are run by people, who are occasionally stupid, crooked, or murderous, and to admit that the free market needs a watchdog to keep the rats out.
If you believe that addictive drugs must all be banned, and remain banned, then you must also support banning alcohol and nicotine. No more booze, no more cigarettes.
If you compare AIDS from dirty needles to liver disease, then alcohol kills more people each year than all the opiates combined. Crime? Does vehicular homicide count?
Throw in the lung cancers that smoke, and second hand smoke, cause each year, and you'll see that the coca and poppy crops are a distant third to tobacco in the Bane of Mankind race.
The only things that keeps tobacco and alcohol possession out of the law books are the corporations that profit from their sales. If profits are a suitable reason to keep a drug lawfully on the market, then surely the crack sales alone justify legalization.
But if you think the damage narcotics do to our society require them to be banned, then you can't allow a couple to remain available just because American companies refuse to grow something else.
Finally, if you believe in the free market, then you must allow the sales of everything. You have to believe that the power of the free market will protect the people from porn and poison. You have to let the internet provider censor chinese sites, and let the foreign company work your ports. To do otherwise is to admit that corporations are run by people, who are occasionally stupid, crooked, or murderous, and to admit that the free market needs a watchdog to keep the rats out.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
A Bill Maher Tribute - the new rule for the day.
In honor of Bill Maher's return, a new rule. New rule, people.
No more cherrypicking political stances. If you are against something on principle, you are against all the permutations, instances, and extrapolations thereof.
So, if you are pro-life, you must also be anti-death penalty, and anti-war. All three kill people. You can't go around saying that this one's a menace to society, or those people need to be killed in order to protect ourselves, but abortion is just about the non-mother-to-be's convenience. It's all about convenience. We kill that serial killer so that we can save a little money on guard salaries and a lifetime supply of prison chow. We kill those terrorists so that we can go out to dinner without paying for a bomb-sniffing dog and carrying small arms in her purse.
If you're against death, you're against all death. Period.
Another example. If you're against government spending, you're against all government spending, not just the purchases you don't believe in. Whether it's education or the military, it must all be cut back. That's because every bit of spending is important to somebody. Even bridges in Alaska have their proponents. Somebody's going to drive on that bridge, someday.
Nope. If you want cutbacks, everything loses the fat.
Last example for now. If you are against terrorists, terror states, and those who aid terrorists, then you are against all of them - not just the ones you aren't doing business with this week.
You aren't allowed to invade a country because its leader might have helped some terrorists once, and justify it at least once a week, then turn around and give a different group that might have helped the same terrorists once, a job running the country's ports.
It's poor reasoning, and we aren't going to tolerate it anymore. Saddam used to be our friend, too, remember. It's time for people to put their money where their principles are. No compromising with terror means that if you help a terrorist, you don't get a plum US government contract. No matter who you know.
No more cherrypicking political stances. If you are against something on principle, you are against all the permutations, instances, and extrapolations thereof.
So, if you are pro-life, you must also be anti-death penalty, and anti-war. All three kill people. You can't go around saying that this one's a menace to society, or those people need to be killed in order to protect ourselves, but abortion is just about the non-mother-to-be's convenience. It's all about convenience. We kill that serial killer so that we can save a little money on guard salaries and a lifetime supply of prison chow. We kill those terrorists so that we can go out to dinner without paying for a bomb-sniffing dog and carrying small arms in her purse.
If you're against death, you're against all death. Period.
Another example. If you're against government spending, you're against all government spending, not just the purchases you don't believe in. Whether it's education or the military, it must all be cut back. That's because every bit of spending is important to somebody. Even bridges in Alaska have their proponents. Somebody's going to drive on that bridge, someday.
Nope. If you want cutbacks, everything loses the fat.
Last example for now. If you are against terrorists, terror states, and those who aid terrorists, then you are against all of them - not just the ones you aren't doing business with this week.
You aren't allowed to invade a country because its leader might have helped some terrorists once, and justify it at least once a week, then turn around and give a different group that might have helped the same terrorists once, a job running the country's ports.
It's poor reasoning, and we aren't going to tolerate it anymore. Saddam used to be our friend, too, remember. It's time for people to put their money where their principles are. No compromising with terror means that if you help a terrorist, you don't get a plum US government contract. No matter who you know.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Reason #224 to have more kids - To help take care of Granny!
Anyone who works in the health care field knows the meaning of the phrase "granny dumping".
It means that when people get so old that they are inconveniencing their boomer offspring, then it's time to put them into a facility.
For some, it means having them checked into a hospital suffering from "something", so that the rest of the family can go to Disney World.
Well, folks, get ready to kiss that phrase goodbye.
There are not going to be enough health care workers in the next generation to handle the boomers when they retire. And, being the whiney, self-obsessed people that they (mostly) are, they aren't going to go to their graves second class. They have saved for their retirement, and they are going to want a five-star facility.
And if they don't get it, they aren't going to leave home.
Getting the picture, Gen-X? Better break open the history books and brush up on the extended family lifestyle, because whatever cash will be left in this country is going to be in the RRSPs of a bunch of old farts who are going to want their Depends changed RIGHT NOW - and who are going to be in charge of the mortgage payments.
Yes, sir. No dumping for you people - only the completely helpless who need mechanical lifts to get out of bed in the morning, will be going to facilities. The rest will be at home - probably YOUR home - getting one visit per day from an overworked home care nurse, who will have enough time to check her pulse and pour her medications. The diaper changes will be up to you - and whatever offspring you can compel to help out.
So, start breeding now, kids, and don't spare the rod. In about 20 years, you're going to need a housefull of strong, obedient children, to keep your lives from becoming a living hell.
It means that when people get so old that they are inconveniencing their boomer offspring, then it's time to put them into a facility.
For some, it means having them checked into a hospital suffering from "something", so that the rest of the family can go to Disney World.
Well, folks, get ready to kiss that phrase goodbye.
There are not going to be enough health care workers in the next generation to handle the boomers when they retire. And, being the whiney, self-obsessed people that they (mostly) are, they aren't going to go to their graves second class. They have saved for their retirement, and they are going to want a five-star facility.
And if they don't get it, they aren't going to leave home.
Getting the picture, Gen-X? Better break open the history books and brush up on the extended family lifestyle, because whatever cash will be left in this country is going to be in the RRSPs of a bunch of old farts who are going to want their Depends changed RIGHT NOW - and who are going to be in charge of the mortgage payments.
Yes, sir. No dumping for you people - only the completely helpless who need mechanical lifts to get out of bed in the morning, will be going to facilities. The rest will be at home - probably YOUR home - getting one visit per day from an overworked home care nurse, who will have enough time to check her pulse and pour her medications. The diaper changes will be up to you - and whatever offspring you can compel to help out.
So, start breeding now, kids, and don't spare the rod. In about 20 years, you're going to need a housefull of strong, obedient children, to keep your lives from becoming a living hell.
The Boomer Legacy
We have become a selfish and complacent culture.
This is the legacy of the Baby Boomers - the post war explosion of children born between 1946 and 1964. The "me first" generation. They were the 20 year olds of the 60's, and now they are the 60 year olds - the CEOs and politicians - of our age.
Will we survive them?
Now aged between 42 and 60, the Boomers are in their golden age. They are the leaders, the experts, the grey eminences. They are the judges, the professors, and the senators.
Look at what they are doing.
Ours is the most lawsuit-happy culture ever. People are suing paramedics for not rescuing them properly, drug companies for overdoses, gunmakers for shootings. One man is suing professional magicians because they will not reveal their secrets to him. Nothing is our fault anymore. To millions of people, an accident is always someone's fault, and an error in judgment we commit is always someone else's fault.
Ours is the most selfish culture in history. We want what we want, and we aren't about to change just because there's a war on, or the global ecology is being destroyed or something. Our attitude is that "Nothing's wrong with the oxygen supply - I'm still breathing!"
This goes for our corporate culture as well. So long as the profits are coming in, we don't need to change. Facts? So long as they agree with my viewpoint, they're welcome. If someone says we need to change, fire him. And if the corporation collapses, get out with all the money you can, demand that the government bail out stockholders, and blame it all on foreigners.
We are also the most complacent culture since the fall of Rome. Vote? You can't even get most boomers to put their litter in trashcans. We look at our problems and, instead of solutions, we play the lottery in to hopes that we can win enough to move someplace that doesn't have problems - or that has built a fence to keep the world outside.
The previous generation sent men to the moon. The boomers? They want NASA cut back, and the money given back to them so that they can buy the latest X-box game. If they could, they'd cut out the army, too, and sue any attacking army for inconveniencing them.
Finally, the boomers have produced the most arrogant of all cultures. A look at most boomer blogs tells you one thing - they are right, and anybody who doesn't agree with them doesn't deserve courtesy. We swear as punctuation now. We give other drivers the finger, ignore our neighbor, and wonder why our fathers used to call anyone "sir". As if anyone could be more worthy of recognition as me!
Our TV shows and movies are remakes of old ones, since our shows are all anyone could ever need. New shows consist of America Idol, where we can laugh at others trying to sing. "Good one, Simon! Tell that pompous little tart where to get off! How dare she insinuate that she might be someone more special than me."
Our celebrities all consist of professional athletes (whom we know are all muscleheads who can barely sign their name to their contracts) and entertainers (Paris Hilton . . . need I say more), whom we can all feel are inferior to us. Lucky, all of them.
They are fat, lazy, pompous and self-consumed. They are running Western Culture. Can we survive? Can the world survive?
This is the legacy of the Baby Boomers - the post war explosion of children born between 1946 and 1964. The "me first" generation. They were the 20 year olds of the 60's, and now they are the 60 year olds - the CEOs and politicians - of our age.
Will we survive them?
Now aged between 42 and 60, the Boomers are in their golden age. They are the leaders, the experts, the grey eminences. They are the judges, the professors, and the senators.
Look at what they are doing.
Ours is the most lawsuit-happy culture ever. People are suing paramedics for not rescuing them properly, drug companies for overdoses, gunmakers for shootings. One man is suing professional magicians because they will not reveal their secrets to him. Nothing is our fault anymore. To millions of people, an accident is always someone's fault, and an error in judgment we commit is always someone else's fault.
Ours is the most selfish culture in history. We want what we want, and we aren't about to change just because there's a war on, or the global ecology is being destroyed or something. Our attitude is that "Nothing's wrong with the oxygen supply - I'm still breathing!"
This goes for our corporate culture as well. So long as the profits are coming in, we don't need to change. Facts? So long as they agree with my viewpoint, they're welcome. If someone says we need to change, fire him. And if the corporation collapses, get out with all the money you can, demand that the government bail out stockholders, and blame it all on foreigners.
We are also the most complacent culture since the fall of Rome. Vote? You can't even get most boomers to put their litter in trashcans. We look at our problems and, instead of solutions, we play the lottery in to hopes that we can win enough to move someplace that doesn't have problems - or that has built a fence to keep the world outside.
The previous generation sent men to the moon. The boomers? They want NASA cut back, and the money given back to them so that they can buy the latest X-box game. If they could, they'd cut out the army, too, and sue any attacking army for inconveniencing them.
Finally, the boomers have produced the most arrogant of all cultures. A look at most boomer blogs tells you one thing - they are right, and anybody who doesn't agree with them doesn't deserve courtesy. We swear as punctuation now. We give other drivers the finger, ignore our neighbor, and wonder why our fathers used to call anyone "sir". As if anyone could be more worthy of recognition as me!
Our TV shows and movies are remakes of old ones, since our shows are all anyone could ever need. New shows consist of America Idol, where we can laugh at others trying to sing. "Good one, Simon! Tell that pompous little tart where to get off! How dare she insinuate that she might be someone more special than me."
Our celebrities all consist of professional athletes (whom we know are all muscleheads who can barely sign their name to their contracts) and entertainers (Paris Hilton . . . need I say more), whom we can all feel are inferior to us. Lucky, all of them.
They are fat, lazy, pompous and self-consumed. They are running Western Culture. Can we survive? Can the world survive?
Monday, February 20, 2006
Iran gets its nukes from Halliburton, and other stories
The world just turned topsy-turvy again.
U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad warned Iraqi politicians they risk a loss of American support if they do not establish a genuine national unity government.
Yep. Just gonna pull out. Aside from the obvious stupidity of the statement - after 2,000+ deaths and all those billions of dollars spent on the country, the United States is not going to just pull out if the Iraqi don't establish a proper government, and everyone knows it. I wonder if the ambassador realizes that the disruptive elements are also the ones trying to get the United States out of their country, and that the ambassador has just handed them a recruiting slogan?
President Bush on Monday faced political pressure to block a deal that would give a United Arab Emirates-based company management of six major U.S. seaports.
Although there is a faint possibility that Dubai Ports, the UAE company in question, will import fanatical Arabs to fill all their dockyard needs, it is much more likely that they will probably hire locals to work the docks. Maybe even the same loyal Americans that currently work there.
More importantly, Bush was unaware of the deal until he heard reports of the congressional uproar, according to presidential adviser Dan Bartlett. Does the idea that the man defending the idea of unrestricted wiretaps because Muslim fanatics are planning to strike, being unaware of an Arab company taking over the New York dockyards, seem - topsy turvy - to you?
Halliburton, the oil services company once headed by the Vice President, has been, allegedly, selling Iran's oil development company key components for a nuclear reactor, according to Halliburton sources with intimate knowledge into both companies’ business dealings.
Umm, isn't this illegal, not to mention unpatriotic? And also somewhat ironic?
And how was your day?
U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad warned Iraqi politicians they risk a loss of American support if they do not establish a genuine national unity government.
Yep. Just gonna pull out. Aside from the obvious stupidity of the statement - after 2,000+ deaths and all those billions of dollars spent on the country, the United States is not going to just pull out if the Iraqi don't establish a proper government, and everyone knows it. I wonder if the ambassador realizes that the disruptive elements are also the ones trying to get the United States out of their country, and that the ambassador has just handed them a recruiting slogan?
President Bush on Monday faced political pressure to block a deal that would give a United Arab Emirates-based company management of six major U.S. seaports.
Although there is a faint possibility that Dubai Ports, the UAE company in question, will import fanatical Arabs to fill all their dockyard needs, it is much more likely that they will probably hire locals to work the docks. Maybe even the same loyal Americans that currently work there.
More importantly, Bush was unaware of the deal until he heard reports of the congressional uproar, according to presidential adviser Dan Bartlett. Does the idea that the man defending the idea of unrestricted wiretaps because Muslim fanatics are planning to strike, being unaware of an Arab company taking over the New York dockyards, seem - topsy turvy - to you?
Halliburton, the oil services company once headed by the Vice President, has been, allegedly, selling Iran's oil development company key components for a nuclear reactor, according to Halliburton sources with intimate knowledge into both companies’ business dealings.
Umm, isn't this illegal, not to mention unpatriotic? And also somewhat ironic?
And how was your day?
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Support the Troops - but first define "support"
During WWII, a man wearing a uniform got into the movies for free. He got moved towards the front of the line at restaurants. He got first pick of the jobs after he mustered out, a GI plan to finance his first house, a VA hospital to look after his medical problems.
What do we offer today's veteran?
We wear ribbons and put magnets on our cars, but do we offer the vets themselves anything?
Have you gone out and done something for an Iraq vet today? Offered to wash his car for free, or something? Do you know which of your neighbors are vets?
Do you even care?
When did "Support our troops" become nothing more than an epithet to hurl at anti-war activists? When did "Support our troops" become nothing more than a political buzzphrase or a blogger's snappy comeback?
We don't even hand out medals anymore.
No wonder we're sending the Honor Guards overseas.
No wonder recruitment is down to a trickle. Why enlist now?
What do we offer today's veteran?
We wear ribbons and put magnets on our cars, but do we offer the vets themselves anything?
Have you gone out and done something for an Iraq vet today? Offered to wash his car for free, or something? Do you know which of your neighbors are vets?
Do you even care?
When did "Support our troops" become nothing more than an epithet to hurl at anti-war activists? When did "Support our troops" become nothing more than a political buzzphrase or a blogger's snappy comeback?
We don't even hand out medals anymore.
No wonder we're sending the Honor Guards overseas.
No wonder recruitment is down to a trickle. Why enlist now?
Saturday, February 18, 2006
Al-Qaida has better PR - and it'll likely stay that way
According the CNN, Donald Rumsfeld has said that America needs to improve its propaganda methods.
"For the most part, the U.S. government still functions as a 'five and dime' store in an eBay world," said Rumsfeld. He went on to say that modernization is crucial to winning the hearts and minds of Muslims worldwide who are bombarded with negative images of the West.
I hope he won't put too much money into this pipedream.
What good is it to bombard Muslim TV and internet news with stories about how Americans love them and only want the best for them, when they will just go to Ann Coulter's blog and read her latest raghead joke? What good is it to spend millions on promoting US/Arab unity, when it is all undone by a day's worth of reading the right wing blogs?
Read Little Green Footballs, Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, or Michelle Malkin, and tell me you'd be our friend if we thought like this about you?
"For the most part, the U.S. government still functions as a 'five and dime' store in an eBay world," said Rumsfeld. He went on to say that modernization is crucial to winning the hearts and minds of Muslims worldwide who are bombarded with negative images of the West.
I hope he won't put too much money into this pipedream.
What good is it to bombard Muslim TV and internet news with stories about how Americans love them and only want the best for them, when they will just go to Ann Coulter's blog and read her latest raghead joke? What good is it to spend millions on promoting US/Arab unity, when it is all undone by a day's worth of reading the right wing blogs?
Read Little Green Footballs, Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, or Michelle Malkin, and tell me you'd be our friend if we thought like this about you?
Friday, February 17, 2006
The End of Headline News
NBC noted this week that Olympic viewership is down 22 percent since Nagano in 1998. At the same time, the World Series is down 21 percent, and the Academy Awards down 27 percent.
More people watched American Idol than the Olympics.
They say that newspapers are about to go bankrupt because of the Internet. People who can get up to the minute news don't want "what happened today" news off the newsstand.
Headline TV News may be next.
The Internet is interactive - you can look at a news story, then google past references, geopolitical data, or just the names of the victims. TV is still a "preacher" - you get what they give.
The Internet is also edgier - the anonyminity of bloggers means the editorials are a lot juicier, and therefore more appealing/enraging.
CNN - you were an innovation, and now your time has gone.
More people watched American Idol than the Olympics.
They say that newspapers are about to go bankrupt because of the Internet. People who can get up to the minute news don't want "what happened today" news off the newsstand.
Headline TV News may be next.
The Internet is interactive - you can look at a news story, then google past references, geopolitical data, or just the names of the victims. TV is still a "preacher" - you get what they give.
The Internet is also edgier - the anonyminity of bloggers means the editorials are a lot juicier, and therefore more appealing/enraging.
CNN - you were an innovation, and now your time has gone.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Who needs Math and Science? We Do!
Science and math have zoomed to the top of the nation's education agenda. Yet Amanda Cook, a parent of two school-age girls, can't quite see the urgency.
"In Maine, there aren't many jobs that scream out 'math and science,"' said Cook, who lives in Etna, in the central part of the state. Yes, both topics are important, but "most parents are saying you're better off going to school for something there's a big need for."
Nationwide, a new poll shows, many parents are content with the science and math education their children get -- a starkly different view than that held by national leaders.
Fifty-seven percent of parents say "things are fine" with the amount of math and science being taught in their child's public school. High school parents seem particularly content -- 70 percent say their child gets the right amount of science and math.
- thanks to the Associated Press for this.
Well, Amanda, computer jobs are being outsourced to India, menial jobs are being done by illegal immigrants, and manufactured goods are made for five cents on the dollar in Indochina. Maine isn't going to have as wide a variety of jobs when your kids are in their twenties as you had.
Your two children will basically have two options when they grow up.
Working in a cutting edge industry that doesn't exist yet, for which they'll need lots of math and science.
Or ditchdigger. Decide.
"In Maine, there aren't many jobs that scream out 'math and science,"' said Cook, who lives in Etna, in the central part of the state. Yes, both topics are important, but "most parents are saying you're better off going to school for something there's a big need for."
Nationwide, a new poll shows, many parents are content with the science and math education their children get -- a starkly different view than that held by national leaders.
Fifty-seven percent of parents say "things are fine" with the amount of math and science being taught in their child's public school. High school parents seem particularly content -- 70 percent say their child gets the right amount of science and math.
- thanks to the Associated Press for this.
Well, Amanda, computer jobs are being outsourced to India, menial jobs are being done by illegal immigrants, and manufactured goods are made for five cents on the dollar in Indochina. Maine isn't going to have as wide a variety of jobs when your kids are in their twenties as you had.
Your two children will basically have two options when they grow up.
Working in a cutting edge industry that doesn't exist yet, for which they'll need lots of math and science.
Or ditchdigger. Decide.
Olympic "glory"
Ah, the Olympics.
They were first run for the glory of the gods.
They were revived to be run for the glory of the athletes.
Today, they are run for the glory of the countries.
Look up any news page concerning the Olympics. Now try to find the names of the winners.
If the page is devoted to the Olympics, you shouldn't have a problem. But if you have picked a general sports page, then what you get is a list of countries, with how many gold, silver, and bronze they've won.
They've won. The countries. Not the athletes.
Next year this time, you won't even know their names. The athletes aren't important anymore. The ones who manage to win several medals may end up on a Wheaties box for a month, but then it's back to Michael Jordan.
We dishonor the ideals of the Olympics every time we run them. We change the definition of "amateur" so that Canada can fill its hockey squad with the NHL All Stars, and The US can field the NBA's finest as their Dream Team. Across the pond, the Eastern Europeans were famous for pumping so many steroids into their athletes that the women needed sex tests, and the men looked like the Incredible Hulk. The legacy of those days go on, as competitors are required to take so many tests you'd think they were headed for Mars. I wouldn't be surprised if Interpol has a special Olympic squad of its own, dedicated to running down all the frauds pertaining to this "pure" competition.
And yet, the ideals are still there. For every pumped up warrior dreaming of a Nike contract, there are 10 kids who have spent the last four years doing nothing but train day and night. So long as these kids remain in the majority, the Games are worth saving.
They were first run for the glory of the gods.
They were revived to be run for the glory of the athletes.
Today, they are run for the glory of the countries.
Look up any news page concerning the Olympics. Now try to find the names of the winners.
If the page is devoted to the Olympics, you shouldn't have a problem. But if you have picked a general sports page, then what you get is a list of countries, with how many gold, silver, and bronze they've won.
They've won. The countries. Not the athletes.
Next year this time, you won't even know their names. The athletes aren't important anymore. The ones who manage to win several medals may end up on a Wheaties box for a month, but then it's back to Michael Jordan.
We dishonor the ideals of the Olympics every time we run them. We change the definition of "amateur" so that Canada can fill its hockey squad with the NHL All Stars, and The US can field the NBA's finest as their Dream Team. Across the pond, the Eastern Europeans were famous for pumping so many steroids into their athletes that the women needed sex tests, and the men looked like the Incredible Hulk. The legacy of those days go on, as competitors are required to take so many tests you'd think they were headed for Mars. I wouldn't be surprised if Interpol has a special Olympic squad of its own, dedicated to running down all the frauds pertaining to this "pure" competition.
And yet, the ideals are still there. For every pumped up warrior dreaming of a Nike contract, there are 10 kids who have spent the last four years doing nothing but train day and night. So long as these kids remain in the majority, the Games are worth saving.
Reclaiming the Political Middle
The middle ground is becoming awfully empty in America these days.
It seems that the farther out to the wings you go, the more you claim leadership for your side.
Take a look at the Cheney incident.
The right would have you believe that it is no big deal, and that the MSM is demonizing the vice president as part of a liberal scheme to retake the government and surrender to the terrorists.
The left would have you believe that the government should be impeached because a witness to the shooting got to the press before Scott McClellan.
The truth is that the vice president accidentally shot a man, causing a serious condition. Mr. Cheney has taken responsibility for the incident. At worst, which is if the man dies, this is what Jack McCoy on Law and Order would call a class B felony. Not reckless endangerment, just involuntary manslaughter. Serious, but not world shaking.
The delay in meeting the press was probably due to the amount of bad press the administration has received lately. They wanted to spin it. Spin is not an impeachable offense.
Take a look at the wiretapping incident.
The right would have you believe that no crime is involved; it's just the president doing what a president should do.
The left would have you believe that the administration is preparing a palace coup, to install Presidente-for-Life Bush as our master.
The truth is that the president overstepped his boundaries. If he were Cheney, he would no doubt have said his Mea Culpa by now, promised to go back to wiretapping only with an easily-obtained warrant, and gone back to work. Not being Cheney, he has managed to turn this incident into a scandal.
Nonetheless, we are looking at the same sort of thing. Bush has committed a minor crime. Not a felony, not an impeachable offense, but a crime.
He should admit it, apologize, and go on.
As for us, we need to take a few Valiums. Society is not being overthrown by the Right, and the Left is not helping to smuggle terrorists over the border. We need to stop listening to these overreactors, reclaim the center, and start thinking again.
It seems that the farther out to the wings you go, the more you claim leadership for your side.
Take a look at the Cheney incident.
The right would have you believe that it is no big deal, and that the MSM is demonizing the vice president as part of a liberal scheme to retake the government and surrender to the terrorists.
The left would have you believe that the government should be impeached because a witness to the shooting got to the press before Scott McClellan.
The truth is that the vice president accidentally shot a man, causing a serious condition. Mr. Cheney has taken responsibility for the incident. At worst, which is if the man dies, this is what Jack McCoy on Law and Order would call a class B felony. Not reckless endangerment, just involuntary manslaughter. Serious, but not world shaking.
The delay in meeting the press was probably due to the amount of bad press the administration has received lately. They wanted to spin it. Spin is not an impeachable offense.
Take a look at the wiretapping incident.
The right would have you believe that no crime is involved; it's just the president doing what a president should do.
The left would have you believe that the administration is preparing a palace coup, to install Presidente-for-Life Bush as our master.
The truth is that the president overstepped his boundaries. If he were Cheney, he would no doubt have said his Mea Culpa by now, promised to go back to wiretapping only with an easily-obtained warrant, and gone back to work. Not being Cheney, he has managed to turn this incident into a scandal.
Nonetheless, we are looking at the same sort of thing. Bush has committed a minor crime. Not a felony, not an impeachable offense, but a crime.
He should admit it, apologize, and go on.
As for us, we need to take a few Valiums. Society is not being overthrown by the Right, and the Left is not helping to smuggle terrorists over the border. We need to stop listening to these overreactors, reclaim the center, and start thinking again.
Monday, February 13, 2006
What is FEMA doing now?
News Item: FEMA cheated of millions through duplicate or invalid Social Security numbers, or false addresses and names. In addition, FEMA wasted millions on overpriced rooms, such as $438 rooms in New York City and $375/night beachfront condominiums in Panama City, FL.
OK, they got scammed, or they were caught having to improvise, or whatever. The deed's done, the money's gone.
What about next time?
A show of hands please, how many people out there think that we're in for a repeat of hurricane season in the South, similar to the last two years?
Don't you think that FEMA should be preparing now? You'd think that they would be getting equipment in place, contingency plans fine tuned, databases created and verified, personnel prepped and ready, transport arranged.
Wouldn't you?
I haven't heard of anything like that happening. All I've heard from FEMA is a steady chorus of "no comment" when referring to Brownie's testimony. As for the parent group, the Department of Homeland Security, well, they haven't even issued a terror level since Katrina.
I know we're all more security conscious now, but don't we have a right to know whether the government organization in charge of preparing for emergencies, is preparing for the next few emergencies?
OK, they got scammed, or they were caught having to improvise, or whatever. The deed's done, the money's gone.
What about next time?
A show of hands please, how many people out there think that we're in for a repeat of hurricane season in the South, similar to the last two years?
Don't you think that FEMA should be preparing now? You'd think that they would be getting equipment in place, contingency plans fine tuned, databases created and verified, personnel prepped and ready, transport arranged.
Wouldn't you?
I haven't heard of anything like that happening. All I've heard from FEMA is a steady chorus of "no comment" when referring to Brownie's testimony. As for the parent group, the Department of Homeland Security, well, they haven't even issued a terror level since Katrina.
I know we're all more security conscious now, but don't we have a right to know whether the government organization in charge of preparing for emergencies, is preparing for the next few emergencies?
Phelps revisited.
One reader took offence that I wrote , in a blog entry a few days ago, about the Westboro Church's protests at funerals, and their pastor, the Rev. Phelps.
As I wrote in the comments, and repeat here,
"People like Phelps never think of themselves as extremists. They think they are the only true centrists, upholding truth and justice. I said they probably thought of themselves as conservatives. They probably do, even if no one else does. They probably think of us as liberal apologists for not joining them on the picket lines."
This goes for most other extremists. The people burning Danish embassies probably think that other Muslims are wusses for not helping. They are, after all, defending Islam from Infidel attack.
People who go to extremes are extremists. People who overreact, who react with violence when no violence is offered, who react with personal epithets to arguments that don't attack them personally, . . . are extremists.
Don't support extremist behavior. Support conservative behavior.
Leave the bombs at home.
As I wrote in the comments, and repeat here,
"People like Phelps never think of themselves as extremists. They think they are the only true centrists, upholding truth and justice. I said they probably thought of themselves as conservatives. They probably do, even if no one else does. They probably think of us as liberal apologists for not joining them on the picket lines."
This goes for most other extremists. The people burning Danish embassies probably think that other Muslims are wusses for not helping. They are, after all, defending Islam from Infidel attack.
People who go to extremes are extremists. People who overreact, who react with violence when no violence is offered, who react with personal epithets to arguments that don't attack them personally, . . . are extremists.
Don't support extremist behavior. Support conservative behavior.
Leave the bombs at home.
Enough with "The Cartoons"
News Item: Calgary magazine to print "The Cartoons".
All right, already!!!
OK, papers. You bad. You tough. We get it.
Now stop dragging this thing out.
The "cartoons" are available all over the Internet now, for the morbid and the goons to look at.
We don't need to see them in print anymore.
It's no longer a matter of free speech. It's become a stroke of defiance.
It's being done to rag on the Muslim extremists. To pull their chain. To show them that you aren't going to be dictated to. OK. We know that.
I just hope you're just as obstinate when the Christian Right object to Doonesbury next time.
All right, already!!!
OK, papers. You bad. You tough. We get it.
Now stop dragging this thing out.
The "cartoons" are available all over the Internet now, for the morbid and the goons to look at.
We don't need to see them in print anymore.
It's no longer a matter of free speech. It's become a stroke of defiance.
It's being done to rag on the Muslim extremists. To pull their chain. To show them that you aren't going to be dictated to. OK. We know that.
I just hope you're just as obstinate when the Christian Right object to Doonesbury next time.
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Free Speech = Protests at Funerals.
We have all heard that the Muslims hate America, and are behind the slaughter of American troops in Iraq.
Many of us have also been told that the liberals and apologists are responsible for America's woes.
Well, you're all wrong.
It's God.
So says the Westboro Baptist Church, its pastor, the Reverend Fred Phelps, and his family, including his daughter, Shirley Phelps-Roper.
"We are delivering a message. God is punishing this nation and he is using the IED as his weapon of choice," she said.
Over the last few weeks, demonstrators from the church have turned up at memorials for soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the funerals for the 12 West Virginia miners who died in a mine explosion last January, and even the funeral of Coretta Scott King in Georgia.
They have carried signs reading 'Thank God for Dead Soldiers,' 'You're Going to Hell', 'Fags Doom Nations', 'God is America's Terror' and 'Don't Worship the Dead'.
They are undaunted by efforts to stop them, claiming that the right to free speech allows them to protest like this. "It's all good. It's not going to stop us," said Phelps-Roper. "We have the moral high ground."
No doubt they consider themselves "conservatives".
Many of us have also been told that the liberals and apologists are responsible for America's woes.
Well, you're all wrong.
It's God.
So says the Westboro Baptist Church, its pastor, the Reverend Fred Phelps, and his family, including his daughter, Shirley Phelps-Roper.
"We are delivering a message. God is punishing this nation and he is using the IED as his weapon of choice," she said.
Over the last few weeks, demonstrators from the church have turned up at memorials for soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the funerals for the 12 West Virginia miners who died in a mine explosion last January, and even the funeral of Coretta Scott King in Georgia.
They have carried signs reading 'Thank God for Dead Soldiers,' 'You're Going to Hell', 'Fags Doom Nations', 'God is America's Terror' and 'Don't Worship the Dead'.
They are undaunted by efforts to stop them, claiming that the right to free speech allows them to protest like this. "It's all good. It's not going to stop us," said Phelps-Roper. "We have the moral high ground."
No doubt they consider themselves "conservatives".
Saturday, February 11, 2006
End of the Machine Age?
The illegal influx of immigrants over the US border may have yet another drawback for society.
It reduces the need for innovation.
Why build a new labor saving device when labor is so cheap? Used to be that production lines became automated because robotic devices were cheaper than union laborers, what with medical and dental plans, retirement and compensation packages, and ever increasing salaries. Mechanisms that didn't require vacations and coffee breaks looked good back then.
Today, humans from Asia, Mexico, and South America, willing to work 18 hour days for spare change, are by far the better deal. The automated assembly line is passe.
So is innovation. You can't sell a better way of doing things anymore unless it is somehow cheaper and more cost efficient. What could be more efficient than a self-motivated, self-correcting, self-repairing upgradable multi-function work unit, especially one that doesn't and never will have a union?
On the other hand, countries like China do have a reason to develop technology, as their industry develops. With all of America's current developments, from CDs to robotics, at their disposal, they may yet be the culture to develop the house robot and the totally automated factory.
It's no wonder President Bush came out in defense of illegals. It's a dream come true for CEOs.
True, it may cost America its technological lead in the long run, but hey - our generation will all be dead by then, right?
It reduces the need for innovation.
Why build a new labor saving device when labor is so cheap? Used to be that production lines became automated because robotic devices were cheaper than union laborers, what with medical and dental plans, retirement and compensation packages, and ever increasing salaries. Mechanisms that didn't require vacations and coffee breaks looked good back then.
Today, humans from Asia, Mexico, and South America, willing to work 18 hour days for spare change, are by far the better deal. The automated assembly line is passe.
So is innovation. You can't sell a better way of doing things anymore unless it is somehow cheaper and more cost efficient. What could be more efficient than a self-motivated, self-correcting, self-repairing upgradable multi-function work unit, especially one that doesn't and never will have a union?
On the other hand, countries like China do have a reason to develop technology, as their industry develops. With all of America's current developments, from CDs to robotics, at their disposal, they may yet be the culture to develop the house robot and the totally automated factory.
It's no wonder President Bush came out in defense of illegals. It's a dream come true for CEOs.
True, it may cost America its technological lead in the long run, but hey - our generation will all be dead by then, right?
Friday, February 10, 2006
Europe's hope?
A pundit mentioned today that Europe's only hope is for the moderate Muslims to prevail over the militants.
Moderates.
Let's be men, ok, and call them what they are.
The liberal Muslims.
The militants are the conservative, perhaps even the neo-con, muslims. The accept no criticism, never change, God is Supreme, defend by attacking, muslims.
The moderates are the sit and talk, words not deeds, change is possible, let's all be friends, muslims. The Liberals.
There's a lesson here for those in America.
Too bad the militants won't see it.
Moderates.
Let's be men, ok, and call them what they are.
The liberal Muslims.
The militants are the conservative, perhaps even the neo-con, muslims. The accept no criticism, never change, God is Supreme, defend by attacking, muslims.
The moderates are the sit and talk, words not deeds, change is possible, let's all be friends, muslims. The Liberals.
There's a lesson here for those in America.
Too bad the militants won't see it.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
We Live In Fear
I used to chuckle at the people who recommended that everyone be required to bear arms.
Now I cringe.
We are no longer a tolerant society, and I am not referring either to religion or race.
We are not tolerant in general. Zero tolerance is the rule now.
A boy writes a short story that a teacher finds frightening, and the boy is shipped off to a psychiatric hospital.
A kindergarten student is suspended for sexual assault. Yes, you heard that right. He touched her underpants. Lucky for him it was a girl - who knows what they might have accused him of it he'd touched a boy's undies.
People are going mad over cartoons. Religious leaders order assassinations - both Muslim and Christian.
And someone wants to arm these whackos?
We live in fear.
We are afraid our kids are going to shoot, that our beliefs can be destroyed, that our civilization will crumble.
We see terrorists under every bed. (Guess the communists have moved out.)
More than we ever did in the Fifties, we live under the Sword of Damocles, certain that doom is a day away, and that there is nothing we can do but decisively crush any threat, or possible threat.
We steer away from dark alleys, stick to our "own kind", and cling to the belief that only brute force can get out of this situation. That's why we want guns. We think that with a gun in each hand, we can get them before they get us. Like Rambo.
Unfortunately, our enemies are not coming after us with AK-47s any more. Rambo didn't have to deal with an enemy that planted a nuke in the city he was in, or released a toxin into the water he drinks. These, you see, are not enemies you can handle with a machine gun.
It's not the Wild West anymore. We no longer live in a world where a fast draw and a 44 can keep you alive, anymore than we live in a world where a rapier and some swordmanship will suffice. It is a new world, and we need a new defense.
Now I cringe.
We are no longer a tolerant society, and I am not referring either to religion or race.
We are not tolerant in general. Zero tolerance is the rule now.
A boy writes a short story that a teacher finds frightening, and the boy is shipped off to a psychiatric hospital.
A kindergarten student is suspended for sexual assault. Yes, you heard that right. He touched her underpants. Lucky for him it was a girl - who knows what they might have accused him of it he'd touched a boy's undies.
People are going mad over cartoons. Religious leaders order assassinations - both Muslim and Christian.
And someone wants to arm these whackos?
We live in fear.
We are afraid our kids are going to shoot, that our beliefs can be destroyed, that our civilization will crumble.
We see terrorists under every bed. (Guess the communists have moved out.)
More than we ever did in the Fifties, we live under the Sword of Damocles, certain that doom is a day away, and that there is nothing we can do but decisively crush any threat, or possible threat.
We steer away from dark alleys, stick to our "own kind", and cling to the belief that only brute force can get out of this situation. That's why we want guns. We think that with a gun in each hand, we can get them before they get us. Like Rambo.
Unfortunately, our enemies are not coming after us with AK-47s any more. Rambo didn't have to deal with an enemy that planted a nuke in the city he was in, or released a toxin into the water he drinks. These, you see, are not enemies you can handle with a machine gun.
It's not the Wild West anymore. We no longer live in a world where a fast draw and a 44 can keep you alive, anymore than we live in a world where a rapier and some swordmanship will suffice. It is a new world, and we need a new defense.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Write a note and get committed
An exerpt:
"It’s no wonder many kids today just give up and give in to drugs. Obviously it doesn’t make it right but it would be hard for me not to understand where many of them are coming from. The gap of understanding between adults and children is widening more everyday as both side stick fingers in their ears and scream, “La la la la, I’m not listening.” It’s sad really. It saddens me that in the 12 short years since I graduated from high school the notion of children as being a mild but nurtured nuisance seems to have devolved into regarding children as mass murdering pariahs.I never thought I’d say this but thank God for the ACLU. It’s not fair to judge every child, especially with all the subversive influences out there, by the same measuring stick as the kids who were obviously ill and rampaged through their schools. Had I been born 10 years later, who knows how my parents would have reacted to the childish antics of my youth."
This is a post from a man who wrote "bad" stuff while at school. He was banned from the school newspaper, but that's about it.
The case he is referring to is a boy who also wrote "bad" stuff in school. However, in this post-Columbine world, this other boy was taken by force to a psychiatric hospital.
Read the whole thing here. It's worth it.
"It’s no wonder many kids today just give up and give in to drugs. Obviously it doesn’t make it right but it would be hard for me not to understand where many of them are coming from. The gap of understanding between adults and children is widening more everyday as both side stick fingers in their ears and scream, “La la la la, I’m not listening.” It’s sad really. It saddens me that in the 12 short years since I graduated from high school the notion of children as being a mild but nurtured nuisance seems to have devolved into regarding children as mass murdering pariahs.I never thought I’d say this but thank God for the ACLU. It’s not fair to judge every child, especially with all the subversive influences out there, by the same measuring stick as the kids who were obviously ill and rampaged through their schools. Had I been born 10 years later, who knows how my parents would have reacted to the childish antics of my youth."
This is a post from a man who wrote "bad" stuff while at school. He was banned from the school newspaper, but that's about it.
The case he is referring to is a boy who also wrote "bad" stuff in school. However, in this post-Columbine world, this other boy was taken by force to a psychiatric hospital.
Read the whole thing here. It's worth it.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Regulators
If a government has any function at all, it is to function as a protector.
First internationally, through the Armed Forces and the State Department. Second, locally, through the police.
And thirdly, through the regulators. These are the most important defenders of the country, because they defend our greatest assets.
Our unity and our trust.
The regulators make sure that the con men and grifters don't prey upon us. They make sure that the medicine we buy is real medicine, and cures what it is supposed to cure. They make sure that the powerful auto manufacturers do not sell us defective cars, that the doctors don't operate while drunk, and that monopolies cannot shut out competition and force us to pay whatever they can squeeze out of us.
Congress and the courts are important components of the regulators. Congress forms the regulations, the laws that prevent the wolves from preying on the sheep. The courts enforce these rules, punishing any errant wolf.
If either of these organizations fails in its job, we all suffer.
Congress falls down on the job unless it deals with changes in society in a timely manner. It needs to learn, from real experts, the nature of the new elements, whether they be computer scams or terrorist movements, and to face these truths without flinching. They need to create new law, based on the needs of society as a whole, not some small section.
Much of the time, they don't. Their actions are based on pork, on re-election strategies, on lobbyist recommendations, on ideology. Such actions debase Congress.
The courts, too, must enforce the law in such a way as to best benefit society. Some might belittle these "activist judges" - but what else is a judge for? A judge must inflict punishments that will act as a true deterrent to crime, while refraining from revenge and cruelty. Each case being different, a judge must use judgment, rather than reliance on precedent, to walk this tightrope properly.
A judge who relies on ideology, on party loyalty, on bias, is no judge.
The greatest harm that scandals like the Abramoff payoffs cause is that it destroys our trust in our regulators. If we cannot trust our regulators, we become prey again for the grifters.
The grifters know this. The grifters want this. This is why the grifters continually try to tempt Congressmen.
This is why Congressmen who succumb, all of them, must be punished, in such a way as to be a true deterrent to the act.
Otherwise, we may as well let the terrorists win. Better them than the grifters.
First internationally, through the Armed Forces and the State Department. Second, locally, through the police.
And thirdly, through the regulators. These are the most important defenders of the country, because they defend our greatest assets.
Our unity and our trust.
The regulators make sure that the con men and grifters don't prey upon us. They make sure that the medicine we buy is real medicine, and cures what it is supposed to cure. They make sure that the powerful auto manufacturers do not sell us defective cars, that the doctors don't operate while drunk, and that monopolies cannot shut out competition and force us to pay whatever they can squeeze out of us.
Congress and the courts are important components of the regulators. Congress forms the regulations, the laws that prevent the wolves from preying on the sheep. The courts enforce these rules, punishing any errant wolf.
If either of these organizations fails in its job, we all suffer.
Congress falls down on the job unless it deals with changes in society in a timely manner. It needs to learn, from real experts, the nature of the new elements, whether they be computer scams or terrorist movements, and to face these truths without flinching. They need to create new law, based on the needs of society as a whole, not some small section.
Much of the time, they don't. Their actions are based on pork, on re-election strategies, on lobbyist recommendations, on ideology. Such actions debase Congress.
The courts, too, must enforce the law in such a way as to best benefit society. Some might belittle these "activist judges" - but what else is a judge for? A judge must inflict punishments that will act as a true deterrent to crime, while refraining from revenge and cruelty. Each case being different, a judge must use judgment, rather than reliance on precedent, to walk this tightrope properly.
A judge who relies on ideology, on party loyalty, on bias, is no judge.
The greatest harm that scandals like the Abramoff payoffs cause is that it destroys our trust in our regulators. If we cannot trust our regulators, we become prey again for the grifters.
The grifters know this. The grifters want this. This is why the grifters continually try to tempt Congressmen.
This is why Congressmen who succumb, all of them, must be punished, in such a way as to be a true deterrent to the act.
Otherwise, we may as well let the terrorists win. Better them than the grifters.
Monday, February 06, 2006
Gonzales testifies
U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified to a Senate Judiciary committee today.
But not under oath. Senator Arlen Spector, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman , stated he didn't have to.
Gonzales told the committee that the program is:
(1) limited to communication between someone in the U.S. and someone in a foreign nation.
(2) triggered when a NSA professional beliefs one of the parties is tied to al Qaeda.
(3) designed to minimize the amount of information collected and disseminated.
(4) reviewed by NSA supervisors and the NSA inspector general.
(5) renewed every 45 days.
Well, Mr. Gonzales,
(1) Why was it so hard to get a FISA warrent for this "obviously legal" wiretap?
(2) How does the NSA professional acquire this "belief" that someone on the line is talking to al Qaida?
(3) And what would that minimum be, sir?
(4) Why not the Senate, as well? They're mostly Republicans - don't you trust them?
(5) So, you're not doing it now, right?
and
(6) Why can't anybody connected to the White House testify under oath anymore? What have you got against oaths?
Oh, and
(7) Why haven't you just said "Mea Culpa - it was wrong, we won't do it again." and go back to using FISA warrents to get legal wiretaps? Why draw this out?
But not under oath. Senator Arlen Spector, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman , stated he didn't have to.
Gonzales told the committee that the program is:
(1) limited to communication between someone in the U.S. and someone in a foreign nation.
(2) triggered when a NSA professional beliefs one of the parties is tied to al Qaeda.
(3) designed to minimize the amount of information collected and disseminated.
(4) reviewed by NSA supervisors and the NSA inspector general.
(5) renewed every 45 days.
Well, Mr. Gonzales,
(1) Why was it so hard to get a FISA warrent for this "obviously legal" wiretap?
(2) How does the NSA professional acquire this "belief" that someone on the line is talking to al Qaida?
(3) And what would that minimum be, sir?
(4) Why not the Senate, as well? They're mostly Republicans - don't you trust them?
(5) So, you're not doing it now, right?
and
(6) Why can't anybody connected to the White House testify under oath anymore? What have you got against oaths?
Oh, and
(7) Why haven't you just said "Mea Culpa - it was wrong, we won't do it again." and go back to using FISA warrents to get legal wiretaps? Why draw this out?
Saturday, February 04, 2006
It's all about sex, you know.
What is it about homosexuality and the Religious Right, anyway?
The Ten Commandments say nothing about sexuality. They do, however, ban murder, robbery, and lying. The ban on homosexuality comes from a few Old Testament parables and some apostolic commentary.
Yet Pat Robertson and his friends go after homosexuality with a fervor they never show towards depictions of murder. Brokeback Mountain catches ire, but Rambo never got a peep out of them. Even Grand Theft Auto barely registers on their radar.
The most blatent problem is with "Thou shalt not commit false witness against thy neighbor", which can be translated as "No Swift-boating". No lying about another's nature. No slander.
Now, this isn't an interpretation of an off-subject text, like the arguments against abortion. This is a Commandment - one of the original "set in stone" laws. The meaning is clear, the wording concise and unequivocal. Pat and friends should be screaming every time someone makes a personal attack in Washington.
But they don't.
It couldn't be that the Religious Right are willing to sacrifice their principles for temporal power, could it?
The Ten Commandments say nothing about sexuality. They do, however, ban murder, robbery, and lying. The ban on homosexuality comes from a few Old Testament parables and some apostolic commentary.
Yet Pat Robertson and his friends go after homosexuality with a fervor they never show towards depictions of murder. Brokeback Mountain catches ire, but Rambo never got a peep out of them. Even Grand Theft Auto barely registers on their radar.
The most blatent problem is with "Thou shalt not commit false witness against thy neighbor", which can be translated as "No Swift-boating". No lying about another's nature. No slander.
Now, this isn't an interpretation of an off-subject text, like the arguments against abortion. This is a Commandment - one of the original "set in stone" laws. The meaning is clear, the wording concise and unequivocal. Pat and friends should be screaming every time someone makes a personal attack in Washington.
But they don't.
It couldn't be that the Religious Right are willing to sacrifice their principles for temporal power, could it?
Friday, February 03, 2006
God's Will and Right Wing protesters
Levitate yourself.
Go ahead - just . . . umph yourself upwards. I'll wait.
Hard, huh? They used to say that if God had meant man to fly, He would have given him wings.
What they should have said was, God didn't want man to levitate, so he doesn't.
There are a couple of useful illustrations in this simple fact, applicable to several of today's situations.
First, when God doesn't want you to levitate, you don't levitate.
No going to Korea and levitating there. You don't levitate anywhere. Becoming a secular humanist doesn't get you around God's will, nor does rewriting holy scripture or issuing a papal bull. You don't levitate.
Second, God doesn't need help in preventing levitation. No one has to issue a fatwa, enact a law, start a war, or even carry signs outside a courtroom to prevent people from levitating. It isn't necessary because no one levitates.
Next time you are tempted to protest, or even fight, about something being against God's will, just remember - if that action were really against God's will, there wouldn't be a need for your actions to stop it. God would not let it happen. Ever.
That's the nice thing about omnipotence.
Now stop yelling.
Go ahead - just . . . umph yourself upwards. I'll wait.
Hard, huh? They used to say that if God had meant man to fly, He would have given him wings.
What they should have said was, God didn't want man to levitate, so he doesn't.
There are a couple of useful illustrations in this simple fact, applicable to several of today's situations.
First, when God doesn't want you to levitate, you don't levitate.
No going to Korea and levitating there. You don't levitate anywhere. Becoming a secular humanist doesn't get you around God's will, nor does rewriting holy scripture or issuing a papal bull. You don't levitate.
Second, God doesn't need help in preventing levitation. No one has to issue a fatwa, enact a law, start a war, or even carry signs outside a courtroom to prevent people from levitating. It isn't necessary because no one levitates.
Next time you are tempted to protest, or even fight, about something being against God's will, just remember - if that action were really against God's will, there wouldn't be a need for your actions to stop it. God would not let it happen. Ever.
That's the nice thing about omnipotence.
Now stop yelling.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
When Criminals Make the Laws
What is a government for, anyway?
In most of the countries of the world, the government exists for the benefit of the governors. These tyrannies and kleptocracies drain the resources, sell off the valuables, and work the people to death in order to provide a few elite individuals with an unparalleled lifestyle of hedonism and luxury.
A few naive nations, however, believe that a government exists in order to create the best lifestyle possible for the citizens.
I hope none of these naive people live in the United States.
The Bush government continues to claim that it has unlimited powers to break laws, due to the war.
The Bush government started the war, on the grounds that Iraq, and its WMD, endangered the United States.
Depending on who you talk to, the WMD are either (a) imaginary; the invention of the Bush government, or (b) in Syria. Either way, they make poor grounds for a war in Iraq.
The Bush government continues to insist that the war in Iraq must be fought until victory is achieved - and, as a result, insists that the Bush government retain unlimited powers to break laws until the War on Terror is won.
The condition for victory in the War on Terror has not been stated, whether it is a pro-Republican government in Iraq, the death of every terrorist in the world, or just the withdrawal of troops. The Bush government claims the right to decide what constitutes victory.
Thus, the Bush government claims unlimited powers to break laws until such time as the Bush government decides to give them up.
And if you disagree, you are an enemy of freedom.
Yeah. Me too.
In most of the countries of the world, the government exists for the benefit of the governors. These tyrannies and kleptocracies drain the resources, sell off the valuables, and work the people to death in order to provide a few elite individuals with an unparalleled lifestyle of hedonism and luxury.
A few naive nations, however, believe that a government exists in order to create the best lifestyle possible for the citizens.
I hope none of these naive people live in the United States.
The Bush government continues to claim that it has unlimited powers to break laws, due to the war.
The Bush government started the war, on the grounds that Iraq, and its WMD, endangered the United States.
Depending on who you talk to, the WMD are either (a) imaginary; the invention of the Bush government, or (b) in Syria. Either way, they make poor grounds for a war in Iraq.
The Bush government continues to insist that the war in Iraq must be fought until victory is achieved - and, as a result, insists that the Bush government retain unlimited powers to break laws until the War on Terror is won.
The condition for victory in the War on Terror has not been stated, whether it is a pro-Republican government in Iraq, the death of every terrorist in the world, or just the withdrawal of troops. The Bush government claims the right to decide what constitutes victory.
Thus, the Bush government claims unlimited powers to break laws until such time as the Bush government decides to give them up.
And if you disagree, you are an enemy of freedom.
Yeah. Me too.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
The President's Energy Plan
This is what George W. Bush promised in the State of the Union address, when he promised to work towards oil independence.
Coal. $281 million to develop clean coal technologies.
Solar power. $148 million to research solar power technology.
Wind power. $44 million for wind energy research.
Ethanol. $150 million for research into ethanol powered cars.
Plug-in hybrids. $30 million, to research vehicles that will use virtually no gasoline.
Hydrogen. $289 million, to develop hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.
A few observations.
1) Notice that all of this money is for research. They don't have to produce a single new invention; they just have to do the research.
2) Most of this money is to go into the auto industry - the industry that produces cars, be they ethanol, hydrogen, or treadmill powered. A total of $469 million to revitalize the Big Three, who have been shutting down plants because they can't compete with Toyota. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.
3) The second biggest morsel went to the coal industry. Whatever happened to the Power of the Free Marketplace, which Rewards good businesses, Punishes bad businesses, and Can Monitor Itself? Apparently, if you control enough political clout, you don't have to worry about things like fair competition.
I wonder - has anyone told the President about Tidal Generators? Little turbines placed in a row offshore that are turned by the movement of the tides? Has anyone told the President about Ocean Thermal systems? Deep water is colder than surface water. You take a long pipe and warm the water down there, which rises. Put a turbine in the shaft, and you get electricity. Power the heater at the top with solar power, and you're in business.
Are any of these ideas getting funding?
Or is it all pork?
Coal. $281 million to develop clean coal technologies.
Solar power. $148 million to research solar power technology.
Wind power. $44 million for wind energy research.
Ethanol. $150 million for research into ethanol powered cars.
Plug-in hybrids. $30 million, to research vehicles that will use virtually no gasoline.
Hydrogen. $289 million, to develop hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.
A few observations.
1) Notice that all of this money is for research. They don't have to produce a single new invention; they just have to do the research.
2) Most of this money is to go into the auto industry - the industry that produces cars, be they ethanol, hydrogen, or treadmill powered. A total of $469 million to revitalize the Big Three, who have been shutting down plants because they can't compete with Toyota. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.
3) The second biggest morsel went to the coal industry. Whatever happened to the Power of the Free Marketplace, which Rewards good businesses, Punishes bad businesses, and Can Monitor Itself? Apparently, if you control enough political clout, you don't have to worry about things like fair competition.
I wonder - has anyone told the President about Tidal Generators? Little turbines placed in a row offshore that are turned by the movement of the tides? Has anyone told the President about Ocean Thermal systems? Deep water is colder than surface water. You take a long pipe and warm the water down there, which rises. Put a turbine in the shaft, and you get electricity. Power the heater at the top with solar power, and you're in business.
Are any of these ideas getting funding?
Or is it all pork?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)