The Truth by Scott

A Primary Proposal

2008-02-06T10:26:00.000-05:00

This year, the primary system, which is still a work in progress, seems to have finally begun to break down. Florida and Michigan have run afoul of party rules because, in a bid for relevance, they have moved their primaries into January. "Too early," the parties say, and they're right.

But does it make sense for South Carolina, dark, fire engine red South Carolina, to have as much influence over the candidates as it does? And this year, Florida, which would have gone for Gore in 2000 if your grandmother's bridge club had brought their glasses with them to the polling place, can't even select which Democrat party candidate it prefers.

Republicans face a similar dilemma, although they only stripped half of Michigan and Florida's delegates. Meanwhile, both parties give voters from every state a relatively equal voice. Obama was propelled into the forefront by his win over Hillary in South Carolina. South Carolina?? Who cares which Democrat they like best? Democratic voters in the Palmetto State don't count in November, any more than they count in Mississippi or Alaska. And why should New York or Massachusetts get a say? They'll vote for the Democratic candidate regardless of who it is.

The only states that should really count are Florida and Ohio, and maybe Pennsylvania, since those voters really could go either way. In fact, let's take a look at the 2004 election results. According to Wikipedia, the states most evenly divided between Republican and Democrat voters were:

Wisconsin, Kerry, 0.38%
Iowa, Bush, 0.67%
New Mexico, Bush, 0.79%
New Hampshire, Kerry, 1.37%
Ohio, Bush, 2.11%
Pennsylvania, Kerry, 2.50%
Nevada, Bush, 2.59%
Michigan, Kerry, 3.42%
Minnesota, Kerry, 3.48%
Oregon, Kerry, 4.16%
Colorado, Bush, 4.67%

So. What if we gave THESE states more influence over who we choose? After all, don't we care about who Wisconsinites and Ohioans are more likely to get excited about? Don't we want to know who will motivate them to go to the polls in November? Screw Connecticut and Idaho. We already know where their electoral votes are going.

Reorganize the primaries so they're done in order of closest races in the previous election first.
January 3: Wisconsin and Iowa (yes, Iowa keeps their first spot)
January 8: New Mexico
January 10: New Hampshire
January 17: Ohio and Pennsylvania
January 22: Nevada
January 24: Michigan and Minnesota

You get the picture. It would benefit both parties to know which of their candidates is most electable. The only slight, insignificant problem is the fact that the states, not the parties, control their own primary dates. And it would be hard to convince New Hampshire to give up their first spot without, say, a constitutional amendment.

But it's nice to dream.

Third Best President, EVER!

2007-06-29T11:39:00.000-04:00

I know nobody is still reading this blog, but I had to post this find *somewhere*!

Doing research for my column, I came across this old ABC News poll. They asked respondents who the nation's greatest presidents were. In February, 2002, the results came back: Lincoln, Kennedy, GEORGE W BUSH!

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
uh oh - milk came out of my nose
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Check it out: http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/poll020221_president.html

Everybody Cries With George

2006-12-05T14:56:00.000-05:00

As the First Family starts shuffling out of power, the first one to go will be Jeb, the President's brother. Jeb's two full terms as governor of Florida end next month, and apparently there are all kinds of parties and commemorations for him at his "Retirement". Today, his father, the elder George of the President Georges, broke down and cried while giving a speech about his son in the Florida State Capitol. I'm sure it was an emotional time for him. It seems that what most teared him up was talking about his son's defeat in the 1994 gubernatorial election. Jeb went on to win in the next election in 1998.
We all know the history. Jeb and Georgie ran for governor of their respective states in 1994. George defeated governor Ann Richards in Red Texas. Jeb couldn't knock out popular governor Lawton Chiles in Purple Florida. After a term and a half, George ran for President and won, in a well-known sign of the apocalypse.
If you think about it, had Jeb become governor in 1994, he might have run for President instead. He was certainly considered a better candidate. Despite his unconsitutional and highly political intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, he's smarter, more articulate, better traveled, and more thoughtful than his older brother.
It makes me wish I had voted for him instead of Chiles. It makes me want to cry for our country too.

How to Design a Better Alarm Clock

2006-12-01T14:03:00.000-05:00

     It's no secret that I'm a night person. I've always had a really hard time waking up. The only good times of my life, waking up-wise, were during summer breaks from school and the year that I worked the night shift at work. That year, I worked from 8 to 5. PM to AM. I would usually get home around 5:30-6:00 and sleep until I woke up without an alarm clock at noon.
     Throughout the years, I've had a variety of alarm clocks. My favorite was a Star Wars clock that looked like C3PO and R2D2. Instead of music, they would talk. "It's time to get up!" They'd yell, along with some stuff about the rebellion needing me and the empire needing destroying. Unfortunately my rampant curiousity of my elementary school years combined with a Phillips screwdriver put an end to that clock. Since college, I've had a "gentle" alarm clock. That is, the music starts softly and gets progressively louder. I've gotten progressively used to it. So much so, that even after it is blaring morning radio shows at full volume, I still don't hear it. No matter what I do to get myself out of bed in the morning, I'm almost always still groggy and tired and totally not alert.
     One morning, in the beginning of August, my wife uttered three words which accomplished what no alarm clock in my 30-year history has ever been able to do. "Honey, I'm Pregnant!"

Breathe

2006-11-08T22:54:00.000-05:00

For the first time in 6 years, it feels like I can finally breathe again. I need to admit to you that I had lost faith in the people of this country, as they allowed themselves to be suckered by weak vilifications of gays, pharmacists, doctors, judges, Clintons, Kerrys, environmentalists, and scientists.
Yesterday, Democrats picked up 28 seats in the House (double what they needed to take control) and 6 seats in the Senate (exactly what they needed to take control). This is momentous because:

The Dems have not had control of both houses since 1994

This is the first time since 1948 that the Democrats didn't lose a single House seat

President Bush has never governed with anything except the full, unwavering support of both chambers of Congress

However, this isn't what you might call a historic election.

In 1994, Republicans took control of the house by gaining 54 seats. They took control of the Senate by gaining 8 seats.

In 1948, Democrats retook the House by gaining 75 seats! They retook the Senate by gaining 9 seats.

Democrat control is slight - 1 vote in the Senate and 14 in the House. This is a far cry from 1964, when the Dems had a 155-seat majority!

     At the beginning of my post, I said that I could breathe for the first time in 6 years. Actually, 2000 is just when it got really bad. For my entire adult life, Republicanism has been on the rise in America. This is the first time it feels like somebody isn't waiting to jump down my throat. When Bill Clinton became President in 1992, right-wing talk radio smothered the airwaves with the 2-minutes hate. 2 minutes became 2 years, then 14 years, while the shrill cries of victimization continued to rain down on us. Today, those voices are silent. Well, if not silent, less noisy. They've taken to cannibalizing their own, something they watched Democrats do for years with great relish.
     But what's really exciting about these results is that the highly corrupt and ineffectual Republican majority is no more. For 6 years, they have been no better than a rubber stamp for Bush's inane ideas. Look, everyone knows Bush is an idiot. It wasn't his idea to run for President. He doesn't even do most of the Presidenting work. It's hard to blame him for that. He is what he is. It's not hard to blame Republican Congressmen for jumping to do his every crazy bidding. They've been guilty of dereliction of their duty. Their jobs are to serve their constituents. Instead, they serve the Party. That won't happen anymore.
     I'm really not hoping for the days of 60%+ Democrat majorities in Congress. I don't think that kind of power is good for anyone. Democrats have a long history of abuse of power in the 40 straight years of controlling the House. But Republicans seem to be worse. In 12 years, they have redefined abuse of power, from redistricting between censuses to allowing the President to defy the Constitution. Not to mention the excess of bribery, sexual abuse, and general corruption.
     We've got a long way to go to fix this country. But it starts today.

Is Sex Sex?

2006-10-05T16:48:00.000-04:00

     In case this blog is your only source of news, here's a newsflash for you: Florida Republican Congressman Mark Foley was caught sending dirty emails to a 16-year old boy working in his office. A gay ephebophile[*] in Congress is bad. A Republican one is worse. That is, if you're the type of person to go into a frothing fit when the topic is sex. Like Republicans.
     Clearly, however, even to a level-headed blogger like myself, Foley is disturbed and his predatory actions towards children were criminal. And the GOP Congress wasted no time condemning Foley and beginning an investigation. Or did they? New revelations have come out showing that Republican leaders have known about Foley's actions as early as last fall. What did Dennis Hastert, the Republican Speaker of the House, do about this? He quietly asked Foley to quit it, and Foley promised he would. (Cue fond memories of the Catholic Priest molestation scandal)
     Now, as bad as Foley's behavior was, covering it up isn't a crime to the extent that say, sending 2,000 Americans to early deaths in Iraq is. But it does expose the faux outrage the House Republicans have been mustering up since ABC News broke the story last week. Um, you knew about this months ago, and now you choose to denounce it? How timely.
     Of course the wonderful Atlanta Journal and Constitution can't let a Republican scandal go by without at least getting a dig in at Democrats - perhaps Bill Clinton - as it goes by. In a so-called "equal time" column, Brent Bozell the Third expresses his, "Oh yeah, well your mother!" moment, by reminding us that even though Foley told his young victim he wanted to "slip off" his shorts, Democrats sometimes have scandals too.
     In fact, the sex aspect is too good for Bozell to pass up. He equates Foley's actions with Clinton's consensual adult "relations" with Monica Lewinsky. So someone out there tell me. Do all Republicans really believe that consensual adult sex is equivalent to a Congressman asking a 16-year old boy if he makes him horny? Is sex just sex? I guess this guy (and by extension the AJC) want you to think so.
     At what point do the loyal followers of the Church of Bush stop and think, maybe I should stop drinking the kool-aid? Maybe, even though "Liberals" are the root of all evil, Republicans don't have God-like powers of goodness. Are Americans really stupid enough to buy another weak excuse from this corrupt bunch of crooks?

Evil or Entrepreneur?

2006-09-05T18:15:00.000-04:00

     Given the success of national blowhards Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, and Neal Boortz, maybe I can't blame him. After all, it certainly seems like the era is past when an impartial newsman rises to national prominence through unbiased analysis. Clearly, appealing to the uneducated and the aggressively self-serving is in Jim Wooten's best professional interests.
     My question is, why does the Atlanta Journal-Constitution feature him? The AJC is supposed to be (was?) a newspaper. It provided news and analysis. As we all know, newspaper readership has been dropping. And so newspapers around the country resort to stunts to boost their numbers. Think you have to buy the Sunday paper to get the good ads? Think again. On certain holiday weekends, the AJC has delivered the advertising sections, despite the fact that I cancelled my subscription a couple of years ago. Still, that's not enough. Perhaps knowing that educated readers, looking for broad, unbiased, well-rounded news sources, are increasingly looking at the internet for their news, local papers like the AJC are going after the "mentally relaxed" market. Read Jack Shafer's July 27th article on this topic in Slate entitled, "How the New York Times Makes Local Papers Dumber.
     It's a shame the AJC is contributing to the decline of the national dialogue in the name of "balance". Just because some guy comes along promising to sell more papers to white supremacists doesn't "balance" him with reasonable authors. Jim Wooten's columns frequently play down to his readership's lack of mental acuity. And his positions come straight out of the wildest GOP caricature. George Bush notwithstanding, I believe most educated Republican voters are nuanced in their beliefs. Perhaps they don't approve of abortion, but they're not sure it should be outlawed. Or maybe they think the federal government should butt out of business, but worry about global warming. Not Jim. There's no nuance to him. Take any issue, imagine what some redneck in 1960's rural Mississippi would say, then read your imagination on the AJC's opinion page.
     Lately he's been railing about city planning issues. If you're not from Atlanta, you have to understand a little of its history here. Right now, Atlanta is one of the largest, sprawlingest cities in the country. This is due to a number of factors, including its small size before the Interstate Highway system and its rapid growth since, the lack of geographical boundaries like an ocean or mountain range, and its racist history. Yes, racist. The "City Too Busy to Hate" is one of the most segregated cities in America after Whites fled downtown during the Civil Rights era. Today, predictably, White suburbanites endure the nation's longest commutes as they drive an average of 35 miles from their home to their job. Today, there's no such thing as "going against traffic" in Atlanta. With sprawl, backups go both ways.
     Why is this happening? Not only are homes moving outward, but so are jobs. You might live 20 miles northeast of the city. Your job might be 20 miles northwest. Or southeast. Or 40 miles north. Cities in the past had large feeder highways going in and out of city centers. Now, we need one connecting every point to every other point. Imagine drawing a line from every square on a chess board to the center of the board. Now imagine drawing a line from every square to every other square. Plus, imagine that every time you draw a line, or make it thicker, the board gets bigger in that direction. It's just not possible to build roads to compensate. The only way to make life livable is to increase density.
     Jim, who is opposed to living near Black people, disagrees. "Move jobs outward", he says, pandering to the imbeciles living 40 miles north of the city who are convinced the jobs are going to move next door to them. What happens when the jobs move 40 miles even farther?
     I digress. It's so easy to point out the flaws in Jim's stupid columns that you miss the point entirely - he exists only to make trouble. Let's look at some of his recent works. Guess his position on college students using condoms. Correct - he's against. (It's all Bill Clinton's fault that college kids have sex, anyway) Is it right for a fraternity that celebrates slavery and civil war to relocate to a Black neighborhood? Yes, but only because the civil war was really only about being gentlemanly and wearing riding on horseback and wearing hoop skirts and because the Black people in the neighborhood were poor. Is government good or bad? Bad! How dare they try to regulate business. I mean, Good! If they pay for kids to go to Christian school. I mean, Bad! If it's taxing luxuries and corporations instead of poor people. Minimum wage? Please. Like you don't know. Ann Coulter? A national hero. Al Gore? A national villain, invoked in as many columns as possible, along with Bill, Hillary, and John Kerry, to rabble-rouse.
     Jim, you're a comic. You're a two dimensional drawing of an right-wing demagogue. You're a hypocrite and a shrill one at that, screaming about "liberals" hating everything and having no ideas, then doing the same yourself. You're the reason the dialog is so poisoned. You would think in a blood-red state like Georgia, you wouldn't be able to blame Democrats for your problems. But somehow you've managed. Just like your insistence that Republicans could clean things up in Washington if only they had control. I mean, for a few more years. That's all. Bill Clinton made congressional Republicans take bribes.
     And to the AJC: maybe people listen to AM radio to get pissed off. But that's not why I read newspapers. And that's why I don't buy yours.

Be Careful What You Wish For

2006-08-17T17:53:00.000-04:00

     You know the rest of the title quote. "Because Republicans just might get it." In the July/August Issue of "Washington Monthly", Alan Wolfe wrote a piece called, "Why Conservatives Can't Govern". This piece was widely talked throughout the summer, mainly because of its stunningly obvious, yet largely unspoken thesis. That is, Conservatives can't govern because their basic philosophy is that government doesn't work. Read the piece - it's very interesting.
     Since liberal Democrats ruled the country for something like 40 years, Republicans have formed themselves into the party of opposition. The Conservative wing (which has recently gone wacko, BTW) became extremely strong. Among its tenets: government should butt out. Less is More, at least when it comes to government. Of course, a nation of 300 million people needs a government. And a nation of 300 million people that is highly sophisticated, with some of the best transportation systems, mandatory schooling, and well-run cities needs more government than you'll get in, say, Lebanon.
     "All Politics is Local", said Tip O'Neill. And today's article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution does not disappoint. Under the headline, "Tech students endured threats in free speech crusade" (free login), Andrea Jones tells the sob story of Conservative Georgia Tech students Ruth Malhotra and Orit Sklar. Ruth and Orit sued Georgia Tech to remove an anti-harassment rule for Tech's dormitories. The rule barred verbal assaults and harassment in Tech's common living spaces. Ruth and Orit, two of the people for whom the rule was originally designed, fought to have it struck down in the name of free speech.
     Hey, maybe they're right. The rules were put in place originally because "good old boy" group were harassing women and minorities, hoping to push them out of what had been all-male, all-white schools. By the way, today, Georgia Tech is less than 28% female and less than 25% non-white. This in a country in which 51% of the general population is female and nearly 37% is non-Hispanic White. Just saying. Anyway, maybe Ruth and Orit are right. The country was built on free speech. If women and Blacks can't handle the pressure, they shouldn't be in school in the first place, right?
     So it should be no surprise that after they win their court battle, and Tech is forced to repeal their anti-harassment rule, Ruth and Orit are...harassed! Surprise! Congratulations, ladies. You've gotten what you wanted. Except... you didn't really want this? You wanted to harass dirty liberals and those Southeast Asians that keep populating your dorms? Not good, White American red-blooded Conservatives? Better call the newspaper. Conservatives broke government again!
     Just as a note... Ruth Malhotra is a self-described "conservative Christian". Orit Sklar's name sounded familiar. When I looked her up, I remembered why. I'm embarrassed to report that she's the President of the Georgia Tech Jewish Student Union, an organization I helped found in 1997-98. Oh well. I can't be responsible for my successors. Imagine how Bill Clinton must feel right now.

Victory

2006-08-15T15:17:00.000-04:00

     So the month-long war against the terrorist army Hezbollah has come to a halt. Predictably, everyone involved is declaring victory. Israel, Hezbollah, the UN, the US. They can't all be right, right?
     Right. What the hell does "victory" mean, anyway? Nasrallah thinks it means surviving against Israel. He's wrong. Israel thinks it means destroying Hezbollah. They're right, but when they didn't accomplish that, they changed their tune. The UN thinks it means we stop harassing poor, innocent terrorists. I can't even begin to assess that. George Bush thinks victory means everyone hates you and people are about to die. Mission Accomplished!
     Clearly, Israel did not come out of "Operation Change Direction" with a true victory. Hezbollah is still entrenched in southern Lebanon, is still being fed arms and money from Syria, Iran, and from terrorist sympathizers worldwide, and is still hell-bent on destroying Israel. However, Israel did do a lot of damage to Lebanon. And that sends a very clear message to every one of Israel's less-than-friendly neighbors. It says, "We'll do the same to you if you allow terrorists to attack us from your side of the border." It's a clear message to Egypt. It's a clear message to Jordan. And it's an especially clear message to Syria.
     Almost unanimously, the media highlight Hezbollah's burgeoning public image in the Middle East and points to it as Israel's failure. Israel wasn't fighting a public affairs battle. It especially was not trying to win "hearts and minds" in Lebanon. It was trying to tell governments - governments that actually care about the well-being of its citizens - that it will not stand for their tolerance of terrorists in their midst.
     The Anti-Semitic press screams about "massacres", most "proof" of which has been manufactured. But the world knows that Israel has been mightily restrained. Obviously, it really could have leveled Beirut. Obviously, instead of a few hundred casualties, there could have been a few hundred thousand. The reason there wasn't was because Israel wasn't fighting Lebanon. It was fighting a terror organization that happened to be inside Lebanon. Once Lebanon takes responsibility for its border, that won't be the case.
     Israel accomplished what it meant to do. It stopped the reign of terror in the north. It disabled Hezbollah's ability to make war without authorization from a sovereign country. Is Hezbollah gone? No. But that's a job for another day, for another country to handle. Ultimately Hezbollah is Iran's expeditionary force, and only a nation willing to take on Iran can stop them.

Life Insurance Racket

2006-08-10T00:20:00.000-04:00

     Now that we live in a 2-income house (as opposed to a house that either my wife or I could afford on a single salary), we're investigating life insurance options so that in the case of the untimely demise of one of us, the other does not have to move.
     So far, I'm fairly disgusted by the industry. I mean, insurance is a scummy business as a whole, but life insurance has more obfuscations and fear-mongering than I'd expect outside a Republican election platform. When you buy car insurance, it's pretty straightforward. If you pay $X per month, the insurance company will fix your car, pay off anyone you damaged, and possibly pay for your own injuries in the case of an accident. Different policies cover different things, but it's not complex. I thought property insurance was as straightforward, but since reports came out from Katrina of insurance companies playing games and not paying for destroyed homes, it turns out that that sector is about as trustworthy as Mel Gibson producing a Holocaust movie. (The whole "wind" vs "water" debate is crap. People clearly believed they were buying hurricane insurance, and the insurance companies were happy to let them think so.)
     When I bought my first house, I purchased a "home warranty". That was probably the most worthless thing I've ever spent money on. It was supposed to cover anything that broke in the house, with a few small print items that were excluded. So when a pipe burst in my crawl space, I called the insurance company. "Not covered." Why? Well, the part of the pipe that broke is excluded in the small print. My A/C died. "Not covered." Why? The way it broke was excluded in the small print. After 2 years of having Every. Single. Claim. denied, I cancelled the stupid policy. I started getting warning letters. "This is your last chance!" I read. A month later, I got a letter saying, "This is your final chance to cover your house!" I got phone calls weeks after that offering discounts. I'd rather send my money to a deposed Nigerian prince.
     Which brings me back to life insurance. There are 2 types of life insurance. They're called "Term Life" and "Cash Cow". The insurance companies usually give prettier names to the second, calling it "Whole Life", "Universal Life", "Premium Guaranteed Life". And they talk down the first, calling it "Rental Insurance". Term Life is insurance. You pay the company $X, and if you die, they pay your beneficiary $Y. Permanent Life (Perm), what textbooks will call the Cash Cow, is actually a hybrid product. It's a mix of Term Life and investment account. Perm Life premiums usually stay constant over your entire lifetime, while Term Life premiums go up. But this is misleading. Term Life payments stay constant, while the insurance payments in Perm Life go down. They don't tell you this, because the dollar amount on the check will be the same. What they don't clarify is that part of the money comes from your own investment account. If you wanted to buy Term Life with a declining payout, your premiums could stay constant too. Think of your mortgage. Your payments stay the same, but behind the scenes, more of your money goes to pay down principal instead of interest, as time goes on.
     So where's the scam? After all, what's wrong with saving money? Nothing, if your retirement plan is to buy 40 year CD's that you can only cash after you die. Life Insurance companies pay really crappy returns. If all you're interested in earning on your savings is 6% annually, a CD will take care of that for you. Better yet, you can actually use a CD before you die.
     Now, I do have to mention that there is one huge benefit to Life Insurance - payments after death are tax-free. It's like a Roth IRA that pays out when you're dead. This is a good way to avoid estate taxes if you want to pass down money to your children. Since there are no estate taxes on spouses, however, nobody gains anything if your spouse is the beneficiary. Except for the insurance company, who's been making tons of interest on your money for 30, 40, or 50 years. Anyway, that's estate planning, and unless your estate is worth millions of dollars, you don't have to worry about it. (If it is worth millions of dollars, there are other ways to shelter the money before dealing with life insurance.)
     On the New York Life webpage, the insurance company tries to help you with the confusion. It's heard the saying "Buy Term and Invest the Difference", so it wants to give you a Fair & Balanced analysis on which is right for you. The page has headlines like "Do You Prefer Renting or Owning?" and "Invest the Difference in What?". Translations: "You prefer owning to renting, and we say Term is like renting", and "Do you really want to go through the hassle of planning for your future?"
     Maybe some of you who are older and wiser than me can cut through the bull that the insurance companies are feeding us. Explain to me a good reason why Perm is not a ripoff. If I'm disciplined and responsible with my savings, I figure I'm always better off buying Term, until the day comes when I no longer need Life Insurance (house is paid off, kids are through college). Why is someone always trying to steal my money?

My Israel Manifesto

2006-07-27T23:46:00.000-04:00

I've not so much as refrained from posting about the war in Israel and Lebanon as I've been frozen into inaction. I've been thinking of the political implications. I still haven't decided whether or not Israel's tactics will be effective, or what the right solutions are to the many problems in the Middle East, including Iran. Of course, nobody's expecting a part-time unpaid blogger to have all the answers. The point is I didn't know what to write about.
I've continued to read blogs, however. And many of the blogs I read have shocked me with their descent into ill-will for the Jewish state. And I decided I need to make a few things very clear.

My Israel Manifesto

The decision of supporting Israel is not, to me, a political one. I have family in Israel. Family who don't know whether the next time they step on a bus or walk into a pizza parlor will be their last. Family who are in the line of fire of Hezbollah rockets and future Iranian nukes. I support Israel, period.
In truth, all Israelis are my family. Jews, Christians, and Israeli Muslims. Sabras, Russians, Ethiopians. The soccer player from Ghana who risked his well-being to proudly wave the Israeli flag during the World Cup to thank his Israeli fans for supporting him the rest of the year when he plays for an Israeli club. They are the only people on Earth who will stand behind me when the rest of world stands against me. And I most certainly will not fail to stand behind them when the rest of the world stands against them. I support Israel.
To those bloggers I used to read who think it is OK to trash the legitimacy of Israel in the guise of disagreeing with its politics: You are wrong. You need to understand that this is personal. I am Israel. I will and do take things you say about it personally and I don't apologize for that. If you feel like you have to impugn Israel and its motives, you're doing the same to me. And don't expect me to forget how you really feel about me. I support Israel.
I don't always agree with the decisions the leaders of Israel make, and I'm more than happy to discuss for hours the implications of their actions. This is not the same as saying a) Israel should not exist, b) Israel's existence constitutes war crimes against Palestinians, or c) not letting Palestinians who have lived in Gaza or the West Bank into Israel proper is "oppression", "apartheid", or "genocide". Criticizing the Israeli government doesn't make you anti-Semitic. Singling out the Jewish state as the sole earthly target of your scorn does. That is not something I will discuss with you. I support Israel.

I genuinely regret that the progressives in America - those that believe in individual liberty, in the government's role of protecting its citizens, of the government not controlling our personal, private lives, in equality and equal opportunity for all, is divided by this extremist faction that has fallen in love with the Palestinian cause. Arab-Jewish conflict is not Farm Aid. It is not Tibet. It is not "The Whales". The extremists are driving Jews to the Republican party, because when it comes down to choosing gay rights over the safety and welfare of your family, you have to choose the latter. It shouldn't be that way. Jews shouldn't have to compromise on basic moral issues just to feel like they have a place in the world.
However, it is what it is. I support Israel wholeheartedly. And to tell you the truth, I'm not interested in hearing Arab propaganda about fake massacres or made up war crimes or revisionist history about Israel. Take your miserable drivel and hang out in your seedy corner of the internet with your brothers-in-arms, the skinheads, the neo-Nazis, the KKK. I'm done with you.

Patriotism

2006-07-04T14:12:00.000-04:00

     In honor of Independence Day, I ran the Peachtree Road Race for the 4th time. The Peachtree is the world's largest 10K race with 55,000 runners, 3,000 volunteers, and an estimated 150,000 spectators. It's great fun, and in the later groups, more of a moving block party than a road race.
     Because it's held on July 4th, patriotic themes abound. People carry American flags while running, spectators blast the Star Spangled Banner on their stereos, and a giant American flag hangs over the starting line. My first race was in 2002, only 10 months after the September 11 attacks. Blackhawk helicopters flew overhead, police and SWAT were out in force, and even the National Guard helped protect the thousands of people involved in the race. At mile 4, firefighters waved a flag from the top of their ladder truck to great cheers coming from the runners below.
     Even today, despite rules forbidding costumes (due to the risk of heat stroke - the high today is 97!), some runners come dressed as the Statue of Liberty or Uncle Sam. But today I saw what is probably the least patriotic display imaginable, and unfortunately one that is perfectly accepted in the South. A man ran the race carrying a large Confederate flag. What could be less patriotic and inappropriate for July 4th than the one flag that represents rebellion and civil war? And even on days not July 4th, why is it that kids with Islamic headscarfs get harassed at school, but Confederate flags are OK? Can you think of anything less American than an armed insurrection against America?

World Cup Thoughts

2006-06-19T14:14:00.000-04:00

     I'm a soccer fan by virtue of having played the game throughout my childhood. Since then, I've barely touched a soccer ball (although I have a deflated one in the trunk of my car for some reason). But I've gotten swept up in this year's World Cup fever. And I've even been watching parts of the games, which is mystifying to me, since I have no patience for watching sports that don't involve Georgia Tech. Over the past week I've made mental notes on the game and I wanted to share them with the wider world.

POSITIVE THOUGHTS
*    The tournament structure: Compare the straightforward round-robin first round of the World Cup with the sprawling NBA tournament going on at the same time. The NBA (and MLB) play a best-of-7 series which just sucks the life out of the sport. They say it's to determine who's "really" the best. That if the tournament were played like the NCAA's (single elimination) it would be "unfair". Screw that. It's "unfun" now. American tournaments could learn from the NCAA. But 7-game series make a lot of money for the networks. So compromise with the round-robin strategy. Each game is immensely meaningful, plus each game showcases a different matchup. Excitement and no repetition. Amazing!
*    The tournament schedule: Every day there is a different game on. I never have to miss Ivory Coast-Netherlands because ABC chose to show Croatia-Japan. In part, this is possible because the entire world shuts down during the World Cup, so viewers are available all day. But in practice, this means that spectators get the entire experience. Imagine if the NCAA tournament did this. Instead, we would have 4 games playing at once in the first round, then a 5-day break with no action.

POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS
     The guy I played tennis against last week, from South America, declared that the World Cup is perfect and refused to listen to my suggestions for improvement. I suspect that most people will agree with him. But here it goes anyway...
*    Soccer needs a backfield rule: To speed up the game and force more offense (which Newsweek declares is "the most attractive game"), soccer should introduce a rule like what basketball has - once over midfield, teams cannot pass back over to their own side. That forces an offensive game in basketball and it would do the same in soccer.
*    Implement a shot clock: Again, basketball has it right. Created in 1954 and praised by some as having saved the sport itself, the shot clock revolutionized basketball, raising scoring 20-30%. I know that for many soccer enthusiasts, what is important is the "beauty" of the game. But pressing teams to innovate on the fly and lose the delay tactics that are so common could energize the sport. Added shots translate to added goals. And added goals lower the likelihood of ties. At the very least, they lower the likelihood of 0-0 ties.

     That's all. Hopefully no soccer hooligans will show up at my doorstep. Enjoy the tournament - US vs Ghana in 3 days determines whether the US will advance to the next round!

New American Brethren

2006-05-12T14:17:00.000-04:00

     There are two primary reasons that people migrate between countries. Every immigrant has both motivations, although the degree to which each one influences varies. Reason #1) The person wants to leave their origin country. Reason #2) The person wants to enter their destination country.
     Sounds simple, and maybe a little insultingly so. However, if you want to have a comprehensive discussion on immigration in this country (beyond, "We have laws and everyone needs to obey those laws" or "why don't they just learn English?"), we need to explore how these two motivations work in real life.
     In 2006, we don't seem to have much of a problem with Poles or Russians or Germans clamoring to get in. The main issue in 2006 is Mexicans (and if you live in South Florida, Cubans). Why do they want to leave their homes? Well, the easy answer is that their home sucks. Jobs may not be available, goods may not be available, cops might be corrupt. But why not stay in Mexico and go work in CancÃºn? Or Cabo San Lucas? Or hop in a boat and go to Cuba? Instead, they come into the USA and make their way to Tucson or Los Angeles or Atlanta. Why?
     The simple answer is that it's attractive here. There are jobs and the streets are (relatively) safe. You may not be able to survive on minimum wage, but if you're willing to live in a 2 bedroom house with 15 of your close friends and relatives, you can do it. In fact, that sort of lifestyle might be considered luxurious. In fact, just being able to turn on the kitchen sink and drink the water without getting tapeworm is something short of miraculous. So it's easy to understand why they would want to be come here, too. But why have we made it so attractive for them?
     I mean, sure, we demand clean water, too. But what we also demand is dollar menus at McDonalds. And we demand that our bed is made at the Motel 6. And, oh yeah, we demand that the Motel 6 charge no more than $39.99 a night. And while those are not excuses for taking advantage of underpriced human labor, and while those don't force businesses to hire new immigrants and illegal immigrants, there's certainly pressure put on these companies to hire people that won't charge much and won't make a fuss about working conditions.
     The Truth is, if you ran a grocery store and you needed someone to sweep up the storeroom, who would you prefer to hire? If you only spoke English, would you rather hire someone who only spoke Spanish if they were willing to work for the same price? Even if they were willing to work for a dollar less? If we had more English-speaking US citizens willing to do these jobs, there would be no demand for Mexicans. And if there were no job available, the torrent of people crossing the border might turn into a trickle.
     Enforcement won't work. We can see that with our nebulous "War on Drugs". Interrupting the transportation of drugs does nothing to stem the demand pressures. Eventually the law-enforcement dam springs a leak and drugs come through. The only way to solve the influx of drugs and of poor immigrants is to lower demand. And don't think that cracking down on employers will do the trick. The demand is there because of a lack of potential employees. Fining companies won't correct that.
     Here's my modest proposal: Every family should have at least three children. (Currently, the US average is 2.09) The oldest will inherit the family estate. The second will seek out work in the world and start out with a blank slate. And the third will be destined to remain poor, working for minimum wage or less in menial, but necessary, jobs.
     Of course, if you think you have a better way to drum up a workforce, please post your ideas. Mexicans aren't coming here against our wishes. They're coming here in response to an invitation. It's not sent through Evite, and it doesn't have calligraphy on the front. But the large number of jobs open to them is as good as one of those.
     It occurs to me that one long-term solution is to raise the standard of living in Mexico enough that its people won't go risking their lives in the desert to get a job polishing the insides of a toilet. But that still won't answer the question of who will do those things. Maybe the answer is to dump all of the restrictive immigration policies and open our doors wide open. If they can find a job, great! If they can't - time to move on. In that sense, an amnesty program might be on the right track, except it would be a one-time event.
     Or maybe the answer is to get rid of low-paying jobs entirely. At the grocery store and at Home Depot, you can check yourself out - no more cashier or bagger! If we automated jobs - think of a robotic janitor - there would be no need to look for a low-wage employee. And if we dump industries like farming altogether, nobody will look here for jobs picking oranges or harvesting sugar. They'll go to China or even Mexico. And we can turn that land into shopping malls and Infiniti dealerships and buy all our produce from overseas.
     I'm not being snarky. I'm looking for solutions to the root causes of illegal immigration. You won't fix it by putting the new Sons of the Confederacy at the Mexican border. And you won't fix it by putting the screws the each family that hires a Mexican nanny. If you really want to prevent unskilled workers from crossing the border, make it so US companies don't need unskilled workers in the first place. Or just let it be, and look for ways to help your new American brethren become citizens.

The GOP Immigration Disaster of '06

2006-05-08T14:38:00.000-04:00

     For the past 25 years, the Republican party has been spectacular at rewriting the national agenda so that it could maintain its unnatural coalition between the fiscal conservatives and the bible-thumpers. (Except for a slight blip in 1992) At first it was easy. Ronald Reagan had Communists to rail against. And if there were ever an issue to unite the bankers and the good old boys together, it was those godless Commies who hated capitalism. But as the years went by, it was harder to keep reality out of the party line. It fractured in 1992 with the giant sucking sound of NAFTA and didn't recover until Bill Clinton got a BJ in the Oval Office.
     Now the Republican leadership [sic] is struggling mightily to keep the nation focused on terrorism and gay marriage. Unfortunately for them, issues like global warming and corruption and the war in Iraq and the aftermath of Hurrican Katrina and, oh yes, Immigration keep popping up to the fore.
     Nobody seems to know what to make of the immigration issue yet, because it's a complex issue that doesn't like to be painted in black and white. Dems aren't sure how to handle it and are privately thankful the issue is arising during a Republican presidency so they don't have to. Republicans, on the other hand, are going to pay a very large price because immigration will drive a wedge between the capitalists and the theocratists.
     Of course, observers are starting to realize that the issue isn't really immigration, but bigotry. The most vicious illegal immigration opponents fall into two camps - those who have recently emigrated legally and resent the people who did not have to jump through the INS hoops - and those who have absolutely no clue how the immigration procedures work. (This is not to say that everyone else is educated on the subject)
     Look, I have to admit I speak only one language - English. I specifically did not take Spanish in my South Florida high school as an ineffectual passive-aggressive protest against the Cubanization of Miami. I'm not a huge fan of the areas of town where homes hold 12-15 Mexican immigrants. On the other hand, I'm not hypocritical enough to forget that my great-grandparents lived 12-15 to an apartment in New York 100 years ago when they emigrated to this country. And I know they didn't speak English when they arrived, although they eventually learned it. Of course, they had their Yiddish newspapers and shop signs in their neighborhoods too. And since many of them traveled in steerage class, chances are they didn't apply for legal residency until they landed at Ellis Island. So I have some empathy for the Mexicans (and yes, the Cubans) coming to America looking for a better life.
     The Truth is, I'm ambivalent about illegal immigration. Its effects on wage rates, on prices, on schools, on social services, and on property values are complex. However, I'm not ambivalent about the motives of the anti-immigration movement these days. It's nothing but raw, naked racism. You can hear it in the voices of the people who call the radio stations. You can read it in the letters they write to the newspapers. You can sense it from the shock and outrage over a Spanish version of "The Star Spangled Banner", despite the fact that the anthem has previously been translated into German, Latin, Yiddish, French, and of course Spanish. The US State department actually offers multiple Spanish language versions of the national anthem. (President Bush's remark that "I think people who want to be a citizen of this country ought to learn English. only proves that he has no mastery of the English language himself.)
     The immigration issue deserves a lot more attention than one posting can give it. But it is becoming clear that "Hispanic" is the new "Black" in this country. The Republican Congress is trying to hitch its horse to a new "Southern Strategy" in a desperate new attempt to get racists to elect fiscal conservatives. If the strife in Congress is an indicator, the Dems might have a few good years ahead. On the other hand, if they manage to smooth over their differences, it could be Springtime for Conservatives.

Georgians Are Stupid

2006-04-18T14:25:00.000-04:00

say Georgia Republicans.

This has been the Republican party's tactic for wooing voters around the nation, and I'm sorry to say it works very well in the State of Georgia. Once-educated readers who once rolled their eyes at terms like "Ministry of Truth" and "joycamp" now believe wholeheartedly in laws named "Clear Skies Initiative" or "No Child Left Behind" or "Fair Tax". And seeing how these simple, yet effective, diversions enrich them and their cronies, modern Republicans are emboldened to milk the public for everything they can get.
Which brings us to an unfortunate op-ed piece in the Atlanta Journal Constitution (Free Login) by state Representative Mark Burkhalter (R-North Fulton). What's unfortunate about the guest column is not that he is not identified as a partisan Republican lawmaker, at least online. It is not that the AJC printed no "Equal Time" column or at least tried to balance out spin with facts. Burkhalter didn't control these things. Those are just byproducts of a shoddy newspaper.
No, what is most unfortunate is that Burkhalter takes an idea that might actually have merit, and tries to sell it on a gullible Georgia by using misdirection, false innuendo, and a few outright lies. The column in question breaks down Burkhalter's objections to Georgia's ad valorem property tax. Unlike many states, Georgia taxes not only owners of real estate, but owners of vehicles, including cars, trucks, boats, and airplanes, on an annual basis. Every year, when you pay $25 for registration in your state, I pay a hundred or a few hundred dollars (depending on the value of my car) in ad valorem tax. It's a tough pill to swallow every year because it's not a hidden tax that nickels and dimes you throughout the year. It hits you once a year on your birthday.
That being said, it's not cheap to maintain roads. And an ad valorem tax is far more progressive than a gas tax or a road toll. It affects the people who are most able to pay the most. And it's not like the income tax, which doesn't take into account your expenses. The ad valorem tax only really charges people who are buying expensive new luxury cars. Why new? Because as the car becomes a used car, its value drops precipitously, and the ad valorem tax follows suit.
But it's costing Burkhalter money. And it's costing his donors money. So he's pushing hard to get rid of it. But all getting rid of it is likely to do is raise gas taxes to replace the revenue. So he and his rich friends save money on their Infinitis while the 1972 Pontiac driver sees his gasoline bill rise to compensate. Burkhalter's words are telling: "Government shouldn't punish citizens because they choose to own a car or truck." So much for the Republican party being the party of personal responsibility. Taxes aren't punishment. They're our dues for living in the United States. They are the user fees charged to make sure the $60,000 vehicle in your 4-car garage has pothole-free roads to travel on. And more importantly, that your fresh vegetables make it from the illegal immigrant picker in Florida to your local Whole Foods in time for your wife to cook them for dinner. And don't dismiss this as an anti-money rant. I've purchased new cars and paid the resulting tax bill. I've taken responsibility for my actions. After all, I could have chosen to get old, used cars. But since I acknowledge that my actions have consequences, I pay the tax gladly.
Burkhalter also feels drivers already pay enough. They have to pay for "state and federal taxes on gasoline; excise tax on gasoline; sales tax on vehicle purchases; tire disposal fees; mandatory smog inspections; and fees for driver's licenses." Earth to Mark! These fees all help mitigate the costs involved with owning a vehicle made from toxic materials that spews other toxic materials into the air. Perhaps we can get rid of the tire disposal fee in lieu of using the Burkhalter's backyard as a tire dump? It keeps coming back to the lack of personal responsibility Republicans have and their ardent desire to get the populace to pay for their lifestyle choices.
Burkhalter finishes his grand argument with a straw man. "Government doesn't dare tax other personal items such as jewelry, furniture, computers or tools. There is no reason to tax something as essential as our vehicles." When my kids develop asthma because of your jewelry, we'll talk. When thousands of computers are causing the state to pay millions of dollars to ease congestion on the road, we'll talk. When the wood from your furniture is being purchased from terrorist and dictatorial states that threaten our national security, we'll talk.
Representative Burkhalter, treat Georgians like adults. Who knows? One day they may even act like them.

Onward Christian Militants

2006-04-05T18:07:00.000-04:00

     I don't know why so many of my posts seem to center around wanna-be American theocrats. Maybe it's because they've been so prominent lately. Maybe it's because in the death throes of the Bush disaster, er, presidency, they are preparing a fresh assault on religious freedom. Or maybe it's because they are stubbornly failing to recognize that the American public's patience with them is starting to grow thin. Really, there's only so much trashing you can do of basic American freedoms before the average American wakes up and yells "Sit the hell down - I can't see my football game!"
     So anyway, it's April, which means two things. 1) It's been a month since my last post. How low have I fallen that my once-daily blog has become a monthly? 2) It's time for the annual running of the religiots who think the Easter Bunny is the only thing holding civilized society together.
     I've recently moved from Norcross, GA to Dekalb County, GA. This means a few things for me. My commute is a lot shorter. The supermarkets sell more Kosher food. Cynthia McKinney is my Representative. And I get a local weekly newspaper called the Dunwoody Crier. And this week, the bottom half of the front page was plastered with a South Park-ian bunny who looks scared for his life below the headline, "'Spring bunny' almost trumps Easter at Perimeter Mall" "by Cathy Cobbs". Wow. Thank goodness for Cathy Cobbs. Otherwise we might not have known that Easter was ever in such danger. As the managing editor of The Crier, I'm sure she knows this is Big News. OK - I'm being facetious. Nothing happens in Dunwoody. Really. It's got to be tough to fill your paper with enough copy so you can sell ads when there's nothing to write. Still, it doesn't excuse irresponsible rabble-rousing.
     The story starts out with a reference to the ubiquitous, mysterious "some" people. Cobbs wrote, "In what some believe is another attempt to remove a religious connotation from holidays...". Translation: "In what I want you to believe.." Cobbs interviewed 2 people, the sole complainant Sherry Pettitt and the suckup marketing manager of the mall, Lisa Shepherd. It was Sherry Pettitt who got the whole ball rolling in fact. She was so upset to see how badly Christians were being persecuted in front of Dillards that she sent emails to a dozen news publications.
     Originally, according to the mall, they were not celebrating Easter at all. The bunny was there to help celebrate spring. As someone who eats lunch in the Perimeter Mall food court, I can attest that springtime at the mall is distinct from other times. People who were staying indoors during the cold weather start flooding the food court and departments stores once the mercury stays in the 70's and 80's. Too bad they didn't know that the rabbit is now the property of militant Christians and must only be used to celebrate Easter. (All rabbits are hereby named "Easter Bunny") And failure to celebrate Easter is nothing less than a vicious attack on Christians. God help you if you try to be inclusive. A 1996 survey found that 13% of the residents of Dunwoody and neighboring Sandy Springs were Jewish. Add that to the people who are Muslim, atheist, or adhere to another religion, and you have a sizeable population that doesn't identify with Easter.
     So what do Sherry Pettitt and her cabal of religious extremists say to Perimeter Mall's statement that "many backgrounds, cultures and religions do not celebrate the Easter holidah and Perimeter Mall wants our springtime children's character to be familiar and appealing to all shoppers"? She says, "I am sick of it!"
     I'm just dying to bump into this woman at Publix or Target.

March Mediocrity

2006-03-13T10:34:00.000-05:00

     That's right - it's time for the second annual counter-cultural NIT bracket! Or, as I dubbed it last year, the "Pride Cup". Or lack thereof. My Yellow Jackets were an embarrassment to the ACC, to everyone who watched them go to the National Championship game in 2004, and to everyone who watched a game of theirs this year. They won't be playing again until this fall. However, the ACC seems to be slumping this year, and the NIT is very ACC heavy, with Maryland, Clemson, FSU, Wake Forest, Virginia, and Miami. And when you conside the SEC teams (Vandy, USC) and the other big name schools participating (St Joes, Penn St, Rutgers, MICHIGAN, Notre Dame, Temple, Louisville, Cincy, Stanford), playing pool with the NIT is betting on the teams you've watched all year.
     SO - this is an open invitation to all of you to join the NIT Pride Cup in its second year of glory. It is mostly for pride - after all, who'd going to bet $15 on an NIT bracket? Cost of entry is $1.50 per bracket. You can download a copy of the bracket HERE. Just fill it out and email it back to me. Or just email me your picks. (Not your pics, however. I don't care how cutesy-wootsy your dog is.)
     Scoring rules are simple: I'm copying ESPN's other bracket rules. 1 point for a correct pick in the opening round. 2 points for the First round, 4 for the Second round, 8 for the Quarterfinals, 12 for the Semis, and 16 if you somehow pick the NIT champion. To make things interesting, you get an extra half-point if you correctly pick an upset. (There are no upsets in the semis or finals). Tiebreaker will be the total number of correct games picked.
     So send in your picks and your $1.50 via PayPal to TheTruthBlog at Comcast.net no later than 5:00 PM tomorrow (March 14). First Place wins 60% of the net (after PayPal steals its share), Second place takes 25%, Third place takes 15%. Good luck!
P.S. Happy Purim! Hag Sameach

Belief in Belief

2006-03-08T19:01:00.000-05:00

     In the US Religion Wars (aka The Campaign to Distract Americans from Iraq), somebody, somewhere is attacking Christianity at any given moment. If a bunny is called the Garden Bunny, Christianity is being attacked. If someone sees a piece of a boob for a second & a half, Christianity is being attacked. If every American does not smile and profess ecstatic joy for Jesus's birth every December, Christianity is under attack. And not only Christianity, but Belief itself is in danger of crumbling.
     Which begs the question (at least for me), why do we care? I understand a lot of people have formed attachments to Christianity. But as far as belief itself, when did that become so important? And worse, why is belief so important for belief's sake? In Judaism, it is forbidden to eat pork. According to the laws of kashrut, Jews just can't do it. Even if you're a Jew who thinks pork is tasty, it's still against the rules. It would certainly help if you believed that God would punish you if you ate the pork. But it's not required. All that's required is that the pork doesn't enter your mouth (or any other orifice, for that matter).
     In Christianity, belief plays a more important role. According to the book of John, Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Of course, that belief was really meant to get people to accept him as a god. He didn't mean that believing in just anything was good.
     So why is belief itself celebrated? I once dated a Catholic girl whose father was very religious. He apparently approved of me because I was religiously active, albeit in a faith other than his own. Although I was certainly pleased and relieved at the time, I wonder why belief itself was more important than what I believed in. And why would it be wrong to derive your belief in God through reason and science and logic? Why would it be so bad to prove the existence of God through physical evidence?
     I read an article in Slate by Judith Shulevitz critiquing a book on religion by Daniel Dennett. Dennett invented a concept called "belief in belief". According to him (via Shulevitz), "people who believe in belief believe that civilization needs myths to live by, so we mustn't examine religious ones too closely." In other words, it is not God that holds our world together, it is our collective belief that does so. ("Myth" in this usage, refers to traditional supernatural stories, not necessarily a fictional tale.)
     For those of us whom the words "glorify God" never quite seem to make it to the top of our daily task list, this might seem like a laughable claim. Why would life fall apart if, say, there were incontrovertible evidence that Jesus had been a used chariot salesman who liked to partake in the local marijuana-oil? You would still love your family. You would still go to work so you could feed and house and clothe yourself and your family. You would still enjoy watching 4 Law and Order episodes a night on TNT and USA. After all, if God exists, surely He is not so childish and petty as to get mad about simple human failings.
     Dennett says that belief in belief is a "compromise formation" for those who attend church regularly but don't really internalize the strictures. I say these people make up the vast majority of American population. Last year, a major poll found that 45% of Americans attend religious services weekly, and nearly 66% pray daily. But when Dr. Phil asked America questions, 41% said they had cheated on someone and 68% said they had been cheated on!. Just today, the Catholic church in Ireland revealed that 102 priests are under suspicion of sexually or physically abusing children. Clearly there are people out there who are going through the motions of religion in public but don't follow the rules when they're in private.
     To me, their belief in belief is strong enough that they have a strong desire to retain religion, even as they ignore it. And while I feel that proponents of the Flying Spaghetti Monster make an excellent point about belief, they're preaching to two different choirs. On one hand, they're targeting people who already have their belief system set in stone, thank you very much. On the other hand, they're targeting people who have already discovered they don't need one.
     Of course Janet Jackson's tit isn't going to destroy Christianity. But it may help reveal the lack of real commitment many Christians (and members of other religions) have to their chosen faith. And that may help damage the pervasive idea that belief in religion is what keeps the world functioning. And that, of course, may convince the millions of people who pay lip-service to their religion to spend their time doing other things. And that is what could destroy Christianity. What is the solution? Well, it's only a problem if you believe your actual religion is going to fall apart, but the wisdom of Yoda comes to mind. "Do or do not. There is no try."
     Update: See Lindsay Beyerstein's take on Dennett's book.

Duh

2006-03-02T12:25:00.000-05:00

     According to the Washington Examiner, "President Bush now says his 2004 victory over Democratic Sen. John Kerry ... was inadvertently aided by al-Qaida terrorist leader Osama bin Laden." Duh. Well, half-duh. I think it's pretty clear that a Bin Laden tape endorsing Kerry in October of 2004 caused Americans to vote for Bush. But to call it inadvertent?
     Americans like to think their villains are stupid and 100% corrupt. In 2001, when the wounds of 9/11 were still raw, Bill Maher was chased out of town for suggesting that contrary to what President Bush claimed, the terrorists who piloted planes into our buildings were not cowards. In our culture, liars are people who never tell the truth and evildoers are people who never do good things.
     But in the real world, Osama bin Laden is not stupid. And he understands politics. In the late 90's bin Laden declared war against the West. That was to be war between the Christian countries and the Islamic countries. And while almost nobody understood the real reason behind 9/11 (other than "they just want to kill as many of us as they can"), I think it's safe to assume he had one. In fact, he told us his reason - we just don't want to listen to him when he tells the truth. Which of course is because we assume that since he's evil, he never tells the truth.
     Bush has given bin Laden everything he wanted - a conflict between the West and Islam. And furthermore, the United States is isolated in the world, having alienated its allies. The Bushies claim that we're winning, because we've killed many high-ranking Al Qaida members. But in any war, you expect casualties (except Americans. We expect to incur none.). And bin Laden's cronies have paid the price. But his goal may still come true. And if it does, he will have won.
     So back to the election. If Bush has given bin Laden everything he wanted, of course bin Laden wanted Bush to be reelected. He didn't want Kerry to start making nice with Islamic Arabs. He didn't want Kerry to reestablish relations with the Europeans so they could provide a common front. And what would be the best way to get his man Bush back in office? Endorse the other guy. It's a classic Good Cop/Bad Cop routine. It doesn't work on everyone, since it can be easily recognized. But police often use it successfully on people who are scared and frightened.
     Osama bin Laden got George Bush elected, alright. But it wasn't inadvertent. It was just the 21st century version of the October Surprise.

Short Term Memory

2006-02-28T10:35:00.000-05:00

     I just moved to a new house this past weekend. It's a lot closer to work, which was the major attraction for my wife and me. In fact, commute time was one of the prime impetuses for moving in the first place.
     So in order to take advantage of this (and because I am now house-rich and cash-poor), I went home for lunch yesterday. And as I was sitting in my recliner eating leftovers and watching TV, I heard a report on CNN that said the gas prices had dropped 6 whole cents over the past week. They then added the commentary that we shouldn't expect to enjoy these "great low prices" for too long, since oil is poised to go up.
     Yesterday, according to atlantagasprices.com, the average gas price in Atlanta was $2.08 and the average gas price in the US was $2.22. Now, granted, this is a whole lot lower than in the aftermath of Katrina, when gas prices soared to $3.10. But that was only 5 months ago. Until April of 2005, US gas prices were nowhere near $2.22 a gallon. Three years ago, they were in the $1.50's.
     I understand the newscasters are adjusting to the new reality, and their greater point is that gas prices will only go up, an opinion I wholeheartedly agree with. However, to even suggest that we're experiencing low prices means that:
A) The newscasters really can't remember anything earlier than last September
B) The newscasters don't want you to think about the fact that you're now paying almost double for gas what you paid only a few years ago and throughout the 90's
C) Someone from the White House hypnotized the production staff of CNN to help get Americans to fell good about paying over $2 per gallon for gasoline*
D) All of the above

     Incidentally, it's this same short-term memory that causes Americans to forget that Iraq had no part in the 9/11 attacks, that Palestinians are not innocent bystanders in some Israeli tyranny, that oil shortages can cause real pain ala 1979 (although we're starting to remember that one). I know the media doesn't want to be seen as negative, especially since the Republican mouthpiece Fox accuses all other media as being anti-Bush. But Americans do quite well remembering good things and even deluding themselves into remembering bad things as good (1950's - otherwise know as Republican "good old days"). If the news is going to be complicit in asking us to forget, we're closer to 1984 than many people realize.

The Human Animal

2006-02-22T11:13:00.000-05:00

     Every so often, mostly when I'm feeling very comfortable with myself and my supposed role on the planet, I notice something that disturbs me a little. I work in a large office building, and people here are paid a lot of money to scurry around, moving paper from one stack to another, surfing the web trying to look busy, and generally enabling global commerce in the way that corporations do. It's all very important, and it's easy to lose yourself in the idea that you are a cog in a very large machine, single-mindedly focused on a task. Or the idea that you are a very important, modern cog, doing things that your ancestors 50, 100, 1000 years ago couldn't possibly be capable of. And then you leave your cubicle with its tchotchkes and its photos of your wife/husband/dog and you go to the bathroom.
     The bathroom. A room dedicated to fulfilling your biological needs (without making too much of a mess). There's no higher purpose to a bathroom. Sure, some women might use it to touch up their makeup at a restaurant or club, and some men might like to use it as a respite from everyday life, bringing with them the sports page or crossword puzzle. But it's hard to argue that if humans didn't need to expel biological waste from their bodies every few hours, these rooms would exist at all.
     How much of our other rooms are dedicated to our subservience to our bodies and not to our minds? Certainly our kitchens and dining rooms. If we weren't required to eat, if we didn't get hungry, we wouldn't devote that much of our homes (much less our time) to eating. And of course our bedrooms. We spend more time there dead to the world than anywhere else in the house. So what would be left? Living rooms, family rooms, dens, playrooms... A very small portion of most of our homes.
     So how different are we really from our cave-dwelling ancestors? We have more comfortable caves, but to assume we're physically superior is probably delusional. If we still have to sleep and eat and defecate, if we still get sick and old, could our minds be that much improved? For that matter, how much are we different from other animals that sleep and eat and defecate, get sick and get old? Chimpanzees, dogs, elephants, water buffalo... It's a disturbing concept, at least to me. We're just a few creature comforts removed from cavemen. And it's not like most of us have any clue how to procure these things beyond running to Ikea in our Lexus SUV's. If the electricity we out tomorrow and stayed out for good, if gasoline and natural gas went away (which they would without electricity to produce and distribute), how long would it be before our civilization reverted 150 years or more? I say more, because with our current population of 6.5 billion people, a 4-fold increase over the population in 1900, we couldn't possibly feed everyone with 19th century technology.
     That's beyond the point, of course. Doomsday scenarios are fun to read about or watch, in a scary sort of way. There's a whole genre of apocalyptic fiction, from The Matrix to Planet of the Apes to Waterworld. But I prefer to focus on the future. If we want to believe we're better than humans past, what have we done to be better? To remove our need to use the bathroom, to sleep, to die? Some people argue that these are things that make us human. But the Truth is, these are things that make us animal. Humanity, as most of us understand it, is in our brains. Any cockroach can defecate. Only humans are smart enough to do it in the bathroom and flush afterwards.
     Although personally, I find it incredible that we still do so.

Crackberry Infringement

2006-01-23T17:14:00.000-05:00

     I'm not a Blackberry user. I have a Palm Treo, but I'm too cheap to pay Verizon $45 a month for slow wireless internet. I already have Comcast's slow, wired internet at home, thank you very much. And I didn't even get my first cellphone until 2001. So maybe I'm not the right person to comment on Backberry's impending cycle of destruction. Full disclosure: I do get a little annoyed when everyone asks if my Treo is a Blackberry. It's petty, I know, but I have no interest in being associated with Crackberry Addicts.
     Anyway, I'm a little torn on this story. Like any American, I feel compelled to take sides so I can, you know, root for someone. But since this issue is mainly between one business, another business, and business-people, I don't really have a dog in the fight. Besides, it's much more fun watching Right-wingers battle it out with their unworkable dogma: Capitalism (and by extension business) is the best thing ever and we should let businesses do whatever they want.
     If you're not familiar with the case, on one hand you have RIM, the makers of Blackberry. On the other, you have NTP, a holding company for the patents of the late Thomas Campana. Campana came up with a method to integrate email systems with wireless networks back in the early 90's. He patented the system and put the patent in a file cabinet and waited. Along comes RIM with their Blackberries and their ability to access email on wireless networks. NTP said, "We own the patent, you have to license it from us." RIM said "Go to hell." And the war was on.
     Pro-Blackberry Right-wingers say that it's not fair that some stoopid little "company" that doesn't even make anything should be able to tell a big corporation like Blackberry what to do. They emphasize the fact that NTP is not a manufacturer in order to discredit them. Never mind that people like Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, and Ben Franklin all invented things without manufacturing them - their strengths were in creating products and not necessarily in overseeing someone operating machinery.
     On the other hand, Pro-NTP Right-wingers say this is just Capitalism in action and if NTP can extort $1 billion from RIM, then so be it. Forcing companies to license their technology to anyone who wants it and whatever price they name smacks of Socialism, and the Pharmaceutical companies are inclined to agree with that position. Granted, this group is considerably smaller, given that NTP requires the courts to collect. Wild West justice never used the courts (except as a handy place to lynch outlaws) and NTP seems to fit the Liberal whiny model.
     Some commentators complain that since NTP wasn't actively using its patent, there's no harm done. They say there's no proof that RIM ever actually copied NTP - maybe they developed the idea on their own. Of course, this is irrelevant. When NTP filed its patent, it made a deal with the US government that it would give out the details of its idea to anyone who wanted it, for free, in exchange for protection from unauthorized use. Without this protection, how many of our tools of everyday life would be little more than sketches sitting in someone's drawer? I might be a brilliant physicist who comes up with a way to copy matter and "reprint" it somewhere else. I don't really care, because I was being paid to look for something that would turn lead into gold. Without patent laws, I might just stuff the idea in my desk, hoping to be able to work on it someday in the future. With patent laws, I file for a patent, giving my idea to the world. Some engineer, reading the patent, realizes I discovered teleportation and creates a trillion dollar industry, wiping out UPS, the Post Office, and private school carpool lines. Because of this, every parent who picks up their kids from school should support strong patent laws. Our country (and economy) relies more than ever on innovation.
     On the other hand, the sheer number of ideas out there are simply overwhelming the system. The patent office is little more than a rubber stamp on patents, even when they have no merit. You could patent a method of rubbing peanut butter on bread before putting on jelly and then sue every elementary school for infringing. If innovation becomes too expensive, nobody will innovate.
     So who am I rooting for? I haven't decided yet. In my bitter old age I am enjoying the pain and panic of Blackberry users. But that scheudenfraude aside, it will be very interesting to see how this works out.

Holy Crap, I Missed It!

2006-01-17T21:40:00.000-05:00

     I thought I was getting busy, after leaving my last job that gave me about 8 hours a day to read news and blog. But then my wife decided it was time to move, and I've even fallen behind on reading important (to me) blogs, much less writing them. I was reading Johnny Virgil's blog with Thunderbird when I came across his January 14th post in which he said, "Wow. I almost missed it. I just realized that exactly a year ago today, I started this here blog."
     Hmmm. When did I start blogging? It turns out that Johnny and I share an anniversary (blogiversary?). My one-year anniversary of blogging was also January 14th. So for anyone reading this, get up from your computer, drive to Publix (or Kroger or Piggly Wiggly or wherever you shop) and buy a little birthday cake and one of those cool candles shaped like the number "1". Light it, blow it out for me, and eat some cake. Thanks!
     In all seriousness, it's exciting to hit this milestone. 2006 looks like it will have less post-election angst than 2005, but it looks to be no less disappointing for those of us who had high hopes for our leadership. I'm sure I won't have any shortage of material to bring us to 2007. Thanks for staying with me, especially through my October disappearance. Anyway, here's to another great (belated) year of blogging!

Raison D'Etre

2006-01-09T17:15:00.000-05:00

     A lot of people ask the question, "Why am I here?" The answer to this, of course, is called "The Meaning of Life". (The question is affectionately asked as "What do you get if you multiply six by nine".) Apparently, just being isn't enough for many people. There has to be a reason.
     What's funny is this issue came up in the recent science vs science fiction debates in Dover, PA, Cobb County, GA, and the state of Kansas. Some of the arguments against teaching science in school have been to the effect of "Human Beings couldn't have been created through random genetic mutations" and "I can't believe in an existence that has no purpose". Unfortunately, even if the Truth is that God (or the Flying Spaghetti Monster) created us, there's no reason to believe He did it on purpose, any more than Gary Cismesia hit the goalpost on purpose in Florida State's loss to Penn State. You could just be the funny-looking result of a batch of DNA brew God mixed up while he was distracted by the latest Desperate Housewives. Oops. Would it really be a comfort to learn you were just a reject in a long line of rejects in God's quest to build Natalie Portman?
     Anyway, people are good at that sort of self-doubting and need for outside affirmation. But apparently we have no such qualifications for the things that we create. Who asks, "Why do toaster ovens exist?" Who asks, "Why does IBM exist?" If we really must ask these Why questions, should we at least ask them about the items and institutions that we at least have a little control over? For example, it's been long said by greedy short-term stockholders that corporations exist for the benefit of their shareowners. Their entire purpose is to create value for the people who purchase shares of their stock. But is that really true?
     Name one successful public company that started out life as a public company. Name one successful company that started out in a situation in which the original owner(s) were not also employees. What's my point? The reason these companies exist could not possibly be to enrich stockholders, when there were no stockholders at the moment of the company's creation. Let's look at UPS for example. In 1907, Jim Casey borrowed $100 from a friend and became the first employee of a company that delivered messages and parcels around Seattle, Washington. 98 years later, that company has expanded into a global giant with over 400,000 employees moving over 3.6 billion packages a year (2002) to over 200 countries. Today, UPS is a publicly traded company on the New York Stock Exchange and a member of the S&P 500 worth over $83 billion. Why does this company exist? What is its raison d'etre? Ask its largest institutional shareholders and they might say it's them. If you could ask Jim Casey, however, he would tell you it was him. And his brother and his partners. They wanted to make a living and they saw an opportunity to do so by forming their own company. You could say that one of the initial reasons for existing was for its employees' sake. Also for its owners' sake, since they were the same people. And for the sake of its customers, without whom there would be no UPS. But basically it exists because Jim Casey needed a job.
     IBM has a similar history. In 1888, Dr. Alexander Dey invented the first dial recorder (whatever the hell that is). His business formed one of the three initial building blocks of IBM. This business existed because Dey wanted to earn money by building and selling his gizmadoodle machines. His company existed to earn its employees money. Which is funny, because last week (free login), IBM announced that it was ending its pension program. I'm sad to see pensions go. I firmly believe they are a great tool to retain qualified workers throughout their career. However, it's this money quote that really gets to me:

Companies with pensions are facing tough competition from newer firms and from global companies that aren't saddled with that cost, said Richard Brownlee, professor of business administration at the University of Virginia. When pensions were being formed in the middle of the last century, he said, "we didn't expect the kind of global competition we see now."

So basically, pensions are now considered a "cost" that is saddling US business. That may be, but pensions are really a part of compensation. What IBM and this guy Brownlee are saying is that American workers make too much to compete globally. And they have a point. But what is dishonest and destructive about attacking pensions this way is that instead of admitting to people that their compensation is dropping, they are taking away money that employees won't see for another 10 or 20 or 30 years. If IBM took $50/month out of an employee's paycheck, there would be some serious morale problems for the company. But if it can sneak that same money out of the retirement plans without anyone really noticing the difference in their paychecks, well, all the better. The other downside is that pensions really are an effective compensation tool. 401k's are portable. And yet companies can't seem to figure out why their best employees leave for other companies each year. When you give every incentive to leave and none to stay, people are going to leave. Pension plans give an incentive to stay. In order to sneak money back out of compensation, these companies are mortgaging their futures. They are creating a system by which they have to rebid annually for talent, driving up compensation costs, training costs, and recruiting costs.
Of course, IBM's puppetmasters aren't concerned. As soon as the stock price lifts a little from this new infusion of cash, they're going to sell. They won't be around in 10 or 20 or 30 years when IBM is crashing and burning from a lack of talented employees. So what is the reason for IBM's existence today? To satisfy day-traders and short-term stockholders? Or some combination of the logical descendents of the founder (employees), customers, and long-term owners? From where I'm sitting, the day-traders are eating everyone else's lunch. Sorry Dr. Dey.

Happy New Year!

2006-01-03T15:46:00.000-05:00

     Happy, uh, what's today's date again? 2006? Whatever.
     I mean no offense to any New Year's Eve revelers out there. I'm sure you enjoyed every last second of 2005, including your bonus second granted by the US Naval Observatory in Washington. One more second of a slurring, pained Dick Clark keeping Ryan Seacrest off the air is certainly worth drinking to. And I mean no offense to those of you looking forward to a 2006 that will most certainly include President Bush admitting to all of his mistakes and then promising very, very hard to try not to make too many more. I myself enjoyed a wonderful "Pimp's & Ho's" New Year's Eve party at a friend's house. Remind me to post the pictures someday.
     However, it seems to me that ringing in the new year is a lot less significant than it used to be. First of all, I'm getting older, which means that as I personally slow down and get fatter, time is speeding up. So I feel like I'm experiencing New Year's Eves at the rate I used to experience Tuesdays. But that doesn't explain everything. I just don't feel any compulsion to ponder the new year anymore, to make resolutions, or eat black-eyed peas. (Although I do eat them on Rosh Hashana, the Jewish new year) This week is just a continuation from last week, which was a continuation from the week before. It's sad, sure, but you know what I really blame for this annual malaise? Online billing.
     I mean, you used to be able to rely on having guaranteed non-weather related small talk in January, talking about how you keep writing the old year in your checkbook, hardy-har-har. When was the last time I wrote a check instead of relying on online bill pay? (It's not a rhetorical question - I really want to know!) I did some research for this post, digging my checkbook out of my desk at home. It was buried under dusty $0.32 stamps, rubber bands that crack if you touch them, and some tic tacs I bought in high school (and yet were remarkably still good). The 25-check book was half completed, although I started it in 2002. There was not a single check stub from 2005.
     When I think about it, not only do I not write checks, I never write the date on anything anymore. Part of that is because I'm not in school anymore and don't have to turn in assignments. But even when I was last in school, I was more likely to turn in a paper written on the computer, which automatically attached a date. More and more, students are submitting assignments electronically, preventing the need to write either the date or their names. Imagine if you forgot how to sign your name? Your signature would get so sloppy it would look like.... your signature.
     2000 was a big deal for the simple jarring fact that for the rest of your life, you would be looking at a '2' staring you in the face instead of a '1'. But even then, there was little in life that was seasonal and there's less today. There used to be a time when you couldn't eat fresh fruits out of season. Now you can enjoy oranges and strawberries 365 days (plus one second) every year. How about football? Arena football starts in January, so you never have to suffer through summers that only feature the most boring "sport" ever devised - baseball. With the invention of Las Vegas, humankind mastered the 24-hour day. Online bill payments are finally helping us master the 365-day year. Happy Two-thousand whatever.

In Search of N.H.

2005-12-23T14:28:00.000-05:00

     As I've mentioned before, I use Sitemeter to keep track of the unpopularity of my blog. It's always exciting to take a look at the stats at the end of the day and see that people have visited my page. And I'm always curious about the people (that would be you) who read my blog, especially repeat visitors. I like to see what search engine results brought people here because I feel like I get to know them a little by seeing what they're looking for. (I could get you know you all even better if everyone commented, but I understand you're not all comfortable with that)
     But it's not particularly gratifying when people stop by my blog because they were looking for something unrelated and only stay for about as long as it takes to find the "Back" button. I'm especially tired of the people who, day after day, come searching for "NH" (I'm instituting a policy of not writing out her name again so I stop showing up on the first page of Google) Part of my annoyance is due to the fact that I tend to complain a bit too much. And part of it is due to my incredulity that so many people are still actively involved with this story that they are performing internet searches. Just so we're on the same page - someone comes to my blog every single day looking for news on NH.
     I just fail to understand the obsession. Last night, checking out of Publix, I saw a tabloid with her face on the front that said "[NH] Was Pregnant!" Please. But I guess this is why I'm not a tabloid reader. I do feel pretty bad for Aruba, though. State after state has called for a boycott on visits there. I somewhat understood when it was just Alabama. I mean, it's pretty stupid to hold a whole country liable for an underage drunk girl wandering around at night on her own, but NH did live in Alabama so he had to look good for her parents Jug and Beth Twitty. But then Mississippi and Arkansas and Pennsylvania made noises about boycotting Aruba. And then this week in my own state of Georgia, Governor Sonny Perdue called for a Georgia boycott of the island. I tell you, with us being last in SAT scores, trying to discredit evolution in schools, and now this, it's a little embarrassing to tell people where I'm from.
     Jay Bookman of the AJC wrote an excellent column about Perdue's spotlight-grab. (I'm a little sorry that when he stopped by my page while doing an internet search for references to his column, it was to read a negative complaint. Jay, if you come back, I'm sorry!) In it, he points out that there are 34 unsolved cases of missing children in Alabama and 68 in Georgia, some of whom have been missing since long before NH was born. (note: I only found 42, but I spent 30 seconds searching) I know that NH was pretty and all, but is she 34 times as important as a child missing in Alabama? 68 times as important as a child missing in Georgia? How can anyone trust a single word that comes out of the Governor's mouth when he so blatantly lies about his motivations? Because clearly, wanting to boycott Aruba has absolutely nothing to do with finding NH. It has everything to do with - actually I have no idea.
     So for goodness sake, stop bashing the Arubans. And if you're planning a Caribbean holiday this year, think about visiting Aruba. Because they could understandably use some support right now. And if you found this page by searching for NH, a word: Don't you ever come back here, or I will hunt you down over the internet and bash you with your own mouse.

Children currently missing in Georgia: Reyna Gabriella Avlarado-Carrera (since 5/6/05), Michael Anthony Bennett (6/21/89), Monica Renita Bennett (6/21/89), Andrew Lee Brown (7/24/87), Miranda Elaine Budman (10/31/98), Michelle L. Burdette (4/8/05), Kyle Wade Clinkscales (1/27/76), Jamaree Clarence Coleman (7/24/93), Jessica Danielle Cox (9/22/95), Teresa Melissa Dean (8/15/99), Dustin Lamar Dyer (12/13/05), Jamilahalake Oleesah Ebo (7/14/05), April Elder (8/9/05), Gabriella Larasati Elprana (7/30/03), Ashley Marie Hires (3/30/05), Catrina Renee Jackson (5/30/86), Amanda Jo Johnson(4/26/05), Courtney Paige Johnson (5/11/05), Arjang Karami (4/8/03), Mani Karami (4/8/03), Sabah Nasheed Karriem-Conner (7/17/00), Valentina Mendez-Hernandez (7/31/05), Sheila Garcia Nicasio (11/10/05), Destiny Lucero Ojeda (11/4/05), Shy'kemmia Pate (9/4/98), Valeria Grisel Sanchez (3/16/05), Yazmayra Sanjurjo Colon (1/8/05), Alisha Smiley (6/6/85), Stranterria Leatrice Smith (3/12/04), Tavish Sutton (3/9/93), Tony Yael Toledo (4/12/03), Yaribeth Toledo (4/12/03), Priscilla Trejo (8/7/03), Elyssa Marie Vasquez (1/28/03), Nichelle Launyeh Veasley (9/7/05), Brandon Lee Wade (10/14/02), Alan Perez Watson (8/3/01), and a number of unidentified children. If you even care a little about the NH case, call Governor Perdue at 404-656-1776 and tell him you would like a little more focus on your missing neighbors.

In Defense of "Merry Christmas"

2005-12-19T13:45:00.000-05:00

     I've come to the realization that I've come across as a Christmas-hater. It's not really that - it's more of a Christmas backlash. Like everybody hating Kevin Costner for making long movies and trashing Waterworld without ever seeing it. I thought Waterworld was good! Plus, the little girl grows up to be the love interest in the counter-culture Napoleon Dynamite, so you know it can't be all bad. I would like to formally say, "Mr. O'Reilly, I am not attacking Christianity and I'm not looking to ban Christmas. I'll take my global conspiracy and go now."
     I'll admit, I have been somewhat swayed by the latest effort to keep the Angry, White Man angry. (Your regularly scheduled anti-gay marriage polemic has been moved to the next election cycle. Check back in November.) I've always been a big proponent of calling things what they are. A Christmas Tree is a Christmas Tree, not a "Holiday Tree" or a "Chanuka Bush". And students are out on Christmas Break, not Winter break. Who are we kidding? And when we talk of "Judeo-Christian" values? I know you mean "Christian Values". December Holiday Parties at your office? Not really - they're Christmas Parties. I know these things. I'm not an idiot.
     It would actually be really nice to hear other people call them these things, too. Because maybe it would finally open peoples' eyes to what the Religious Reich has been doing for the past 20 years. Americans like to think they're enlightened. And for many of the past half-century, they made great strides towards egalitarianism: feminism, anti-racism, and religious pluralism. But along the way, the forces of backwards thinking realized that they could just talk like they were being progressive and people would believe them. So now they can say, "The school calendar doesn't revolve around Christianity, it's just coincidence that Spring Break and Winter Break fall around Easter and Christmas." "It's OK to preach intolerance, as long as we preface it with 'Judeo-Christian values'." So let's get back to telling things like it is. I'm not sure the evangelicals are going to like the results.
     I do believe most Americans are reasonable people. Not necessarily good critical thinkers, but reasonable. (In large part due, IMNSHO, to crappy post-cold war education systems) So when they realize that their kids are getting a holiday for Christmas but the Jewish kids have to choose between taking an unexcused absence or attending Rosh Hashana services, maybe they'll begin to see. When they notice that their company is having de-facto mandatory Christmas parties complete with food no observant Jew or Muslim would eat, maybe they'll begin to see. Maybe they'll understand when one house on their street doesn't have Christmas light. It's easier to understand that than the one house that doesn't have Holiday lights.
     I look forward to this day of honesty that will never happen. It's ironic that it's the "religious conservatives" that are pushing this War on Christmas, because it was the religious conservatives that were the ones who renamed Christmas to start with in order to keep it in public life. Maybe once the name returns, we can start to tone down to celebration. And then maybe we can all start appreciating the real holiday a little more.

What People Want

2005-12-16T10:40:00.000-05:00

     One of the most frustrating things about having a new job and actually being busy at work is that I had gotten so used to being able to write blog posts at my leisure. Basically, I want to write an essay on every topic that strikes my fancy. Unfortunately, I just don't have an hour or two every day to do that anymore. So here are two mini-essays. First I want to welcome new readers from the Jewish Times, which has been kind enough to mirror some of my blog posts. Feel free to click on the "Comment Globally" button and join in the conversation! (Regular blog readers - don't bother looking - the button is not for you)

Is That a Dollar Coin in Your Pocket?
     I've always been a fan of the dollar coin. At least, I was a fan of the Susan B. Anthony coin and the Sacagawea coin. Neither is used much now, and you probably can't even get your hands on one unless you're getting change from a Post Office vending machine or you specifically ask for one at a bank. Actually, last December when I tried to get 10 Sacagawea coins from the bank as a gift, they didn't even have that many in stock. I walked away with Anthony coins instead.
     I first learned to appreciate coin money when I visited Israel for a month. Walking around in a foreign country where only half the people I saw spoke my language, I appreciated not having to dig out my wallet stuffed with cash and travelers checks ever time I wanted some falafel. But here in the US, people don't want them. Or do they? It's hard to tell when they don't even get a chance to have them in the first place. I went out of my way to get Sacagawea coins when they came out. But no store ever gave them to me as change. That's where I get all my money in denominations smaller than $20. Every store handed me wrinkly dollar bills, not shiny dollar coins. I ended up having to put a $20 bill in the stamp machine at the post office to buy $2 worth of stamps. When I did spend my dollar coins, golden or silver, everybody took them without a question. Everybody gave me the correct change. Cashiers didn't act like I had just gotten off the boat. The US Mint said demand just didn't exist for the coins. But if Congress really wanted to switch to the (cheaper and more durable) dollar coins, they would stop issuing the paper bills altogether.
     In 2007, the Mint is issuing "Presidential Coins", just like they're doing with the state quarters. Unless they start printing fewer bills, I predict you'll never actually see one in circulation.

You're Not Going to Be Happy in 2008
     The latest polls are showing that people think the Democratic and Republican nominees for President in 2008 will be Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. I predict neither one will be on the ballot in November, as Prez or as VP. Hillary is no surprise. Right-wing pundits have pushed her towards this job since 1993. According to my law of politics, their "reporting" of her presidential ambitions has created reality. Giuliani isn't really surprising either, unless you remember what people thought of him on September 10, 2001. Clinton was 30 points ahead of another Democrat in the poll, but Rudy was a mere 8 points on top of John McCain, another man who won't be running for President in November (although I could see him running for VP).
     I'm not going to start a discussion of electoral votes or the order of the primaries or the fact that both Clinton and Giuliani hail from New York (at least now they do). The simple truth is that Clinton is too conservative for the Democratic primaries (yes, despite what Faux News tells you) and Giuliani is too liberal for the Republican primaries. It's a Christmas-time wishlist of an election slate. Clinton and Giuliani are so similar it would actually be a dull campaign, which is probably what 280 million Americans are hoping for.
     In a way it's a shame that the candidates Americans most want (in aggregate - I know you want someone else) they can't have. In 2004, nobody was particularly excited about John Kerry. The word most people used for him was his "electability". Not exactly someone who moves you. Personally, I would have loved to have seen Lieberman do well, although I never thought he had a prayer. I can't predict who will get the nominations in 2008. It would be pretty cool to see Clinton go up against Condoleeza Rice. That won't happen either, any more than we'll see a Michael Bloomberg v. Joe Lieberman race. Maybe Karl Rove will run, if he's not sent to jail. That would be exciting. Who do you think will get the party nods? Who do you want to get the party nods?

Thin Blue Lie

2005-12-13T15:15:00.000-05:00

     In the news in the last week or so, there have been two airline tragedies in which an innocent was killed. The other night, a Southwest airplane overshot the runway at Chicago-Midway and careened into a busy intersection, crushing two cars and killing a 6-year old boy. Now, I love flying. I almost always buy a window seat and I bring my camera onboard to take pictures of the landscape below. I love the feeling of taking off - the amount of power pushing me forward is exhilarating. But landing scares the bejeezus out of me. Of course, in almost every airport I've flown into, there's a hill or a lake or some other obstacle at the end of the runway which would seriously damage me if the plane didn't stop in time. I was surprised that a landing plane could just roll out to an intersection. So I pulled up Midway on Google Earth (my new favorite toy to waste time at work) and was shocked to see a small, square airfield in the middle of a neighborhood.

     This picture is probably what the pilot saw before the plane came down. The orange "X" on the top is where the plane ran off the runway and hit 2 cars. Yes, all those things around the airport are houses. I found a great picture on Comcast.net that shows a house right behind the nose of the plane. It's like what happens when you invite John Travolta over for Thanksgiving dinner.
     As disturbing and scary as that story was, the next one makes me feel far less safe. (As long as I'm not flying into Midway during a snowstorm, that is) Last Wednesday, Federal Air Marshals shot and killed an American citizen. Like the last case of shrunken Right to Life on the London Underground, this one raises more questions about how free we really are. As you might recall, in July, London police shot and killed a Brazilian immigrant in the subway. In fact, they shot him point blank in the head after he was on the ground. They then lied to the public, telling us that he was acting highly suspiciously, had been running through the subway station despite calls to halt, and was wearing a very heavy jacket on a very warm day. As it turns out, none of this was true, but it didn't keep wingnuts from declaring the shooting a victory in the War on Terror.
     Well, they're declaring another victory in Miami, because on December 7th, another innocent man was murdered. After claiming Rigoberto Alpizar had yelled that he had a bomb and was reaching for his pocket, federal officials have been backpedaling as it turns out it was not true. But while the wingnuts claim victory in the best case and overreaction in the worst, this is a very disturbing development in our backyard. (Your front yard, if you're reading this from South Florida) First is the fact that Alpizar was shot and killed, not in the high-risk environment of a flying plane, or even the tightly crowded environment of a landed plane, but on the embarkation ramp leading to the plane. Where shooting first and asking questions later might be good policy at 30,000 feet, American police don't (and shouldn't) operate that way. What's the police procedure for dealing with a man who may have a bomb? I have no idea. But keep in mind that this was a man who had been through at least one security clearance already. Second, why would air marshals think Alpizar even had a bomb? Not one of the passengers interviewed even recalled him saying the word "bomb". That's pretty rare, because in most stories like this, we hear conflicting stories. But not one other passenger heard "bomb". Which brings us to Third: Why are we being lied to?
     I have to say, I hate being lied to. Hate, hate, hate, hate it. I've gotten used to it, though, from this administration. I don't trust this administration. I do have to trust our police, out of necessity. But it's clear that they're as willing to lie as anyone with 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue on their driver's license. Shoot an innocent man? Make up a lie about him. Smear him in the press. Make him unbelievable and unsympathetic. I actually have a lot of respect for the Air Marshals, but if someone isn't harshly punished for breaching the public's trust on this, I will have lost a lot of it. Killing people and covering it up are hallmarks of the KGB or Nazi SS. Are they now going to be tactics of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)? We all say that if we behave we'll be OK. Is it true? We may never hear the full story on Alpizar because the MSM is too scared of real controversy. But if the police are allowed to get away with shooting one innocent man mere yards from his frantic wife and then lying about it to get away with it, what's to stop them from shooting you and making up a lie? They may already have a backup lie ready, just in case. Think about that the next time you're flying with a cranky 7-year old who might decide to get back at you by telling security you're a terrorist. And just hope to God you don't look South American.

Dispatch from the War on Christmas

2005-12-10T22:11:00.000-05:00

From Daily Kos - Read it out loud in a South'rn Accent
(Sorry for cheating, but this is too perfect)

Dear Aunt Mabel,

     I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing you from the Christmas frontlines, currently in front of Cinnabon at Twin Oaks Mall. May Jesus and Santa forgive me, but I have to say that this is the worst I've ever seen it.
     What a horrible place, the mall. The architecture of these things is all the same. Malls are the architectural scat of the biggest American colossus, corporate capitalism -- a cogs-and-bricks-and-money giant that thunders, three miles high, across the landscape, stopping and squatting occasionally to crap out one of these rectangular jumbles of cement block. May Jesus forgive them for sucking so bad.
     I have some sad news -- John has been in an accident. It was his first day here, and we were eating lunch in the food court, in front of the Peppy Peppy Pizza. Suddenly, out of the corner of my eye, I saw a lady carrying three bags stop in her tracks, like she saw someone she knew. She raised a hand, and shouted it, right there in the middle of the mall. "HAPPY HOLIDAYS!"
     The carnage was bad. Real bad. I'm sorry to say John wasn't prepared to hear it, and he accidentally stabbed himself repeatedly in the eye with a plastic fork.
     The doctors say he'll be fine, but he'll lose that eye. Even in his sleep he's mumbling Merry Christmas, over and over. He's a damn fighter, that one. He's one of the lucky ones, because I'm pretty sure some other people got trampled in the rush to get out.
     This whole war has been a nightmare. I was at Circuit City yesterday, looking for a cheap DVD player. Out front they had a "Happy Holidays" banner that must have been in letters three feet high. I stepped under it, may Jesus forgive me, because I knew I had to get in there, but inside was no better. Some damn wreaths, here and there, and lots of lights, but no tree. I swear to God, no Christmas tree at all -- I looked everywhere. It was like being in Iraq or something.
     I stumbled around with the rest of the shoppers. Everyone was in a daze, bumping into each other. I don't think any of us knew what to do, except just keep shopping, but I could tell everyone was thinking what I was. But I wasn't ready to see the DVD player prices, and I lost it.
     "FIFTEEN FUCKING PERCENT OFF?", I shouted. (Sorry for the language. This war has screwed us all up) -- "FIFTEEN FUCKING PERCENT? WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE CELEBRATING THE BIRTH OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR HERE, AND ALL YOU CAN DO IS A FUCKING FIFTEEN PERCENT OFF?"
     I knew then that I was among heathens, and I dropped all the DVDs and batteries and stuff that I had scooped up, and just left. I swear, some days I don't understand what this war is even about.
     Over and over it's the same. Every damn store. Some of them just say "Happy Holidays" out front, and I don't even go in. Most say Merry Christmas, but even then, it rings hollow. If they really were celebrating Jesus, they'd have more lights. The music would be louder. The giant inflatable snowmen would be bigger, and there'd be more of them. There was one place that had a little nativity scene, and that was cool, but the baby Jesus was laying in a manger and instead of straw, they had little optical fibers that glowed all sorts of different colors. But sometimes it glowed RED, because that was one of the colors in the cycle, and when that happened it looked like they were trying to barbecue the Baby Jesus and I had to leave.
     I've seen a lot of pain, on a lot of faces. I know that "Holidays" and "HolyDays" are related, but it's not the same. One has an "I", and one has a "Y". One is about the self, and one is about the Holy Mystery.
     Y. Y, indeed. These damn heathen bastards.
     They're making us forget the Y.
     I know a guy who ran right off the road, just last week. He was passing a Kentucky Fried Chicken (I know, they call themselves "KFC" now, but that's just so fucking stupid I can't even handle it) and they had on the sign out front, right under the price of a 12-piece family bucket:
     "Seasons Greetings"
     Dear sweet God. Of course, he ran right off the damn road. Even "Happy Holidays", you can sort of swallow hard and pretend you saw the Y and move on, but "Seasons Greetings?" It doesn't even sound human. It sounds like a brand of instant fucking stuffing.
     In fact, that's exactly what it sounds like. A brand of goddamn Satanic turkey stuffing. That's how far we've sunk, as Americans.
     Wal-Mart was the best and the worst. Oh sure, they said Merry Christmas. Or maybe it was the guy outside ringing the bell that said Merry Christmas, I'm not sure -- I'm pretty sure the greeter said it too. But they had the DVD player like I was looking for, and at twentyfive bucks each I got two of them so the kids don't have to share.
     I had to wait in line about a half hour, but I passed the time by talking to the person behind me in line, who was buying a bunch of clothes and stuff. I let her know which things Jesus would and wouldn't approve of, because I'm pretty good at knowing stuff like that. I thought that the Christmas Tree sweater with the little lights that light up using a teeny battery was pretty damn cool and a pretty good celebration of the Birth of Our Lord, but that I thought the socks had too much blue in them and not enough green. I also told her to make sure to check that the little snowman figurine wasn't made in a communist country, but we couldn't remember if Taiwan counted or not, so I told her it was probably OK, especially at that price.
     It was all going OK until i got to the checkout and put everything down. The guy who was checking me out looked funny -- he was polite and cheerful, sure, but something was off about him. As he turned to recheck the price on a twentyfour pack of Rudolph and Frosty paper towels, because I was pretty sure the price was supposed to be sixty cents cheaper than it said, I saw what it was -- he was wearing a yarmulke (Is that how you spell it? Wierd, but I looked it up). Seriously, I'm not kidding, right in the middle of the store. What kind of person just rubs his religion right in your face like that?
     I was prepared. My mind is always ready for these challenges, and I knew what to do. I waited for him to ring me up, and paid my money, and got my receipt.
     "Merry Christmas," I said, experimentally.
     "Merry Christmas," he replied cheerfully.
     I narrowed my eyes with a snarl, and with all my strength, I hit him as hard as I could with the twentyfour pack of Rudolph and Frosty paper towels.
     "What are you doing!?" the person behind me shrieked, lunging over the counter in a really ripping move to prevent the guy from knocking over a bin of $2.99 plastic mini flashlights. "He said Merry Christmas! He said it!"
     "But HE DIDN'T MEAN IT!", I shouted as loud as I could. "LOOK AT THE HAT! HE DIDN'T MEAN IT!"
     I gathered my bags up, but I was just getting started, and I lit into everyone in the whole store. "CHRISTMAS IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT PEACE ON EARTH, ALL YOU GODDAMN COMMUNIST BASTARDS! WHEN WILL YOU GET THAT? PEACE ON EARTH! YOU HAVE TO MEAN IT!" I marched out of the store, head held high. Because all the Wal-Marts in the world, all the Targets, all the Circuit Cities -- they just don't get it. They don't understand.
     How long must we be persecuted? Christmas is about Peace on Earth and Goodwill Towards All, and how dare the pagan alliance of liberals, non-Christians, hippies and multinational corporations turn this into a damn war zone, where I have to look at every damn sign, and second-guess every greeting, and measure every Christmas tree to make sure that everyone understands that like we do. This is OUR time of year, as Christians, to show the world what Christianity is, and that Peace on Earth and Goodwill Towards All isn't some hollow greeting card thing, but is the way we live our lives, and fuck them all if they can't see that. I, for one, will make sure that we understand about Peace On Earth if I have to hit every last damn greeter and fast food teenager and checkout person in America with a paper towel value pack. I'll boycott them all, until every last one of them understands that I am here in the name of Our Lord and Savior to bring PEACE ON EARTH if I have to shove it down every last throat. Especially the damn pagans.
     Anyway, I'm so damn glad our church is closed this Sunday for Christmas, I need a break. Best thing they ever did, because you know come Monday, we are all going to need that strength to return oversized sweaters, and fucking ugly placemats, and all that made in China toy crap that breaks the first day. In Jesus' name we'll come back down on those malls and return stuff to celebrate Our Lord and Savior just like in the olden days, and besides it'll be good to have that Sunday to rest and just plug the new DVD players in and stuff.
     Hope things are well there. I'll keep fighting, none of us want to leave before this job is done. Tell Uncle Bill I said hi and Merry Christmas and stuff, and that I'll be dead in the cold cold ground before I recognize the goddamn pagan "New Years".

Yours,

Hunter

More Christmas Spirit

2005-12-07T13:46:00.000-05:00

     I saw a weird headline yesterday: Some megachurches closing on Christmas. What?? Are they going out of business? Are people actually going to stop acting like they're at a football game and join a smaller church where they practice religion and can know everyone?
     Apparently not. It seems that these megachurches are closing their doors on Christmas Day (and New Years Day) despite being Sundays, because nobody will show up. One church is so large it actually requires 500 volunteers to get it up and running on a Sunday morning. The religious reich, of course, is going nuts. Long used to just attacking liberals and athiests, they probably feel betrayed by their baptist brethren. One evangelist (he actually teaches other people to be evangelists. Does that make him a "mega-evangelist"?) said "I think what this does is feed into the individualism that is found throughout American culture, where everyone does their own thing." (underlining mine)
     Individualism? Some of these churches have 30,000 members and generally seat 8,000 of them on your average Sunday. And these members acting in unison are showing individualism? Look, I know we can argue until we turn blue about how extreme some of these people are, on abortion and sex and Sunday beer, but how extreme do you have to be to call a sheep in a 30,000 sheep pasture an individualist? And to imply that individualism is a bad thing? It's scary that these people have any power over our current government. Considering our nation has a long tradition of individualism, where one person bucks trends and becomes a hero, it's pretty frightening to think that people who think like our President believe that 30,000 people acting in unison are "too individualist".
     Maybe by "individualism" they mean "not exactly like me"?

Schrödinger's Cat

2005-12-06T16:21:00.000-05:00

     The funny thing about politics is that everyone pretends it's a "thing" - a subject in school, a topic to be understood, a section in the newspaper. A static "thing", too - something that just is. Really, politics is THE "thing". It IS the news. (although it still remains just a subject in school, called Civics or History or Government) Nick and Jessica's breakup isn't news. Not in the sense that it is A) important B) impacts your life in any way or C) the result of something important. Of course, if you're Nick's mother, or Jessica's agent, it's all three. However, I'm willing to bet that neither Nick's mom or Jessica's agent are reading this right now. For you (gentle reader), this is just gossip. Front page AJC and CNN gossip, but gossip.
     On the other hand, most of what happens on CSPAN, boring as it might be, is news. These are the things that will impact your life in a meaningful way. Your representative government making decisions in your name are just as relevant to you as Red Hat Society meetings or even family decisions to have your 15-year old dog, Muffy euthanized. I guess it's the nature of the beast that it bores us - instead of making decisions ourselves, we hire people to do our deciding for us. Can you imagine that kind of decadence in our home life? Hiring someone to to menu planning for our families? Hiring someone to purchase a car for us? Hiring someone to choose what clothes we'll wear to work today? Basically, we've lost all competence in our ability to make decisions of national importance anymore. We've become a herd of sheep waiting to see which dog of a politician will direct us to where we will graze next.
     So that brings me to the physics I alluded to in the title. Republicans these days love to live in the two-sided world where on one hand, they denounce those who watch the polls. I believe the phrase they like to use (they probably heard it on Rush Limbaugh) is "he has no core beliefs, he sways with the wind." Actually, on the web searches I did, you can replace the "he" with a democrat of your choice. On the other hand, Republicans love to denounce the Dems as being "out of the mainstream" and love to show polls when they favor their positions. So what gives? Are they just hypocritical bastards? Well, yes. But more importantly, they understand a very fundamental concept of modern politics. This concept is the idea that the public's opinion is based on what politicians tell them what their opinion is. That is, the more they tell us that "mainstream Americans" support the war in Iraq and support restrictions on abortion and support the President, the more we believe them.
     So what is politics? Is it listening to your constituents or is it shunning them? We fight about which of these two cats is in Schrödinger's box, while the real cat is in our kitchen drinking our milk and knocking over our trash cans. The Truth is, we are politics. And the people who think they're not involved are the people most involved. Is Bush ever going to win over committed environmentalists? No. But he can marginalize them by turning the apathetic and disaffected against them. Can the religious reich make Bible stories into science? No. But they can publish polls telling you how most Americans believe God created the world. Can neoconservatives make the Iraqi war less bloody? No. But they can tell us that the Liberal Media is filtering out the good news. Are these polls and papers reporting on our "core beliefs" or are they creating them? What kind of sheep do they take us for, anyway?

Christmas Nazis

2005-11-30T17:17:00.000-05:00

     I'd like to say I have nothing against Christmas, but that's not entirely true. I resent it a little bit. I feel like I can't really admit this, though, because I'm Jewish and I don't celebrate Christmas anyway. It probably requires a devout Christian to stand up and say, "OK enough with the crappy music piped in through the mall, enough with the crass commercialism, enough with the stupid notion that if you don't send everyone you've ever met a card you're a bad person. That's not Christmas." It probably requires that sort of person, so I won't say it. My job is to say, "Of course I don't mind being bombarded with lousy music, pushy salespeople, people asking me if I've got my tree, or when I as a kid, asking me what I wanted Santa Claus to bring me. I love the season because it brings out the best in people, plus the lights are so pretty."
     That's what I'm supposed to say. I think. Except that it's bull. I know most people love this season - they approach it and turn into kids again. Except I guess most people weren't very good kids. The fighting in the stores is the least of it. The gluttony of the month is disgusting and the lack of personal self control is appalling. The manager of my company gym told us today that the average American gains 7 pounds between Thanksgiving and Christmas. (Even the Canadians who celebrate Thanksgiving 2 months earlier don't gain that much!) Think - an average of 7 pounds. That means there are plenty of people out there gaining 10 or 20 or 30 to make up for those of us who aren't stuffing our faces. Then of course there's the inevitable intolerance.
     You know what I'm talking about. It happens every year. It even happened this year at Easter. People stop being happy and start being angry. I think they forget that Christmas is a one-day holiday. They demand that stores and people they meet on the street celebrate Christmas all month long. If a cashier doesn't wish them a "Merry Christmas", they blow up. If a store sign says, "Happy Holidays", they write an angry letter. Forget that the owners may not celebrate Christmas. Forget that not all of their customers celebrate Christmas. Forget that they may not even be in a holiday-related store. They're not looking to celebrate Christmas early - they're looking to force everyone around them to pretend to celebrate.
     Someone I know (who shall remain nameless) works for investor relations for a large company. That person showed me a letter send to the company from a very angry man about the use of the words, "Happy Holidays".

"I would like to provide feedback on the customer profile of the vast majority of your customers. I would like to repeat, ?The vast majority of your customers?. Everyone I know is offended by companies trying to take CHRISTMAS out of CHRISTMAS. I suspect that sales would flourish to retailers that aren?t afraid to call it what it is, CHRISTMAS. I also believe that retailers will find shrinking support for those who are attempting to secularize our culture. Since we celebrate CHRISTMAS on December 25th, I personally won?t buy gifts from companies attempt to disguise it as something other than Christmas. They are, in fact, Christmas ornaments, they are Christmas trees."

     Uh, OK. It's interesting that the demographic that is the first to say we can't tell corporations it's not alright to pollute is also the first to tell them how to recognize their religion. But let's go over this one more time. Just because the majority of this company's shoppers celebrate Christmas, it doesn't mean they are obligated to tell everyone "Merry Christmas". If that were the case, would companies have to tell you in the evening, "Have a good dinner?" How about, "Hope you have a good bowel movement when you get home"? "I hope you have good sex with your spouse tonight?" Most people do those things when they are at home. Why isn't this guy pissed off that the store doesn't tell him that? Or is it just the religion part that gets his panties all bunched up in a wad? Then why isn't he threatening to boycott them if they don't tell him, "Enjoy church tomorrow" on Saturdays?
     It's not just the lone wackos writing letters to corporate offices though. If that were the case, this would be a pretty stupid article I'm writing. It's mainstream right-wingers like Neal Boortz who keep propagating this bizarre idea. In this blurb, he basically echoes the nut in the letter above (Or could it be the other way around..... hmmmmm) when he says that 85% of Americans celebrate Christmas (I think it's more) so everyone has to say, "Merry Christmas". Somehow the citizens of America have turned "equal protection for all" into "if I have more votes, I win and you lose". Life has become a football game. But while Presidential elections have to have a winner and a loser (2004 had 2 losers), not everything else does. If you're ordering 4 pizzas for a bunch of friends and a 3/4 of them want pepperoni, you don't have to put pepperoni on all 4 pizzas just because you have a majority. That wouldn't even qualify as selfish, because it just doesn't make any sense and it wouldn't benefit you anyway. The best way I can characterize it is evil - you just want to see someone lose.
     So if you're shopping, and some of the people don't say "Merry Christmas", don't be evil just because you have a majority. There are other people out there who don't need to "lose". If you really believe that everyone has to conform to your beliefs in order to make your world bearable, well, Happy freakin' holidays, jerk.

What's the Point?

2005-11-28T16:59:00.000-05:00

     I was "back home" in South Florida all last week for the Thanksgiving holiday. If there's one thing South Florida has a lot of, it's old people. Between the downed trees and powerlines, the oppressive heat and humidity, and triptophan sleepiness, there were lots and lots of old people. Most of them seemed to be driving on the roads and highways at 5 miles per hour. (If you're on the metric system, that's equal to "slow as crap")
     My grandmothers are old people, too, but I'm rather fond of them, so I won't make fun of their driving. My grandmother's boyfriend, however, is another story. She met him in the Independent Living community she lives. At 90 years old, I applaud her for being social. On the other hand, he's an annoying old man and when I visit, I wish I could spend time with my grandmother alone. That's just me being selfish.
     But about his stories. I was in the car with him going to Thanksgiving dinner and he talked non-stop for an hour. It was all about his son and how rich his son was and about how he gambled in every casino in Vegas and how the guy at Caesar's knew him and comped him for everything. He even pulled out his wallet to show me card from every major casino. They were the elevator keys for the "club floor", whatever that is. I was in the car with him going to Thanksgiving dinner and he did not stop talking once during the hour-long car ride. Thankfully (it was Thankgsiving), he was talking to my grandmother, not me, but I had a hard time shutting him out. Most of it was bullshit, pointing to a building and making something up about it. "See that building? Blah blah blah blah."
     But when he's talking to me (or my sister, or my parents, or the other people in the independent living center), he tells us how rich his son is, about the nightclub his son used to own in Atlanta until the schvartzes made the place undesirable, about how he himself gambled at every casino in Vegas and how the guy at Caesar's knew him and comped him for everything, about his elevator key card for the "club floors" which he still keeps in his wallet "just in case", about how Steve Wynn begged him to come gamble in his new casino. Most of his stories revolved around what an awesome gambler he was. Now the man's a few short steps from the grave, he's living alone in a retirement home, his son hasn't spoken to him in 10 years. What was the point? So he could brag to his 90-year old girlfriend's grandson?
     There are a lot of things I'd like to do in this life. I want to travel the world, buy a yacht, own a mansion or two, invent a better mousetrap, run a company, be a famous columnist ... Being a big macher at Vegas casinos would be pretty cool. But if that's the biggest accomplishment of my life, shut me up. And if I have nobody to share those stories with except random people in the retirement home cafeteria, shoot me. Because I'll have completely wasted my life anyway.
     I've been fortunate in my life so far to be spared from a lot of death. I've known a few people who have died, but baruch hashem they've all been old and lived full lives. But I would think that assuming you have an unlimited amount of time is stupid. If you were to die at 30 or 40 or 50, what would you leave behind. It doesn't matter whether or not you believe in an afterlife. What did you leave here? When you're gone, will anyone ever remember you were here in the first place?
     So imagine you A) have no children, B) do nothing during your life that could not have been done by someone else, and C) make no impact before or in the act of your death (like donating the contents of your will to your alma mater). Were you ever really here? And if your answer is yes, then why? Why did you take up my oxygen? Why did you put garbage in my landfills? Why did you waste the valuable real estate it took to bury you?
     And forgetting death, once you no longer have the ability to work enough to fund your casino trips, or maybe once your knees have gone enough to keep you from hiking in Europe, or maybe once your heart has gotten bad enough that you can't travel, what then? For your own sake, do you want your last 10 or 20 years spent bragging about what an awesome person you were when you were young? Now that's a depressing thought.

Happy Thanksgiving

2005-11-21T15:25:00.000-05:00

And To Hell With Georgia!

I'm in Florida for the Thanksgiving Week. I might post, but I doubt it - I've been running around visiting family I see only once a year. Everyone eat lots of turkey, get good deals on Black Friday, and root for Georgia Tech over the inbred rednecks, er UGA fans, on Saturday at 8:00 pm on ABC. (For those of you who will get the Notre Dame game instead, root for Stanford)

Confirm This

2005-11-16T15:23:00.000-05:00

     Some of the biggest headlines and political controversies over the past 6 months have been over confirmation hearings of judges. In April, all the politicians could talk about were filibusters or a "nuclear option". But the Republicans not only control Congress, they control it in a way no party has ever controlled it. Because the Republicans would rather cut off their balls than vote contrary to the President, Republican Congressmen are about as worthless as Presidential Electors. (I'm comfortable saying "balls" because only 28 out of 286, or 9.9% of Republicans in Congress are women. Only 22% of Dems are women, FWIW.) So what options to Democrats really have if they don't like a judge?
     In normal times, even if there aren't split majorities in Congress and the White House, some members of each party will cross the aisle to vote against the President's pick. Integrity used to count for something, after all, and each of these Senators and Representatives were elected by local people in their home districts, not selected by the national party office. Extremists of any persuasion were rarely appointed and almost never approved. But today, Republicans are certain to approve anyone that makes it to the floor for a vote. By a unanimous vote. (You know who also used to win by unanimous vote? Saddam Hussein. But I digress.) So what's a Democrat to do without a majority when an incompetent or extremist like Darth Miers or Scalito is nominated?
     As it turns out, Dems have a few options. They can vote "No" and complain loudly, either on C-Span or their local news. This option is called, "Preaching to the Choir, but they get to maintain their integrity. They can filibuster, but this option has 2 problems. One is that Americans are not comfortable with the idea of a minority blocking the will of a majority. Despite being one of the pillars of American society from Day 1, it remains unpopular. A filibuster, of course, doesn't allow a minority to pass unpopular legislation. It just keeps majorities from doing so. And there's a limit on the power of a filibuster - minorities in the Senate must have at least 41 participating members - hardly a tiny fraction of the 100 member Senate. But because of its unpopularity, it would be unwise for minority Dems to use this tool too often. Clearly a filibuster would have been used in case Harriet Miers had not resigned her nomination, since she was so unpopular and unqualified. But the Democrats' beef with Scalito is that he's too partisan. They just don't like him. And if they choose to filibuster him, Senate Republicans might just remove filibusters altogether, making the need to ever compromise again on anything non-existent.
     So Scalito will most likely be confirmed, barring some revelation of his past in which his wife had an abortion or he accidentally used Jesus's name in vain. So why are the Democrats not using Option #3 - using the confirmation hearings to trash him, trash the Republican opposition, and trash Bush, but not hindering the actual vote? They're wasting their everloving time asking him about precedent and abortion memos and conservative rulings. He's getting confirmed anyway and you know the answers, so why bother asking stupid questions that put even the producers of C-SPAN to sleep? Dems need to ask questions in the vein of, "Are you sorry you beat your wife?" - questions with no good answer designed for public relations value only. Show a little backbone, for goodness sake. (Note: I don't condone asking the man if he's sorry he beats his wife, unless it's actually true) I mean, you have one shot at national press before you shuffle back off into obscurity. Make the American people believe that you believe in something, because for some reason the Rush Limbaughs and Karl Roves of the world have convinced Americans that the people who stand for civil rights and the environment and diplomacy and charity and responsibility don't stand for anything anymore. You're going to lose this battle. Don't quit the war.

What Does Democracy Mean?

2005-11-15T10:56:00.000-05:00

     One of the troubles with Democracy (and the reason that the United States is not one, is that true Democracy often turns into a tyranny, of sorts. Democracy is mob rule, and while I wouldn't deign to question the collective wisdom of mobs, it tends to be unworkable in the long run. Maybe this is just my low opinion of human nature coloring my words. But the Truth is that the United States is a Republic with a tinge of Bureaucracy, not a Democracy. In a Democracy, we would be voting on laws, not electing members of Congress who would be doing it for us. We would be voting for the head of the FCC, the head of the FDA, the head of the FBI. We would be voting on whether to allow Vioxx to be sold, and whom to. We would be voting on whether Janet Jackson's breast violated decency standards. In other words, in a nation of almost 300 million citizens, we would be voting all day, every day. But since we're a Bureaucratic Republic, we allow our elected and unelected representatives to do the work for us. There's a level of trust there, whether or not we like it.
     Still, a Republic is very much like a Democracy, if only on a superficial level. We still come together to vote, except we choose the people who will make decisions, and we choose them every few years, so nobody rules absolutely. We have checks and balances and we've made government as inefficient as possible so that nothing gets done unless it's really important. We've limited our Democratic rights to those involving choosing our representatives. So it's very important that we retain those rights.
     That's why a recent news story is puzzling to me. On Monday, a new poll was released showing that President Bush was enjoying his lowest approval rating ever at 37%. By historical standards, it's bad but not fatal. Clinton's low was 37% in 1993 and Reagan's low was 35% in 1983. Of course, that assumes that Bush's popularity has bottomed out. If it went lower, he could be in real trouble, keeping company with his father (low of 29% in 1992), Jimmy Carter (28% in 1979), and Richard Nixon (24% in 1974). Be that as it may, Bush is still the President (as so many "W" stickers like to point out) and we do live in a Republic, so he's got three more years to govern. But it's mystifying to me why "The White House has said it doesn't pay attention to poll numbers and the figures do not affect policy." Why shouldn't poll numbers affect policy? The American people elected him, don't they deserve to at least have their opinion respected? When Clinton had his lowest rating in 1993, it was due in large part to his attempts to nationalize health insurance. He quickly dropped the effort when it became clear that the American citizenry did not want it. What exactly is so bad about respecting the American people now?
     I'm not suggesting that Bush waver between policy when his approval teeters from 52% to 51%. That would be poor judgment and weak leadership. But when his approval dropped 20 points from 57% in February to 37% today, that's getting the sense that 300 million people (or at least 189 million people) are unhappy. If Democracy means anything, why is it a point of pride for him to ignore the people?

How to Search the Internet(s)

2005-11-10T14:21:00.000-05:00

     I'm taking a break from "Tax Week" because, frankly, even my Accountant wife is getting bored. I can only imagine how the rest of you feel. But don't worry - I'll be back tomorrow for all of your insomnia needs.
     Like many bloggers, I have a web counter that tracks how many people visit my blog. It also tells me what city the visitor is from, how many pages the visitor has looked at, and what web page referred the visitor to me. If you used a search engine to find me, I can see what words you used to do it. I've read a lot of blogs that poke fun at the crazy ways people find them. It is pretty interesting. I mean, why did the person searching for "top snobbiest schools" (9/9) or "investigative reporters channel 19 scott taylor cleveland oh" (10/19) land on The Truth by Scott? And how on earth did I ever get near the top of the search for "cat"?? (10/20)
     Some I understand but are just funny. "cnn liberals to pay back 1.14 million" (11/7) and "capitalism will be wiped out" (11/8) and "american red cross scandle" (10/5) are obviously from someone who just listened to Rush or Neal. And why the hell are people still searching the web for news on Natalee Holloway?? You think if they found her body, it wouldn't make the front page.... oh wait. You assuredly don't read newspapers. Well, MTV news would still let you know. Since I've started tracking my stats on August 26, 58 people have come to my page looking for "natalee holloway", "natalie halloway", "natalee haolloway", "natalie halloway poker", "intrigue natalee holloway". But some of these people really drive me crazy with their stupidity. Someone searched for "truth natalie holloway" on November 1. Oohhhhhhh - the Truth! If the web had only know you wanted the truth about Natalee the whole time, it would have told you what happened to her! Doh! Someone else searched for "updates on the natalie holloway case in aruba" on September 9. Besides not spelling her name correctly, did the searcher think the web would understand that "updates" means "don't show me stuff I've already seen before"? I mean, there were "updates" the day after she went missing.
     So this leads to me having to teach the internet how to perform searches. Finding information is a little different here than it is in other parts of reality (which you may just be visiting. In that case, welcome). The internet does not speak English. When you ask "did natalee's cellphone work in aruba" (10/17), Yahoo will look for the word "natalee's", certainly, but it will also spend time looking for the word "in". Yahoo does not understand your question. There is no hamster on a wheel inside your monitor that understands the question. And even if you had put that phrase in quotes (which you didn't), why do you think someone who had the answer you were looking for would post the exact same words? Searches on the internet require key words. In this case, I might have searched for "natalee 'cellphone service' aruba" and maybe done more searches replacing "cellphone" with "wireless" or "mobile" or "telephone".
     How about "natalee halloway -latest information on the case" (9/7)? This one's great. What the fudge did the searcher think he was doing with the dash? A dash in a search engine means "not". Basically they searched for a web page that had the words "case information holloway on natalee the" and did not have "latest". That's sure to be a winner.
     I'll leave you with a few more gems that I've collected over the past couple of months.

the truth hurts bush -- I agree, but I doubt this combination of words will find you what you're looking for

pics of injusticeness -- I'm pretty sure George W. did this search, or at least he invented the word "injusticeness"

inheiritance taxes -- I like the play on words here - heir and inheritance combined

both sides of the smoking-in-public-buildings issue -- both sides you say?

+1,canada @comcast.net "haig" -- I have no clue what this was supposed to find

how many members of congress aren't white men? -- beating a dead horse, but STOP WRITING AS IF THERE'S A LITTLE SEARCH ENGINE ELF HIDING IN YOUR MONITOR!

"the witches" by roald dahl unconstitutional -- I'm not sure this searcher really understands what "unconstitutional" means.

tsunami how bad was it 2005 -- Isn't it great how the web knows exactly what you mean when you say "it"?

More Tax Week

2005-11-09T15:31:00.000-05:00

Or "How I Bored my Readers to Tears, Part II"

     I'm not going to make a secret that I'm one of those crazy, nerdy people who enjoy taxes. Not paying them, exactly, but understanding the nuances and motivations and real-world effects. Still, if you're one of the other 99.999% of Americans whose eyes glaze over when someone mentions "itemized deductions" or "deferred capital gains", you're the target audience of a government panel empowered to make decisions about the future of the IRS. Because they're hoping you are going to pay attention so little to their proposals that they'll be able to get away with anything.
     Yesterday I talked about one of their proposals - a change to the mortgage interest deduction. Today I want to address another proposal - the one to change how dividends are taxed. And while I generally approved with the mortgage recommendations, I don't exactly feel the same way about the dividend recommendations.
     The President's tax panel proposed making dividends from domestic earnings tax free. Yes, that's right. If you're a trust-fund baby, you might pay no income taxes whatsoever. How's that for a kick in the pants? (And by pants, I mean ass) Not only do poor and middle-class people have to spend 40-80 hours a week working to make enough money to live, they may also soon get to pay all of the income tax collected. What a great deal! Hey, it's your own damn fault for not being born rich, you slacker hippie! Get (another) job!
     OK - nobody else but me is saying this, as far as I can tell. But lets dig in a little further. Currently most companies pay a very small amount of dividends relative to their share price. UPS, for example, pays like 35 cents every three months per $75 share. The old (2003) reason for cutting dividend taxes down to 15% was because Bush claimed money was being "double-taxed", a phrase that has about as much real meaning as "liberal" and "activist judge". People, your money isn't being "double-taxed". It's being taxed hundreds of times! You earn it, it's income-taxed. You buy a house with it, it's sales-taxed. You hold onto the house, it's property-taxed. You sell the house, it's capital gains-taxed and the buyer pays sales tax. And the whole stupid cycle starts over again. That's what taxes are - a mechanism to give money to the government so it can operate. Some people pay more taxes than others. Maybe it's because they make more money than others. Maybe it's because they engage in more activities that are taxable. Maybe they just have a bad accountant. It's just life, and if you don't like it, email me and I'll send you the name of a good anarchist group in your area.
     Anyway, back to dividends - the trouble with the "double taxed" idea is that many corporations pay little or no income tax, even when they make a profit. If you think you found a nifty tax loophole last year, you wouldn't believe some of the loopholes corporations slip through. So if you remove tax on dividends, much of this money will be "never taxed". And that's a real problem. Because it's not like the government uses a debit card to buy things. It uses a credit card. Getting less tax doesn't mean it is spending less. And therefore it has to get the tax from somewhere else. Who benefits most from a tax cut on dividends? The wealthy. When tax revenue has to be found to replace dividend tax, do you still think the wealthy will be paying as large a proportion?
     Here's the scarier thing: my salary is a corporate expense. When my company figures out its profits, it subtracts my salary first. Then it gives dividends to shareholders from its profits. Say I owned a bookstore with 5 employees working for me. I would pay the 6 of us a salary and we would all pay income tax. Now imagine in 2006 I give all of us "shares" of the bookstore and instead of paying us a salary, I declare a huge dividend that just happens to be the same as the salary we used to get. Except now it's tax-free.
     I know - at first I thought that was awesome too. But then I started wondering, "who is going to get stuck with the bill?" Well, that will be the people unable to get such a sweetheart deal. They're the ones making $9 an hour at McDonalds or $30,000 a year at a public school. You can bet CEO's will quickly get private stock in a small subsidiary of their employer that pays $3 million dividends.
     And lets ask why dividends should be taxed lower than salary anyway. Is it more productive for Americans to spend their time day-trading or producing? Are dividends more desirable than bank interest? More than a teacher's salary or an engineer's salary? Do we really want investors demanding that companies give away all of their profit as dividends instead of investing in expansion that would power America's future?
     Dividend Tax Cut proposal Final Grade: F+

Tax Week

2005-11-08T16:35:00.000-05:00

     One great thing about reading news on the web, as opposed to watching it on television, is the inadvertent juxtaposition of certain headlines. You'll almost never see this sort of analysis on "Fox & Friends", but it's so amazingly simple when it's laid out before you. For example, in late August of this year, on the same web page, I saw one headline that mentioned an upcoming summit on climate change and global warming and another headline talking about the fourth most powerful hurricane ever recorded in the Atlantic (at the time - Katrina was later surpassed by Rita and Wilma). Funny, huh? I'm not blaming Katrina's wrath on Bush's coziness with the energy industry. It's just hard not to appreciate the appropriateness of the timing. God may not play dice with the universe, but He certainly knows how to play jokes on it.
     Anyway, last week, the "big news" was that a tax reform advisory panel appointed by Bush made certain recommendations about revamping the tax code. Mostly they were tasked with trashing the Alternative Minimum Tax and finding money to pay for it. There's a lot to talk about, and it's interesting even if you don't work in finance. We'll discuss a lot of it during TAX WEEK, aka November 8-11. One of the proposals suggested was to alter the mortgage interest deduction. Interestingly enough, a headline on the next column on cnn.com read, "Housing Gets Less Affordable for Americans". Hmmmm.
     While I disagree with much of the panel's motivations, I actually think they have some very good ideas. The biggie change would be that instead of deducting interest on any mortgage up to $1 million, the maximum size of a deductible mortgage would range from $172,000 to $312,000, depending on the market. I hate to sound like a Republican, but for the record, a $300,000 loan isn't terribly extravagant. I live in one of the cheapest metro areas in the country (although you can find way cheaper homes if you move to rural Idaho), and the average "starter home" is like $224k. Of course, a lot of that price is related to low interest rates. The point is, this is HUGE. It makes owning a house more of a purchase and less of an investment. It effectively raises your interest rates for houses above the panel's recommended value. In one sense, this is good news for the economy, because instead of sinking wealth into overinflated property, people can invest it in things that will get businesses going. On the other hand, it's a tough blow for those people who enjoy having twice as many bedrooms as family members and a finished basement the size of their parents' whole house. Still, the whole point of a mortgage interest deduction is to spur home ownership, not subsidize luxury home ownership. One of my major concerns is that the panel (or Congress?) will be setting that maximum value in each market. A $250,000 cap in Alabama might be plenty for a McMansion, but if you give New York City anything less than $500,000, it will be extremely unfair. In Manhattan, a nice 1-bedroom apartment goes for $450,000. The fear is that maximums could be politically motivated. What if a Republican Congress wants to punish Blue-State New Yorkers and Californians?
     An interesting twist on the panel's proposal is changing the deduction to a 15% credit. What does this mean? It means everybody gets to remove 15% of their interest from their taxes. Everybody, regardless of whether their normal tax bracket is 10% or 30%. This is such a progressive proposal I'm shocked it came out of a Republican administration. Again, I feel like a Republican when I say that 15% is not high enough. Married couples making a combined $60,000 are out of the 15% bracket. That's hardly wealthy.
     Overall, however, I'm pleasantly surprised by this proposal. If Congress can somehow convince me that they can objectively set maximums in high-cost areas, I'll be very happy. I can adjust to getting a lower tax break if it means a fairer tax plan overall. I don't like the idea of shifting the upper-class's burden to the upper-middle class, but I expected nothing less of Bush. At least this proposal doesn't shift the burden to the lower-middle class or the poor.
     Mortgage Interest proposal Final Grade: B

Happy October!

2005-11-07T09:46:00.000-05:00

     Happy October! Wait, it's November? What the hell happened to October? I was, um, abducted by aliens and returned to Earth on Halloween with no memory of what they did to me. Well, now that I've certainly lost my 3 regular readers (Sorry, Mom! - no, I'm just kidding. I would likely die of embarrassment if my mother read this), it's well past time to start writing again.
     So what happened to me? Well, the easy answer is that I've changed jobs and indeed careers in the past month (although I still work for the same company). Where before I had maybe a half hour's worth of real work to do a day, I've actually had to neglect reading my favorite blogs for a long time. Now I'm learning a lot and I don't have as much time to read the entire internet from start to finish each day, but I'm going to make it a priority to write something, even if it's not the 1200-word researched treatise on ... whatever.
     The harder answer is that this blog has launched a second "mini-career" for me. I've started writing a bi-weekly column for a local magazine. (Thanks to Mike Todd for the inspiration and encouragement. He was also the first random internet person to comment on my blog with encouraging words, leading me to start writing for a wider audience than just Ben and my own ego.) Anyway, as exciting as the opportunity is, writing has now ostensibly become a chore, and as my aforementioned mother and my wife can tell you, I avoid chores like the plague. It has also become like homework - when I was facing a deadline to get three columns in at once, I felt guilty about writing about anything other than the columns. No more - well, I hope no more. But I feel more confident I can pound out a 900-word essay in a few hours if I need to. I used to do it every weekday, after all. By the way, if you're really interested in reading the column, email me to ask. It's fairly personal, so you'll excuse me for not advertising it to everyone.
     Anyway, if anyone is reading this, welcome back. There's certainly no shortage of news to talk about. I had been starting to feel like all I was doing was getting in arguments with fundamentalists about why they felt so insecure about their religious beliefs. (It would usually end with them telling me I hated God or I was discriminating against religion) Now I have all kids of things to get into arguments with them about, including more news from the 19th century... I mean Kansas... and beer on Sunday and things like that. Plus the President's henchmen have recommended shifting more tax to the Middle Class and the war on intellectualism has found a new battleground at the University (sic) of Georgia. I can't wait. See you tomorrow!

I'm Still Alive

2005-10-20T17:59:00.000-04:00

     Fear not, I'm not dead.... yet.

     I'm sorry for having appeared to have fallen off the face of the earth. And I'm sorry for allowing real life to interfere with this blog. But I'm in the process of changing jobs, so I'm training my replacement and getting trained in my new role at the same time. The extra work (and having someone sit next to me in a cubicle) keeps me from blogging much lately.

     I shall return.

Why Capitalism Doesn't Work

2005-10-14T17:26:00.000-04:00

     You know the old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"? I know something that's so broken that you don't want to fix it. In fact, it also works so well that you can't fix it. I'm talking about Capitalism. But before you denounce me as a Commie or Anti-American or just dismiss me as a kook, hear me out. More has been written about Capitalism than I could ever do justice to. And a lot of it is still very controversial. But a lot of it is pretty settled as fact. It's like the theory of evolution like that. (But of course who would dare put a sticker in economics book in the US saying "Capitalism is only a theory, not a fact"?)
     Here's the thing: Capitalism describes a lot about the economic system of the United States. On any given day, you produce what you want to produce, you consume what you want to consume. The free markets moderate supply vs demand and the prices do what they need to all on their own. Sure, there are quirks on the individual level, but on the whole everything works out. But the dirty little secret is that the world economy is Capitalist. Even Cuba, a Communist bastion, is part of an unregulated world economy. And even within Cuba, Capitalism reigns, moderating the relative price of a chicken or of repairs to a 1957 Chevy. Money might not always be trading hands, but money isn't required for economics. It's just an intermediary product with a specific value.
     So what's the controversy? Well, Capitalism doesn't work as a political system. It's not a political system. It can't be a political system any more than you can smell the color blue. You might have political systems that work well with Capitalism or you might not. But if you try to replace our Republic with Capitalism, you will end up with what is commonly called, "Anarchy". Anarchy, by definition is the absence of political authority.
     Here's a recent example of something Capitalism doesn't work for. There is a potential for a severe flu pandemic in the next few years based on reports coming out of southeast Asia. Certain bird flus are being shown to have the ability to infect humans, and some scientists feel that strains found this year might be as virulent as the flu that wiped out between 25 to 50 million people at a time when the world population was only a third of what it is today. The best way to combat a reappearance of this disease is to eliminate it at its source - birds. But where is the Capitalist incentive to do that? Poor farmers don't get paid for birds they kill, unless their government intervenes (a Capitalist no-no). The idea of individual property rights would preclude outsiders from killing those birds. And in any event, it only takes a few infected people to start the chain reaction that would spread disease across the world at the speed of a 747.
     Or here's another flu example. The majority of flu vaccine recipients are elderly, and why not? They're the most vulnerable to dying of the flu. But the vaccine is only 28% effective. "So what?" you might ask. "It's their money. 28% is better than nothing." All true. But did you know that it is more effective to protect grandparents by vaccinating their grandchildren? And not just their grandchildren, but all children. Kids, apparently, have a 90% effective rate of vaccination. And if you took the limited number of flu vaccines available and vaccinated kids instead of adults, fewer adults would get the flu. But where's the incentive? Vaccines are somewhat risky themselves. Parents don't necessarily like the idea of sticking another needle in their kids arms. Plus they can be expensive. And why should a parent spend the money to vaccinate his or her kid when the kid's risk of becoming seriously ill from the flu is very low in the first place?
     The answer here is that Capitalism doesn't work for these situations because Capitalism has nothing to do with them. As human beings, we have recognized this fact for thousands of years, which is why we create binding associations. (We call them governments.) Capitalism is swell at selling excess flu vaccines. But if we want to protect grandma from the flu, we need government intervention. We need government intervention to kill sick birds in Indonesia. We need government intervention to vaccinate our children. What the government looks like is up to us. But one thing is for sure - it won't be Capitalist.

Shanah Tovah

2005-10-04T08:00:00.000-04:00

Happy New Year! May you all be inscribed in the book of life.

See you Thursday.

Separated at Birth?

2005-10-03T10:09:00.000-04:00

Seriously, though, I know nothing about this woman. If her background is interesting enough, I might post on it this week.

Photo thanks: CNN.com; http://wso.williams.edu/~rfoxwell/starwars/pics/Palpatine.jpg

TMI

2005-09-30T11:26:00.000-04:00

     I know you've complained before about me using a medley of news stories instead of one long post. Tough. Here's some stuff I've just got to say.

Bill Clinton's a Commie Bastard
     The real headline reads, "Elián González, 11, calls Castro 'friend,' 'father'". WTF? When I was a kid I used to call my mom's old college friends, "Aunt Whoever", but there were no headlines about it. If you read the whole story, it comes out that Janet Reno (and actually US child custody law) made the right decision, sending Elián back home to his father. Elián is happy living at home, especially since he has become somewhat of a local celebrity. He's certainly better off than being used as a political tool in Miami, used to try to get the US government to turn Cuba into the 51^st state, or turn Miami into a province of Cuba or whatever it is they want. The Truth is that if Castro were really that bad that a boy calling him a "friend" is so horrible, then we would have had US marines conducting "regime change" 90 miles south of Key West. But the reality is that Cuba isn't much of a threat anymore since its former patron, the USSR, ran out of money. He's just a mean dictator that deposed our mean dictator almost 50 years ago.

Bush's New Nickname: Slippery George
     The Valerie Plame case won't go away. Originally, Bush promised that anyone in administrationtion who was "involved" in the affair would be terminated. A few months ago, the shocker was that Bush confidant Karl Rove was one source, but he still works in the White House. Yesterday, another source is confirmed as the VP's chief of staff "Scooter" Libby. No word yet on when the firings will commence.

Jews are Anti-Christian Bastards
     If the real title ("Jews attack Southern Baptist evangelism") isn't quite as inflammatory, it's close. Basically, this is not new news. The Anti-Defamation League (which I've criticized before for having poor timing) is sick and tired of official Southern Baptist attacks on Judaism. It's bad enough to get blamed for Arabic terrorism and to be accused of pulling George Bush's strings, but then the Southern Baptist Convention has targeted us for extinction. If there's any consolation, at least they're not doing it at gunpoint, like the Nazis did. Still, why the need to make Jews look like the evil aggressors? Again.

Does She Still Look Good on your Posters?
     I don't want to take anything away from Ashley Smith. The poor woman was invaded upon by mass murderer and rapist Brian Nichols and not only survived to tell the tale, subdued him and turned him in to the police. She's a brave woman and a hero, and nothing can take that away from her. But she became a poster woman for the religious wingnuts who couldn't get enough of the dubious tale that she turned him from a savage to a saint merely by talking to him about God and Jesus. It turns out that it also took Crystal Meth. So anyone out there looking to go to downtown Fallujah carrying only a King James should pack some crack, because preaching to someone with a gun pointed at you isn't necessarily the best personal safety precaution I can recommend.

God Wants Us to Stop Learning
     This is one of my favorite responses to the Religious Right's efforts to Christianize America. Slate extends the "ID" theory, which says that some creatures and plants are so complex that they cannot be explained by any natural phenomena. If it's good enough to have students stop learning evolution, why stop there? "You know those damn theoretical gaps and conundrums that send microbiology graduate students into dank basement laboratories at 3 a.m.? They don't need to be resolved at all. Go back to bed, sleepy little grad students. God fills those gaps." "What accounts for the phenomenon of spontaneous remission in some cancers? With intelligent design, we don't ever need to find out. Years from now, we'll all lie in our hospital beds while ID-trained doctors hold our hands and assure us that we are merely dying of God." Since everything we don't know yet is "unexplainable", it's clearly the direct result of the hand of God. So we must stop trying to look further and learn things, and just accept everything the way it is. That's OK - I wasn't really looking forward to a Treo running Windows. I know that my phone runs on God instead.

Easy Meme

2005-09-28T09:50:00.000-04:00

     So many of the blogs I read are more personal than political, and on many levels I enjoy them more. It's like reading a sitcom or a soap opera. Sometimes I can't wait to find out what happens next. Although my blog reading is certainly limited (maybe 20 on a given day out of over 18 million that Technorati is tracking), I like to think that it gives me a little insight into what different people think and do on a daily basis. Certainly in some ways I have very little in common with a yoga instructor in Astoria or an ESOL teacher in Vegas or an obsessive gardener in Wisconsin, so it's like a window into worlds I would never otherwise see.
     There was an interesting article in Newsweek this week by Anna Quindlen that said politicians should watch more television. She made the point that for people who are so separated from normal American life, television might be the only way to possibly connect. George Bush, who last lived a private life in 10 years, has never really live the life of the average American. I'm not picking on him - his situation isn't unique for a career politician, especially one born into a life of privilege. Why was it last month when thousands of Katrina refugees were huddled in the New Orleans convention center, every American glued to their TV sets knew it, but the President and the head of FEMA did not? Because they were not watching the news. They did not see what we saw. If you think about that for a moment, it's scary. They have access to classified reports from their field agents, but they are completely isolated from 280 million Americans and are unable to know what's going on.
     So by reading blogs I get to feel a little superior, knowing what's going on in some small corner of Cleveland or reading a daily diary from Brooklyn. For those of you who read such personal blogs, you should be familiar with "memes" like blogger interviews, What kind of Star Wars character are you, What day will you die, 100 things about me. As tempting as they are, I've decided to keep The Truth less personal and more about ideas and analysis. But I've broken down today and will participate in one I found on Majikthise. It talks about the 100 most challenged books - the ones parents try to ban from schools. It's a very eclectic list. How many have you read? I've only read 19 20 (UPDATE: Oops, I didn't recognize "Earth's Children" as the "Clan of the Cave Bear" series), but I don't know if that's admirable or not. My list:

     3) I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
     4) The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
     5) The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
     6) Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
     7) Harry Potter (Series) by J.K. Rowling
     9) Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson
     13) The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
     20) Earth’s Children (Series) by Jean M. Auel (This was hot when I was in middle school. I picked out all the juicy parts and showed all my 6th grade friends)
     22) A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle
     27) The Witches by Roald Dahl
     32) Blubber by Judy Blume
     41) To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
     47) Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes
     51) A Light in the Attic by Shel Silverstein
     56) James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
     62) Are You There, God? It's Me, Margaret by Judy Blume
     70) Lord of the Flies by William Golding
     84) The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
     88) Where's Waldo? by Martin Hanford (WTF??)
     96) How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell

Awakening the Inner Democrat

2005-09-26T18:10:00.000-04:00

     Katrina and Rita were monster storms, transforming the Gulf Coast from Texas to Mississippi into a flooded mass of debris and death. This unprecedented confluence of events (and by unprecedented I mean happens every few decades) has had a profound effect on our politicians. New Orleans and Louisiana officials put a halt to the corruption and apathy (for the time being); Mississippi and Texas officials forswore their vows of conservatism to declare that the region would be rebuilt no matter what the cost; and Georgia's Republican governor jumped on the conservation bandwagon.
     Well, that's not all exactly true. But the hurricanes do have Republicans acting like Democrats, or trying to, just like the 9/11 attacks had, well, Republicans acting like Democrats (meddling in foreign affairs, giving the government more power). But in 2001 the Republicans said the Dems were acting like weaselly surrender-monkeys, so all was forgiven. In 2005, the Republicans are taking it on the chin, after failing to adequately respond to two natural disasters (In part because they happen to be the ones in power, and in part because of the deadly combination of Bush's cronyism and the Right's desire to "starve the beast"). Much has already been made of the Republican Congress's zealousness in doling out Brazillions of dollars, most recently to the hurricane victims. Rebuilding the Gulf Coast is a complex issue, and beyond the scope of this little article, so I'll leave to others the analysis of whether Congressional Republicans have become "Cut and Spend" liberals (Yes) and whether or not that's a bad thing.
     On Friday, Georgia governor Sonny Perdue made his own foray into liberalism, calling for Georgia schools to close Monday and Tuesday (Free Login) to save fuel. I think I understand his thought process: school buses won't run for two of the days when fuel shortages may be worst, keeping gas prices reasonable until the refineries and pipelines can get going again after Rita. In addition, a lot of parents will probably decide to take a vacation day from work so they can watch the kids at home. Some parents might even telework. It's such a wonderful, simple idea that a third grader could have thought of it. A fifth grader, on the other hand, would have pointed out to the governor that not every one of his constituents has the flexibility to take off work at a moment's notice. How many parents out there cannot just leave work or afford two days of emergency childcare? How many businesses out there can't let their entire offices or warehouses have a vacation day? Consider some of our essential services - our police officers and firefighters work on Christmas and the Fourth of July, when their kids are out of school. But they have advance notice and many people in that situation are paid extra for the inconvenience. Governor Perdue, is it OK for half of the state's police force to "call in sick" for 2 days to save gas?
     What happened here is that Perdue was struck with a liberal idea, but lacking a Liberal's foresight and long-term thinking, decided conservation could be accomplished in two days. Had he wanted to do this right, he would have worked to discourage driving and push through mass transit solutions. Instead, he has spent much of his term pushing through additional highways to the detriment of transit money. Had he wanted to do this right, he would have long ago raised the gas tax, which is currently one of the lowest in the nation. Instead, he temporarily repealed the gas tax in the wake of Katrina.
     I have to stray for a minute to talk about what a boneheaded idea suspending the gas tax was.
1) Georgia has about 15 cents of tax on each gallon. Therefore, his idea was that suspending the gas tax should lower gas prices by 15 cents. However, many stations didn't completely do this, maybe lowering gas prices 13 or 14 cents. Besides, prices have been so crazy lately, jumping up and down 20 cents at a time, who's to say what portion is gas tax?
2) This stunt cost the state of Georgia over $75 million. This is money the state desperately needed for highway and transit projects. However, lets assume the state wants to donate $75 million dollars to the effort. Wouldn't it have been a lot more helpful to pay people to go fix the pipelines and refineries quicker? Or if you wanted to get really liberal about it, spent that money on water and food and housing for refugees?
3) In a time when gas stations were (are) regularly running out of fuel on a daily basis, why on earth would you want to encourage more driving? Keep the cost of fuel high so people don't take a 2,000 mile Labor Day trip in their 5 mpg SUV!
end of gas tax rant
     These terrible twin tragedies are waking America up from its "screw the world and screw you" attitude it developed in 2001. Will our Republican leaders be able to adapt and truly become "compassionate conservatives"? Or will their penchant for ignoring the poor and unfortunate just become more apparent?

A Solemn Oath

2005-09-21T18:06:00.000-04:00

     If there should be a single nail in the coffin of the so-called "Liberal Media", it should be last week's CNN headline, "Federal judge declares Pledge unconstitutional". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, long derided by the Redneck Right as too liberal (or maybe too Yankee), posted the slightly less biased headline, "Judge: Pledge violates rights". Both of these, plus the countless inflammatory headlines from around the nation are certain to push the buttons of religious conservatives who believe that Christians are being persecuted in the United States.
     What the hell am I talking about? Well, if you don't know, it is because of the fortunate (unfortunate?) timing of the latest battle over the Pledge. Despite certain pseudo-news channels chasing ratings over actual news, Katrina mostly dominated news coverage last week, and Texas Rita has headlines this week.
     So what are the nuts and bolts of this case? On September 14th, a US District judge ruled that requiring students to recite the Pledge was illegal. He explained that forcing students to affirm God violated the First Amendment. This is significantly different from the ruling in June 2002 that said the actual words, "Under God" were unconstitutional. The 2002 ruling caused a religious backlash around the country (in part because there was no news to report and because we were still undergoing patriotic anti-Islam fervor after 9/11) and Congress voted nearly unanimously to support a resolution keeping the Pledge intact with "under God". That ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court on a technicality, so it's really no surprise that the issue has resurfaced.
     I think people tend to forget what the Pledge of Allegiance really is. It's a solemn oath of eternal loyalty to the United States. Swearing loyalty to the US is not a bad thing for an American citizen to do. It's the solemn part that gets me. If you're older than 17, think back to the last time you said the Pledge. It was probably either back when you were in school or when you were visiting your children's school, right? And it's not that I think having kids swear allegiance to the US is a bad thing, either, but do they really know what they're saying? You have to be 16 or 17 to hold a driver's license and you have to be 18 or 19 to buy cigarettes. You have to be 18 to sign up for the military. You have to be 21 to drink and 25 to rent a car. And you cannot vote your preference for President or Governor or Mayor until you are 18. We don't trust children to do any of these things. So what do we get out of making children recite this oath 5 days a week? Most certainly don't appreciate the seriousness. And an oath is worth nothing if the speaker doesn't understand.
     So that makes it a farce. And the "under God" language makes it even more so. Students who don't believe in God but who do believe in the United States are swearing a false oath every single day. And what is confusing to me is that the Supreme Court in 1943 ruled to protect students from being complelled to salute the flag and say the Pledge because the government had no right to take the "free" out of "free speech". This is an argument any Libertarian should get behind. Imagine if instead of the flag, your kids were required to swear fealty to George W. Bush or Bill Clinton personally?
     That being said, I'm really not against the Pledge. And back to my original point, it is dishonest for the media to pretend that the recent court ruling is, either. 2002 saw an athiest try to remove the words, "under God" from the Pledge. Obviously, like so many of the 50's and 60's misguided laws (see the Georgia State Flag), the Pledge became ingrained in people who started to believe it had always been that way. But 2005 only reaffirmed free speech. And it reconfirmed that there are some people wanting to religiouscize our free nation no matter what the cost. We would do well not to heed their propaganda.

Urgent Breaking News

2005-09-19T12:03:00.000-04:00

     After all the talk about sensationalist blonde-girl newsstories designed to distract and lull the populace, do you suppose the Right wing media knows the jig is up? After the blogosphere pushed national news into covering the LaToyia Figueroa case, do you think they've had enough?
     Apparently not. And apparently my contention that the 24-hour news cycle is a contributing factor to sensationalist non-news is flat wrong. On a day when Katrina rebuilding efforts are still ongoing, there is controversy about New Orleans residents returning home, John Roberts is undergoing confirmation hearings on him becoming the 2nd youngest chief justice of the US Supreme Court, a new tropical storm is about to hit Florida and potentially steer towards New Orleans as a hurricane, North Korea forswears nukes (yeah right), and the Georgia Tech quarterback contracts viral meningitis, the Fox News (sic) Channel last night threw up a banner screaming, "URGENT NEWS" about a missing 17-year old pretty White girl named Taylor Behl at Virginia Commonwealth University. Are you effing kidding me? 2,000 people, 85%+ of which are children, go missing every single day in the US, and suddenly Taylor is "Urgent News" dominating Fox's broadcast?
     I flipped over to the CNN channels to see what they were talking about. Headline News was on their 5-minute sports presentation and CNN had Larry King interviewing Viktor Yushchenko, the President of Ukraine who had just fired his entire government. (Actually, that's quite impressive for King. How does he get the leader of the 25th largest country in the world to put up with 50 degree studio temperature and air consisting mainly of his flatulence?) Today, Foxnews.com has downplayed the case, although since I don't watch TV news much (and especially not at work where I'm pretending to be working), I can't tell what they're doing with their viewing audience.
     I know Bush has been taking a nosedive in popularity as of late. But has Fox News (sic) become so desperate to prop him up that they are sinking to such obvious efforts to distract their viewers? Or have they honestly decided that missing White teenage girls are the "real" news and the largest disaster in American history is merely filler?

Wag the Dog

2005-09-16T12:26:00.000-04:00

     In order to make it up to you for having such a long post Wednesday, this one will be short and bitter. I was watching a special on the History Channel last night about the September 11th attacks on New York and on the rise of Al Qaeda. It showed how Al-Qaeda was born out of the anti-Soviet Afghani movement of the 1980's, and really picked up steam in the early 90's.
     The US was aware of Al-Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden, throughout the last decade, especially since it began perpetrating terrorist acts against Americans. Republicans and the Right-wing media, who of course would never play the "Blame Game", were playing something very similar after the 9/11 attacks when they said, This isn't the time to point fingers, but you know, this was all Clinton's fault. Why wasn't he tougher with terrorists?
     I'd like everyone to skim through this webpage, created in 1998 to show why Clinton was a war criminal who was unfit to be President and should be impeached. It becomes very obvious that the reason he could not strike at Al-Qaeda with more than just cruise missiles was because the Republican Congress would not allow him, and the increasingly Republican American public did not support him.
     Some especially juicy quotes:

"They know the attack on Iraq was planned long before Butler's report and consider it politically motivated." -Robert Novak (The Washington Post, 12/21/98, p. A29)

"As the Constitution makes clear, the President of the United States does have the authority to take defensive action against an aggressor nation, but he has no authority whatsoever to make war against a country which has neither attacked the United States or posed to do so." -Robert Novak (The Washington Post, 12/21/98, p. A29)

"As president, Bill Clinton has...squandered $5.5 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars on containing the Iraqi threat..." -Joe Farah (Between the Lines, 12/18/98)

"Saddam Hussein is not threatening our national security. This is a concocted scheme to pursue bombing for oil interests and other reasons, but it has nothing to do with national security." -Representative Ron Paul (R-Tex) (Congressional Record, 12/17/98, pp. H11722, H11729)

And my favorite:

"A President who uses his duties as Commander in Chief to bomb foreign countries every time he wants to change the subject ought to be removed with alacrity," -Ann Coulter (Human Events, 12/25/98, p. 6)

The Blame Game

2005-09-14T15:03:00.000-04:00

(And Other Indoor Sports)

     Nobody likes a tattletale. Or a whiner. Or a nag. Or a bearer of bad news. Or the guy who says, "I told you so." (OK, some people do) Why? My feeling is that people don't like to hear the Truth. People don't want to confront difficult questions about themselves. Not that everybody who nags or whines or points fingers is right. But hearing harsh criticism can force people to re-examine themselves and the beliefs they hold to be fact. And nobody likes to be wrong. Most people, in fact, like to be wrong so little that they never waver from their original beliefs no matter the evidence to the contrary. And it's enough people that Americans take it for granted that stubbornness and mulishness is a virtue. In 2004, one of GW's favorite words was "steadfast". In fact, when I typed in "Bush" and "steadfast" into Altavista, it returned 1.14 million results. (Of course, it turns out that when you type "Bush" and "idiot" you get 8 million results, so what the hell do I know?)
     Whatever. My point is that Americans passionately hate what Bush has so eloquently named, "The Blame Game". (Well, I guess that's not exactly true either, since I didn't hear very many Republican complaints over the past 15 years while Rush Limbaugh & Co. have blamed Clinton for everything from the recession to 9/11 to Natalee Holloway) And this administration has done an excellent job of playing on that sentiment to keep his head above the political waters. Remember in May when Donald Rumsfeld took "full responsibility" for Abu Ghraib prison torture? By full responsibility did he mean scot free? Bush has successfully kept people from wondering why 1800 American soldiers are dead in Iraq, why Bin Laden is still running around sending audio tapes to reporters, why all the dividend and estate tax cuts haven't produced a boom economy. Now the house of cards is coming down around him. And though I'm not particularly unhappy about that, it's fair to ask if it's right to point the finger at him.
     One of the Right's favorite tools is the straw man. What this means, generally, is that they will either misrepresent what their opponent is saying and attack them for that, or they will find the vilest supporter of their opponent and pretend they are the same. For example, in 2004, instead of attacking Kerry or lauding Bush, the Right wing media attacked Michael Moore, an easy target. "Michael Moore is a fat slob and he hates Bush. If you hate Bush, you're a fat slob too." Stupid stuff like that. They're actually really good at it and are most of the time are a whole lot subtler than that. So now, in the middle of the mother of all screwups (MOAS), the Right has jumped to attack position. The three pronged attack includes 1) Telling people not to play the "blame game", 2) Assigning blame to local (read: Democratic) authorities, and 3) Setting up a straw man, telling Americans that the Moonbats (read: Dems) are "blaming Bush for Katrina". Since the hurricane is obviously not the man's fault, obviously Bush is blameless, right? Of course, nobody on the left (except for the actual moonbats, but this author is slandering politicians and respected columnists) blames GW for the hurricane. But does he deserve blame for the aftermath?
     First, it didn't help that Bush cut funding for levee projects to help pay for Iraq and his tax cuts. New Orleans had to beg for $2 million of promised federal money to finish one project in 2004. Not $100 billion like we're looking at today, but $2 million. Now, there's no guarantee that any of this work would have prevented this disaster. The levees were rated for a category 3 storm, not a category 4. However, like the expiration date on milk, it's not an exact science. All I'm saying is, it didn't help to cut levee protection funding. And for those of you who don't think it's the federal government's job to protect New Orleans, keep in mind that one of the primary reasons the city is in this much trouble is because the Army Corp of Engineers has spent the last 100 years flushing silt that should have been building up storm-surge-protecting wetlands down into the Gulf of Mexico, over the continental shelf. (Where it will turn into oil in 100 million years) And why do they do this? So national commerce flowing down the Mississippi can flow. If anything fell under the Commerce Clause, this is it.
     Second, it didn't help that Bush has elevated cronyism to a fine art. He's not the first President to appoint his friends and donors to important positions and he won't be the last. But it's still a stupid thing to do and this time it came to bit America in the ass. We all know that Michael Brown, the ex-FEMA head, had no business running our national disaster recovery agency. He was completely unqualified, but luckily for him he was college roommates with Joe Allbaugh, the former FEMA head. Joe was Bush's chief of staff in Texas and his 2000 campaign manager, so we're probably lucky a major hurricane didn't hit between 2001 and 2003. Now Allbaugh is a lobbyist for Halliburton, where he lobbies FEMA for contracts. How many other vital organizations are headed by political cronies? (Note to wingnuts: just because someone else did it in the past doesn't make it right)
     Third, at a time when the nation needed to be reassured that the crisis was being handled, Bush was on vacation. I know he probably works very, very hard and deserves more vacation than any other president ever. But he should know better than anyone that the most important place for him to have been was in front of the American public reassuring them. That's what boosted him from an approval rating of under 50% in August 2001 to 90% by September 2001. (Despite the fact that even during the World Trade Center attacks, his advisors had to force him to stop reading to children so he could address the nation) It certainly didn't help that it took him three days to even look at the disaster area, while the press widely reported that he "cut his vacation short" by two days out of the 30-day vacation. When Justice Rehnquist died, Bush was on the scene immediately. So much of this nation's strength comes from it's confidence. Americans lost confidence after Bush dropped the ball.
     Fourth, it didn't help that Bush is allergic to environmental protection. If Louisiana had more wetlands, perhaps the storm surge wouldn't have been strong enough to topple the levees. If we weren't so dependent on oil, perhaps the damage to the oil pipelines and refineries wouldn't be sending the economy into a tailspin. And if we weren't pumping so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, perhaps we could mitigate the more destructive storms that global warming is certain to produce. Now, of course Bush isn't directly responsible for any of these things. But his actions don't help. Opposing higher fuel standards didn't help. Opposing Kyoto didn't help.
     Fifth, Bush said he deserved blame. "I take responsibility," he said. Being the skeptic I am, I don't really believe those words mean anything. Apparently, the Right agrees with me, because instead of hold Bush responsible, they argue that he was not. They make fun of anyone who does point the finger, and in many cases, attacks them personally. Responsibility isn't just a pretty word. It means bearing the consequences. Taking responsibility for a disaster means admitting failure of sorts. If my kid robs a bank and I say, "I take full responsibility," I don't get a slap on the back and be told I'm a stand-up guy. I'm expected to pay back the money and take a punishment. Treat GW Bush like the adult he pretends to be.
     There's so much to write about this story, which ironically makes it more difficult to do so well. As far as the destruction goes, I don't hold Bush personally responsible. That's silly, and it's the kind of weak argument that Republican attack dogs love. I do think that Bush has been extraordinarily unhelpful towards efforts to prevent and recover from this disaster. The very best you could say is that Bush has had no effect on this situation. And that would be generous. But the President of the United States must do more than be ineffective. We didn't hire him to clear brush or look pretty on TV. We hired him to lead the country. I do blame him for not doing that.

What is Good Journalism?

2005-09-07T17:41:00.000-04:00

     It's almost embarrassing. Well, it is embarrassing. There's more to talk about with the Katrina catastrophe than can possibly fit in one blog, yet right now I'm finding it difficult to locate the time, or focus to write. As I said earlier, "work stuffs" is happening. But more importantly, we are being inundated with news coverage of this disaster. And every person who has been there in person says the cameras can't capture a tenth of the devastation in the region. It's hard to comprehend the scope of this tragedy. I can't even begin to imagine what kind of overload the people working the scene are going through. When we hear reports of police officers and firefighters committing suicide and walking off the job, when we see reporters frantically trying to scrub tears away from their faces as they struggle not to lose it on national television, when we actually do see otherwise thick-skinned politicians losing it, we start to get a sense of the magnitude.
     And like all great stories, some of the most interesting storylines don't come from the main plot, but as spinoffs going in different directions. One thing we've noticed is how the shell on the national media is cracking. For so many years, news has been dominated by poofy-haired, all-knowing, softball-throwing anchors. Nothing penetrated that glossy veneer. Sure, Peter Jennings looked pretty haggard after reporting on September 11th for 60 straight hours, but overall Americans learned to associate "news" with "boring". It wasn't always this way. When Edward Murrow was broadcasting from London during the blitz, Americans were starved for news, for commentary, for knowledge about the world outside. News broadcasts were the keystones of the three major networks, providing them with their viewers and their revenues. What changed?
     In 1980, CNN stumbled onto the scene - the first 24-hour newscast in the world. They had certain advantages over network news: while they incurred the same costs to gather news, they could use it and replay it all day long. Networks still had to pay for 22 hours of non-news related programming to fill the time. In addition, it provided a convenient place for people to get news now. The news junkie was invented. And CNN's successes launched a virtual cavalcade of imitators. CBC Newsworld, EuroNews, MSNBC, Al Jazeera, BBC 24, and of course Fox News (sic). Unfortunately, as we know, there is not 24 hours worth of news to report, and with the increased competition, made-up news became the order of the day. Who gives a shit about Natalee Holloway? Why, the millions of Americans who wish they could also watch their daytime soaps at night.
     CNN had its shining moment in 1991, when billions of people around the globe watched the Gulf War through Bernard Shaw's eyes. People tuned in during the 2001 attacks on New York and DC. But when it came to the really important stories and the hard-hitting investigative reporting that peaked in the mid-seventies, nobody cared anymore. News was boring. There was no connection anymore. The emotional bond viewers shared with Murrow and Cronkite had been severed. Viewers wanted emotion and connection. And of all the networks, startup Fox was the only one that understood. I actually watched Fox for a few months when it rolled out in 1996. I enjoyed the additional information in the scrolls, the extra emphasis on visuals over talk, the added emotion of the anchors. I stopped watching, however, when they took that emotion and went a few steps too far, into the land of fake outrage and political insults and openly partisan slants. They're still the only ones that "get it", though. CNN added flashy graphics and loudmouthed commentators, but no emotional connection.
     The other night, after Anderson Cooper spent an hour paddling around New Orleans, CNN had a special report about reporting on Katrina and her aftermath. I forgot who the presenter was, but he asked two questions: "What happens when journalists become part of the story they're telling?" and "Has Katrina changed journalism?"
     Reporting is certainly different during Katrina. Reporters, seeing things they weren't even exposed to in Kosovo or Iraq, were horrified. They forgot that they were supposed to be 5-minute entertainers and started being human, throwing microphones in front of mealy-mouthed politicians and not accepting their bullshit. Cooper was talking to Louisiana Governor Blanco, and started drilling her on how pissed it made him, standing waist deep in toxic sludge, watching politicians smile and pat each other on the back telling each other what a great job they were doing. Is this what happens when journalists become part of the story?
     I say no - this is what happens when journalists forget how wooden they're supposed to be. Journalists are always part of the story. When they report on environmental issues or tax issues or elections, they are just as impacted as every other citizen. Of course they're part of the story. I know that. You know that. The reporter just seems to have forgotten. And their false detachment is part of the reason other Americans have stopped caring. The Truth has gotten lost in stoicism masquerading as objectivity.
     So has Katrina changed journalism? I certainly hope so. I hope these reporters stay pissed off for a long time. I hope they remember that they represent 6 billion people who can't investigate for themselves. I hope they remember that they are members of those 6 billion. But I also hope they can avoid the temptation of becoming "emotional" about every fake story that will inevitably come along. Faking emotion - faking anger and outrage like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are so good at - is so damaging to real news that people tune out faster than when news is boring. They lose trust. And while I know that teaching Americans not to trust the "mainstream media" has been a mission of the Right Wing PR machine, it's not too late for journalists to become advocates of the people again. To be the eyes and ears and voices for the people. For the survivors of Katrina, for the concerned citizens 2000 miles away, for the dead victims. And for the people who live through every news story, whether or not the media has the balls to cover it correctly.

What Would You Evacuate?

2005-09-01T11:05:00.000-04:00

     Watching New Orleans residents lose nearly everything, the lucky ones (smart ones?) were the ones that evacuated last weekend. My wife and I were discussing what would happen if we had to evacuate. What would we take with us if we thought we might never return home?
     We decided that we would need clothing and non-perishable food, as much of both as we could carry. Social Security cards, ID, passports, cash. We would take the cat (and his litter box). We probably wouldn't bother with photo albums, but we'd probably pack up our computers. At the very least, we'd take the hard drives. All of our pictures are on the hard drives, along with our financial information, and a general record of our lives for the past few years. OK - I suppose my wife would insist on taking the wedding album. We would take our ketubah. And maybe a few things that are irreplaceable, like yearbooks or keepsakes with sentimental value. Other than that, it seems most of the things we have really aren't that important. Or at least, they're worth nothing more than the money they cost to replace.
     What would you take?

Law & Order

2005-08-31T00:04:00.000-04:00

     See - them's two words. In another week or so I'll be back to regular titles.
     Nobody's ever accused New Orleans of being a classy place. New Orleans is the place college kids (and those who act like college kids) go to get wild, shed inhibitions, and do dirty, nasty, and crazy things that would get them arrested or killed or both somewhere else. I've heard people ask in jest if even Hurricane Katrina could clean up Bourbon Street. (Short answer: No. It just brought a soup of sewage and toxic chemicals) But I never in my life thought to see lawlessness and despicable behavior like what is going on in Louisiana in Katrina's aftermath.
     In the middle of an ongoing tragedy that has only yet begun to unfold, looters and bandits own the city where thousands of people who have narrowly escaped death are still trying to get out with their lives. Police, who are desperately needed to help the injured and trapped and elderly and invalid can only step aside for the criminals, who don't even care to shield their faces from AP cameras. One police officer was shot in the head by a looter. What level of depravity do you have to sink to in order to shoot a police officer in the head during a crisis in which hundreds or thousands of people may die?
     Contrast New Orleans, 2005, with New York City, 2001. When the World Trade Center buildings disintegrated, tens of thousands of trapped New Yorkers wandered the streets, unable to get off the island, unable to return home, unable to call loved ones. Their neighbors took them in. Strangers gave them blankets and places to rest and food to eat. While there have been some claims of looting, only 54 arrests were made. Very few, considering that after the towers fell, the police had nobody to save or rescue and could concentrate on catching criminals. Why has New Orleans, which apparently now looks like Hiroshima, 1945, brought out the worst in its residents?
     Apparently some of the looting is related to survival. There are reports of people raiding grocery stores and pharmacies for the things that will keep them alive. One report tells of police officers breaking into a CVS Pharmacy to carry away medicines for hurricane victims. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. But I cannot give that to the people caught on camera stealing beer, jeans, watches, and cars. I cannot give that to people throwing rocks through windows or to people firing guns or to people rioting around the hospitals. What the hell is the matter with these people? The police can only stand by and watch. The National Guard (the ones not sent to Iraq yet) has been deployed to help control looting, but they cannot cover the entire city.
     I say (and this may come as a shock to some) that looters in New Orleans should be shot on sight. Police and Guardsmen should shoot them first, no questions asked. I know - it seems like a reversal from my attitudes about Jean Charles de Menezes and London subway shootings. But these looters are fundamentally different. 1) They are guilty. For all their talk about saving innocents, my critics on the subway shootings ignore the fact that de Menezes was not caught red-handed doing anything. Shooting him was analogous to walking into a bar and shooting a random person because they might have looted something in the past or might loot something in the future. Shooting someone in the act of looting is a different matter. 2) Looters take advantage of the people who can afford it least. Is it any coincidence that the saying which suggests the ease of a crime is also its most despicable? "Like taking candy from a baby" epitomizes the worst of a criminal. Looters aren't robbing from wealthy people (not that that would make it right). Looters are robbing from the victims of the worst storm of the 21st century - the people who have nothing left to come back to. 3) Looters are murderers. This reason is twofold. A) Looters are distracting police and guardsmen from saving lives. They are endangering the fragile systems designed to get people out of the wrecked city. B) Looters are the primary reason people didn't leave the city in the first place. How many people died because they were scared to leave their belongings unprotected? How many people are huddling in abject conditions in the Superdome because they knew looters would rape them of everything they worked their lives for, whether the hurricane destroyed their home or not? How many people will die soon because they will drown in their own houses? If authorities cannot control looting immediately, how many people do you think will ignore evacuation orders for the next hurricane? I can't tell you how many times, growing up in Florida, we were warned about a powerful hurricane that never landed or that fizzled out. When authorities call for an evacuation, they must ensure that property is protected, or deaths will result.
     The rest of the world is watching Americans act like savages. And I am ashamed.

Schadenfreude

2005-08-29T14:57:00.000-04:00

     Tired of one-word titles? With over 860,000 English words, I still have a ways to go before I repeat myself. At the very least, it might be fun to write a post with the definition of "Is".
     For those who don't know, Schadenfreude is a German word that means pleasure derived from the misfortune of others. The word came to mind watching the news coverage of Hurricane Katrina slamming into New Orleans. It still remains to be seen whether Katrina represents the demise of the city or not, much to the chagrin of many meteorologists, newscasters, and general unwell-wishers. Unfortunately for me (and you), as a developing story, CNN and Fox and other news outlets are updating their stories instead of writing new ones, meaning that I'm finding it very difficult to find anything from before the hurricane struck to link to and quote. Here are some archived articles from Fox, which is actually very good about keeping access open to old news: Link 1, Link 2. Neither of these have some of the "best" quotes, like one forecaster who said that once the predicted 20-foot flooding starts, there may be no place to go for a trapped resident but to climb up telephone poles. But, he said, the massive number of fire ants (which have an average of 2 mounds per square yard in New Orleans) will follow you up for the same reason. And eventually, "the ants will win". That's the kind of gruesome talk normally reserved for middle-school campfires or for grade-B horror movies. One Parrish President couldn't help himself from being cute when he said, "I'm expecting that some people who are die-hards will die hard."
     I'm really not slamming people following this story. This is real news, unlike missing Alabama Princesses in Aruba or the President "clearing brush" on his estate in Texas. And it has the potential for real tragedy. Plus I know I feel like I'm looking over my shoulder, hoping the storm weakens considerably before it hits Atlanta, which seems to have shared building codes with two of the Three Little Pigs. But you also can't shake the feeling that people are watching this the way they watch NASCAR races - looking for the big accident. Already a number of people who have been warning about New Orleans for decades are coming out to say, "I told you so."
     Why do people enjoy others pain so much? For how many years now have the Right-wing media accused "liberals" of "hoping the US will lose" to the terrorists? This seems like projected schadenfreude, attributing their own personalities onto Democrats. It was Republicans who were gleeful for Clinton's failings in Yugoslavia and Somalia. Check out this article from World Net Daily (an honest to goodness Right-Wing publication - I double-checked this time) calling Clinton a war-criminal in 1999 for: supporting Muslim self-determination, interfering in a region with hundreds of years of complex religious and cultural wars, for starting a war instead of just joining one in progress, for leading troops despite being a "draft dodger". It's not hard to see why they're eager to attribute evil intentions to people against the Iraq War - they did the same thing 6 years ago.
     I guess in some ways, however, we have to feel like parents to these people we see on television. I hope there are very few deaths in Louisiana and Mississippi, but I have to shake my head at the idiots who were windsurfing on the Gulf yesterday. I'd like to smack the morons who decided to stay in their houses 10 feet below sea level and are now calling 911. And unfortunately, near misses only seem to encourage these people. Growing up in Florida, we didn't own storm shutters or plywood boards for the windows. And the house was 60% windows, from floor to ceiling. (Sliding glass doors, if you want to be technical) We rode out hurricanes and tropical storms. I even drove to work one day through a weak tropical storm in 1995 without realizing it. But after Andrew hit in 1992, my family (and thousands of others in Florida) declared that it was foolish to stick around for the next powerful storm. My father declared his intention to evacuate if another Category 4 or 5 storm aimed for South Florida. So perhaps Katrina will save lives in the future. Maybe it's just too bad that bad things have to happen for good people to wake up. Maybe it's too bad people are so eager to watch it.

Apology

2005-08-25T00:02:00.000-04:00

     On Tuesday, I started with a definition of blasphemy. Today's word of the day is "apology". Like blasphemy, apology has 3 main definitions: 1) An acknowledgment expressing regret or asking pardon; 2) a formal justification; and 3) an explanation. (The 4th definition, an inferior substitute, applies only to the man who is the subject of this post, and is not related to saying sorry) Headlines today scream, "Robertson Apologizes!"
     Now, being the scientific analysts we are, I'd like to present evidence showing that Robertson really didn't apologize. First, for full disclosure, he did give the mainstream media a written statement saying calling that assassination is not right and that he apologizes. However, since he made the statement on his TV program, let's see how he addressed the situation on his TV show. On his show Wednesday, he said, "I didn't say 'assassination', I said our special force should take him out." He went on to call him a "dictator" multiple times and compared to him to both Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler. Oh, by the way, he compared himself to a martyr murdered by Adolf Hitler. Why the different responses? Well, just look at the headlines. He fools CNN (which the Palestinians proved years ago how easy it is to do) and his core audience only hears his lies.
     So the "apology". 1) Did he express regret? Ask for pardon? On the contrary, he defended his stance while pretending he never uttered the worst of the words. 2) Did he justify his call for murder? Well, maybe. If he hadn't lied about not saying "assassination", you might call his words a justification. In fantasyland perhaps, where the Democratically elected President of a sovereign nation who has made his reputation on helping the poor, is compared to Hitler. 3) Did he give an explanation? Again, the lie which destroyed any credibility he may have had also removed any possibility of explanation. Robertson is now shown to be both of low moral quality and a man who can't be trusted.
     I also wipe the noses of some of the whiny Right wingers who are crying that I'm not being fair by lumping them in with Robertson. It's funny that their hate of generalizations don't include them lumping everyone who isn't in love with Bush with Michael Moore, Jane Fonda, and Ted Kennedy. If I support environmental regulations, I'm a terrorist. If I don't believe every Muslim should be killed I'm a limp-wristed Frenchman. If I think gay people shouldn't be persecuted, I hate marriage. You can't have it both ways. You may as well embrace Robertson and his ilk, because when you support the people who benefit from Robertson, you accept the consequences. Next time hitch your wagon to people who aren't psychotic powermongers.

Blasphemy!

2005-08-23T17:38:00.000-04:00

     Dictionary.com has three definitions for "blasphemy". 1) A contemptuous or profane act or utterance concerning God; 2) The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God; and 3) An irreverent act or utterance in regard to something considered inviolate or sacrosanct. The warm and fuzzy Pat Robertson of televangelist and Christian Coalition fame recently spoke out on the Family Channel that the democratically elected President of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, should be assassinated. Chávez's crime? Claiming that the US was trying to have him killed. Talking badly about a country (the US) he doesn't live in and is not a citizen of. Now, I'm no biblical scholar. But I'm pretty sure it's not very Christian to talk about killing someone. And going back to the subject of blasphemy, let's review. 1) On a self-professed "Christian News and Talk" show, he suggests to viewers that someone murder the President of Venezuela. That sounds like a contemptuous or profane act concerning God (even if indirectly). 2) By deciding who should live or die, he claims for himself the attributes and rights of God. 3) Casually talking about the murder of someone is an irreverent utterance in regard to something considered sacrosanct (life).
     Like I said, though, I'm not a biblical scholar. Personally, I couldn't care less about "blasphemy". In my mind, blasphemy is just a polite way of saying, "If you disagree with me, I'll cut you!" But if Pat Robertson is going to set the rules for his game, he should play by his own rules. He is a multimillionaire because people believe he is a devout Christian who is out to save the world. For him to play by different rules goes beyond hypocrisy, it's fraud.
     Hypocrisy is calling your opponent unpatriotic because his war injuries weren't deadly, while you spent the war safe in Alabama. Fraud is when you broke the law and actually just went home to Texas before you finished your service. Fraud is Pat Robertson's game now, and it's unfortunate that his followers can't (or won't) see the distinction between religion and the vitriolic politics he spews on his show. Killing someone because you don't like what they say is not only un-Christian, it's immoral and illegal. Hugo Chávez is a brutal, power-hungry man. But he doesn't starve his people or kill them with chemical weapons. He has created social programs in Venezuela to provide free health care for the poor, to teach them to read and write, and has subsidized food prices so they can afford to eat. You may not agree with his politics, but as much of a jerk as he may be, he's not a monster.
     Unfortunately, knee-jerk apologists for this kind of behavior won't admit that one of their own is off the deep end. They're so far gone into their own rhetoric that they can't tell what's reality and what's not. Living in Georgia is like living in an echo chamber, where people just hear their own biases repeated louder and louder. (I suspect it's similar in places like New York, San Fran, and Texas) The Truth is, Chávez wants to be elected. And the United States and especially Bush are not popular in the rest of the world. It's good politics in other countries to campaign against the US and Bush. Just like it's good politics in Georgia to campaign against abortion and liberals instead of campaigning against your opponent. The candidate who screams loudest wins (except Howard Dean). For the Right to get to the point where they feel that it's acceptable to kill anyone who doesn't agree is chilling.

Victim's (Family's) Rights

2005-08-19T13:56:00.000-04:00

     A lot has been made recently about "Victim's Rights" - a Right Wing buzzword that replaced "Tough on Crime", which replaced the previous phrase, "Tough on Blacks". (I'm just kidding. No politician has said that openly in years) Really what Victim's Rights means is "presumption of guilt". Apparently people trust the police so much that they feel like it's coddling criminals when the accused are given state-appointed attorneys. (Maybe it's really more of a case of, If you're poor, you're as good as a criminal mentality) They feel that preventing police from making illegal searches and seizures emboldens criminals and that shooting people in the subway for no reason other than some diaphanous "War on Terror" prevents people from being blown up. Generally we give the victims (of criminals, not of the state) special status and give their opinions special weight. Ashley Smith, the woman who fed Brian Nichols pancakes while she waited for police to collect him, has written a book and has become a motivational speaker. She might have a decent claim to this, though, since she purportedly talked Brian into surrendering peacefully.
     Lately, I've noticed that the families of victims are being given special rights and privileges. The families of the people killed in the September 11th attacks, for example, were on the committee to decide how to rebuild the World Trade Center site. This is land owned by the Port Authority of New York and leased by a private developer. Does the fact that a family member died there give them some sort of partial ownership? Does it make them smarter or more business savvy that they should be heard in business meetings to decide what to do with millions of dollars of prime Manhattan real estate? Surely they have the right to protest and make a fuss, but only a suck-up politician would give them actual power.
     I haven't talked about Cindy Sheehan, mostly because I felt there was no issue there. A woman stood on a public right of way and protested. It's not news, it's not controversial, it's not anything. It has been pretty shameful how the Right-Wing media has been trashing her, saying she has no right to speak for her dead son (funny coming from people who a few months ago said Terri Schiavo's parents had every right to speak for their dead daughter), and trying to discredit her from every angle. Really, why do they care? It's every American's right to protest. Why vilify her? Are red staters so sheltered that they aren't aware there are a lot of Americans opposed to both the Iraq war and Bush? Do they need to be protected from this affront to their fantasy world?
From everything I've read, Cindy Sheehan has been accurately representing her son's attitudes. But even if she was not, she is entitled to her own views and there's no reason for her to be vilified for her actions. For her actions that the first amendment was specifically written to protect.
     That being said, Sheehan's views are a bit kooky. I support what she's doing, but as much as I dislike the Iraq war, I'm not packing a bag to stand by her in Crawford, Texas. She blames a Jewish conspiracy for sending her son to Iraq, claiming that her son signed up to defend the US, not Israel. Not I know that Iraq wasn't BFF with Israel, but the vast majority of Jews in the US still vote Democrat and thus it stands to reason that the majority of Jews also don't support the war. Certainly most of them didn't vote for Bush. (Still, it's kinda nice to be accused of being in some vast conspiracy. It makes me feel important.) Anyway, it's a silly, stupid idea, but it doesn't detract from her right to express it. Forget about her divorce (which is very common among parents who have lost a child) and about what her great-aunt and unnamed cousins have said to the media about her. Let her have her say and if you don't feel it's newsworthy, don't cover her.

Updates & Apologies

2005-08-18T11:07:00.000-04:00

     First the apologies: Sorry for my prolonged absence. We were hit by the stupid internet worm, and once it was cleaned out of our network, work was predictably hectic for a few days while we caught up. There are also unrelated "stuffs" happening at work, so my blogging schedule might be erratic (not to be confused with erotic) for a while.
     And now the updates. One of the downsides about blogging about current events is that the known facts change very quickly. For instance, I wrote about Natalee Holloway (Still my #1 searched keyword for my blog) being lost in Aruba. Well, now she's..... Well, she's still lost in Aruba. But other things have changed, and in ways that I feel greatly impact their stories. (None of which had a fraction of the airtime the Aruba case had)
     Update #1: Jean Charles de Menezes was even more innocent than I thought. I wrote about this on July 26. Then, the police had admitted his killing was a mistake, but that he had been running through the subway station, evading police, and wearing a bulky, heavy jacket on a warm summer day. Well, video from the subway station has been released which shows that not only did the police kill an innocent man, but that they lied about him and defamed his character. He was not running through the subway station - he walked leisurely. He stopped to buy a newspaper. He didn't jump over the turnstiles, as the police reported - he paid and walked through. And his suspicious "bulky" jacket? It was a light denim jacket. Commenters, who admittedly did not know these new facts, laid blame at de Menezes' feet, saying he should have known better than to run and evade police in these scary times when terrorism is all around us. Now it seems his only crime was living in the same apartment complex that terrorists chose to hide in. In London, they chose to hide in a poor immigrant neighborhood. In the US, the 9/11 terrorists chose to hide in upper-middle class neighborhoods, including the town in Florida where my parents live and a neighborhood in Atlanta near where I live.
     So here's the issue, again: Are we safer because de Menezes is dead? People said better one innocent than dozens in a terrorist attack. But his killing didn't help prevent others. The terrorists have likely moved on to new targets. Nervous police are still prowling the subways, and not just in London. The house next door to me was for rent recently. What if a prospective terrorist decided to rent there? Can I expect the next time I'm on MARTA to go to a Braves game the APD will gun me down? Why couldn't it happen to you too?
     Update #2: High School students who have limited English skills can't get diplomas. This is nothing earth-shattering, but it's an article I wish had come out before I wrote about Hispanic issues on Monday. My question is, if students can't speak English, do they deserve a high-school diploma? It's hard to find a job without one. (It's hard to find a job with one) But if they can't speak English, how well will they function in jobs that require diplomas anyway? The report did say that students are failing math tests because of their lack of English skills, and fairness should say that's not right. Math is international - the only reason an educated Spanish speaker would fail the math portion is because of an overreliance on word problems or complicated instructions. Either way, it highlights some of the struggles new immigrants have to cope with upon arrival.

Minority Report

2005-08-15T17:33:00.000-04:00

     If the Angry White Male revolution started in 1996, it had better hurry up and finish remaking the world in its 1950's image. It's about to become a minority. Last week, Texas became the fourth state where the majority of people are not White. California, New Mexico, and Hawaii are the other three, and in all of these states (except Hawaii), the majority is Hispanic. (Hawaii is, predictably, Asian) This, of course, is not a surprise. Hispanic population is up sharply, and by 2050 we should expect to see the US as majority Hispanic. What's interesting is that this is happening in such a pivotal state. Texas is about as Republican as states get, and in addition, happens to hold more electoral votes than any other state except California. Hispanics (with the exception of Cubans), traditionally have voted Democrat. In 2004, they voted somewhere like 60%-65% for Kerry.
     So as absurd as it might sound, we might in the near future see Texas vote Democrat. Except for one thing: Hispanics don't vote. Well, some vote. The census bureau estimated that while 58% of the US population at large voted in the 2004 election, only 28% of Hispanics voted. So maybe Texas is safely in Republican hands for the foreseeable future after all. Don't hold your breath expecting Hillary to win the Lone Star State in 2008. But what we are looking at is the potential of a strange kind of apartheid-like system, where Whites hold power despite having a diminishing minority status.
     I'm not suggesting that Texas would degenerate into a repressive regime with anti-Hispanic laws. But for a number of reasons, the will of the people wouldn't be the will of the state. Hispanics don't vote for a number of reasons. The most basic is that a large percent are not US citizens. In 2004, over 40% of Hispanic legal residents were not citizens of the US. These people live in the US, work in the US, pay taxes in the US, but don't get to participate in representative government. Many are trying to become citizens, but that is a long, difficult process that has grown more red tape since 9/11. The second reason is that many Hispanics are poor. For example, the households of only 0.4% of all Americans over 18 have an income under $10,000/year. But 6.5% of Hispanic households make less than that. Poor people in this country don't tend to vote - they have more pressing issues, like working 90 hours a week to be able to afford bread and rent. Even legal residents aren't protected by minimum wage laws in many cases - when you speak only broken English, you'll take the job that's available whether it pays a living wage or not.
     Speaking of English, a third reason many Hispanics don't vote is because they are not tuned in to the language of national politics. George Bush may throw in a few Spanish words here and there to prove he's not a high-school dropout, but by and large, national politics takes place in English. I'm not saying it shouldn't - we can argue English-only policies some other time. But until Hispanics get a generation or two into this country, they will remain isolated linguistically. Which brings us to fourth - the Hispanic community is becoming more and more segregated away from mainstream America. Partially because new immigrants do this for comfort, but also because of the three reasons listed above, Hispanic communities generally don't have a lot of interaction with middle-class White communities. And so they're not as involved in the national dialogue and voting becomes something that belongs to another world.
     In any event, it will be interesting to see how politics progress in Texas, and in America. When the next generation of English-speaking Hispanic Americans grows up to voting age, we my see a radical shift in how Texas votes. But not before some major ethnic conflict, if my guess is correct.

Recipe for Divorce

2005-08-12T01:16:00.000-04:00

     It seems like such a minor thing, and not at all what I was originally going to write about. Originally I was going to write about the impact of Hispanics in Texas. But as exciting as that might have been, the Living section of my local newspaper caught my eye. A "human interest" story, it was highlighting a recent trend of married couples having separate finances (Free Login).
     Let me just say, "Worst. Idea. Ever." (Except maybe for putting Ewoks in Return of the Jedi. You suck, Lucas.) I know I may get trashed for saying this. There are, of course, a lot of different types of marriages. But some things remain true across all of them. For example, having sex with people other than your spouse is bound to cause problems. Selling the house and moving while your spouse is out of town (and unaware) is bound to cause problems. And pretending like you are two separate financial entities is bound to cause problems.
     This being said, there are good reasons to keep some property separated. When one spouse comes in with significantly more assets, for example. Or when there are kids from a previous marriage involved, they need to stay protected. But there needs to be community property, and that pool needs to be large enough to cover regular expenses, unanticipated expenses, and preparing for the future. Otherwise you're not married - you're leading separate lives going in different directions.
     Last summer on a business trip, I was in the hotel hot tub with other people from my company, drinking rum and talking. (Don't ask. It was business during the day and like being back in college at night.) One guy was agonizing about whether to ask his girlfriend of 8 years to marry him. I think everyone else was married - most for 5-20 years. I had been married all of 2 months. They were almost unanimously trying to convince him not to get married - what they had was good, so why change it? They dismissed my protestations as those of a newlywed in love. But when I brought up the financial perspective, they all got quiet. Who pays when you go out for dinner? Who makes more money? When you have kids, how will it work if she stops working or goes on leave? Who will pay for the kids? One of the most liberating things about being married, for me, is not having to wonder who will pick up the check at dinner or whose turn it is to buy groceries. Maybe it sounds petty. But it's a big deal, because it means we're on the same team. We have the same goals. What's good for me is literally good for her. Suddenly, gifts from the heart have more meaning than gifts from the pocketbook. No matter how much you think you've gotten past money issues, it's always there in the back of your mind.
     In the article, 24 year old Lekeisha Massey, who will be demanding separate checking accounts when she gets married, says, "I don't care if I have a dusty duffel bag when I start; I want it back when it ends." When it ends. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure she's on a self-destructive course. She's got "Future Divorcee" written all over her. I guess maybe I should be happy that she at least has some idea of financial responsibility, unlike my next-door neighbor. But if you can't trust the person you're marrying, what's the point of marrying? I've always said love isn't enough to justify a marriage. There has to be a whole lot more. I mean, I love my parents, my sisters, my cat. I love me some ice cream. I'm not marrying any of them (with the possible exception of the ice cream). But I love my wife, who's my best friend that I trust with my life (including my wallet). If you can't say that, maybe worrying about joint checking accounts should take a back seat to not getting married in the first place.

Look Out – There’s a Pig on the Interstate!

2005-08-11T11:53:00.000-04:00

     Oh wait, that's just highway pork. This should come as no surprise. The term "Pork Barrel" originated 150 years ago to refer to highway spending 200 years ago based more on politics than need. I'm not really against the nearly $300 billion highway bill. I recognize that it costs a lot of money to maintain 46,000 miles of interstate highway, plus 115,000 miles of US highways. I used to be extremely pro-highway. When I first moved to Atlanta, I was fascinated by how the interstate highways shaped this city, which grew around them like vines or weeds after they were built in the 1960's and 1970's. I hoped for more, like the ill-fated outer perimeter. Now I'm a little wiser, having lived here for some time and recognizing how sprawl has damaged Atlanta and how centralized cities, though hurt by White Flight in the 70's, are much healthier.
     Anyway, my point is I'm not against the highway bill per se. I'm a little disappointed, but not shocked, at the $24 billion in special projects allocated. What's interesting is how the Republicans' true colors are emerging. For years, the Right has pilloried the Democrats as "Tax and Spend". Vote Republican, they said, if you think government should be responsible with your money. I know $24 billion at the same time seems like a lot of money and is also one of those vague numbers thrown about. I mean, my mortgage is barely 4-digits - how can I comprehend financing at the national level?
     In 1998, Bill Clinton almost vetoed a $218 billion highway bill because it contained $7 billion of "special projects". Almost vetoed by a Democrat for being too wasteful! Today, "special projects" amount to almost 3 times as much! And while our Republican President says he wishes it were less, it sails through his office more smoothly than a used car salesman at an Alzheimers nursing home. And where is this money going? Ashamedly, some of the pork is going to Blue states. But I can understand that Democratic leaders aren't willing to impoverish their people on principle while paying for Red-Staters' pork. The most egregious offense? A $231 million bridge in Alaska which will be named, by law, the "Don Young Way". Don Young is the Republican House Transportation Committee Chairman. (In 1998, Republican Committee Chairman Bud Shuster wrote the Bud Shuster Byway or I-99 into law in his home state.) Now, call me crazy, but isn't the definition of corruption using public office to profit personally? I mean, I know Don Young isn't personally charging tolls on this bridge, but I'd call writing a law to name a bridge after yourself is pretty close. How much money would it cost me to do the same? What's the monetary value of getting a bridge named after you? At UCLA, it costs $10 million to get your name on a building. Keep in mind that it wasn't the grateful voters or even the state legislators that were so proud of Young that they named the bridge for him. Young named the quarter-billion dollar bridge for himself.
     It just goes to show that at the very least, Republicans like to spend money at least as much as or more than Democrats. All those years they spent telling voters that it was Dems who were going to steal their money, and all along the fox was already in the henhouse. I wonder what all those non-religious, fiscally conservative Republicans are thinking right now. I wonder what they think they've gained. Do they even exist anymore? Are there even Republicans who believe in a balanced budget anymore? $24 billion is a lot of money. Cutting that out of the budget would help Bush balance it better than cutting out the $1.2 billion that Amtrak gets. A lot more people ride Amtrak than will drive over the $223 million dollar bridge (another one, not the Don Young Way) in Alaska going to an island with 50 inhabitants. That works out to.... $4.46 million per person. They have an airport there - we could buy each person their own Cessna for less! (Actually, we could buy them each 22 high-end Cessna Skyplanes) Anyway, for the rest of us 279,999,950 Americans, just consider the "special projects" $85 well-spent. If you ever visit Alaska.

Trust

2005-08-08T14:38:00.000-04:00

     Trust is an interesting concept. In some ways, it's the glue that holds together modern society. We trust that the money in our bank accounts will be there when we ask for it. We trust that the water we drink isn't full of poisons and toxins. We trust that the toys we buy our children won't blow up in their faces. Of course, we don't really trust the companies that provide these things, but we do trust the government agencies assigned to check up on and regulate these companies. Of course we do - otherwise you'd be carrying all your money in cash instead of on a bank card. For that matter, you'd be carrying around gold pieces instead of promisary notes from the US Treasury. Maybe you've lost faith in your municipal water supply, but you still trust that Deer Park is safe. Without trust, we'd be primitive, hunting our own food, building our own homes, battling our neighbors.
     In 2000, George Bush ran for President on a platform of trust. The American people could trust him, he said. There would be no chubby intern sex in his White House. The American electorate bought it, of course, and Bush began his mission to restore the Presidency to its glory days before Nixon tarnished its reputation. But though this might mean increased transparency for another President, for Bush it meant increased secrecy. Meetings were held behind closed doors with unnamed people. Press conferences were held less and less frequently. The public was told that it just had to trust the President. This probably would not have worked with the suspicious press. This was not 1940 when the press was complicit in the coverup of Republican nominee Wendell Wilkie's affair or 1960 when the press ignored Democrat President John F. Kennedy's affairs. Who knows what would have happened if terrorists had not attacked in 2001. But when they did, Americans put their faith in Bush because they had to.
     It actually came as a surprise to Bush's opponents that he squandered this goodwill. Personally, I didn't expect the bitter partisanship that followed. I didn't expect him to use the opportunity to roll back environmental laws, privacy laws, church-and-state laws. But more importantly, I didn't expect him to blatantly tell falsehoods and not come clean when they were revealed to be untrue. And still Americans trusted the man, despite howls from frustrated Democrats that the lying was too obvious to ignore. Yet ignore they did. Why? My guess is that "trust" had nothing to do with lying or even perjury in front of a grand jury, as Republicans had proclaimed. "Trust" had to do with a promise Bush made to the social Right wing of the country - that he would restore their place of glory within America. That the churches and the libertarians and the downtrodden would once again sit on the top of the social ladder.
     Today's "news" is that the majority of Americans polled distrust Bush (Free Login required). The article attributes it to the quagmire of Iraq. But I think there's more going on. Democrats clearly lost faith with Bush years ago. Independents probably broke off in 2003 amid lies about Iraq. Plame-gate surely didn't help. But any Republicans losing their trust of Bush are probably doing so because of Bush's unkeepable "promise" made in 2000. After five years, the disaffecteds who helped push him into office still don't see the respect and admiration they crave. Dems have wondered aloud for years how the alliance between wealthy economic conservatives and poor social conservatives stood so solidly. Well, for years they have believed in the "promise", first made by Ronald Reagan. (It's interesting to note in "Christianity Today"'s article on Reagan, they commented how he "rarely delivered on [evangelicals'] issues) For 25 years Republicans have made this deal with the social conservatives, but were excused for failing to deliver because they never held enough power. Now Republicans solidly hold all three branches of government, and they've run out of excuses. Now we are starting to see some cracks in the alliance. Now the evangelicals are starting to realize that they've been used, to an extent. Oh sure, they may get some public funding for Christian schools. Sure, they could potentially get Roe v. Wade overturned. But those are longshots, and it's becoming clear to evangelicals that Bush and his Congress are not rushing to satisfy them.
     Will Trust be the thing that will sink this unflappable golden boy? Unless something changes in his favor between now and 2008, he probably won't see the love that he's used to. Bush is a lame duck, while members of Congress have re-elections to prepare for. Bush is finding out that getting to power and staying in power are two different beasts. And yet... it will be interesting to see how he responds to this challenge.

Stay At Home Rambling

2005-08-04T15:06:00.000-04:00

     I was listening to some of my coworkers talk today. The wife of one had undergone surgery and he was filling in for her household duties, including grocery shopping, driving the kids to soccer practice, making dinner, etc. He commented on how hard it was, and then turned to me and said, "When you get to the point where your wife is a stay at home mother, don't ever tell her what she does isn't hard work!"
     Let me say a few things as background. A) I'm going to get fired for this. Really this time. B) All of my coworkers, and this is not an exaggeration of any sort, are White men between the ages of 48 and 53. C) Of the ones who have children, the wife of every single one is a stay at home mother. In fairness, they have all also relocated with work multiple times, which makes it difficult for a spouse to have a career. D) Every single one of them is Republican, Christian, and yearns for a return to 1950.
     Of course the assumption for them is that when we have kids, my wife will quit her job and stay home to take care of them. Now, I won't say this won't happen. Our baby-making days are still decently in the future, so anything is possible. But considering that she already makes more than I do and she's been working a third of the time I have, it's not something you'd want to bet the farm on. (If you have a farm. Lucky you with all the subsidies you get.) Stay at Home Moms are the Right-wing ideal, along with 23-year old virgin daughters and Bible study in public school. I'm not disparaging what they do. It's a tough life, eschewing adult contact, spending your hours chasing after toddlers or spending 10 hours a day driving kids to school, from school, to swimming, to soccer, to ballet, to the mall. It's not a job, though, unless you're a nanny or a au pair. It's a lifestyle.
     I don't really understand why people think SAHM must be a job. If you firmly believe that you're doing the best thing for your family and your children, why would you be ashamed for not having a job? Why is having a "job" more important than your core values? Of course, if you're only staying at home because of financial necessity or because you don't know what else to do, then I guess it makes you feel a little better saying you're "working". I'm reminded of the insurance commercial that shows people getting ready for work that says, "Why do we work? Why do we get up and go to work every day?" For me, it's so I have enough money that one day I don't have to work. I wouldn't be ashamed to retire are 45 or 35. I don't exactly volunteer here at the job. I do it for the money. When I have kids, it will be for the love. Not the money. So taking care of my kids won't be a "job", even if it's the hardest thing I ever do.
     I also don't understand why the assumption is that it will be my wife that stays at home. Is that because she has a vagina? I have to go fight traffic and wear a tie and talk to strangers all day because I have a penis? The Truth is, we both want to be stay at home parents. Why have kids if you can't enjoy them? My coworkers don't understand. They don't even really know their kids. They spent their kids' childhoods working 10-12 hour days or more. Their kids were their wives' "jobs", not theirs. Someday, my company is going to ask me to relocate, and we're going to have to decide where our priorities are. I think it's telling that my company is already having extreme difficulty finding people willing to relocate. 2-income households aren't exactly rare these days.
     The conventional wisdom is that it takes a lifetime of work to be able to retire comfortably. "Idle Hands are the Devil's Tools" - a phrase that I feel sums up the Protestant work ethic. But when I visited Costa Rica and St. Thomas, poor people were living lives that the wealthy American tourists envied. How many people work 40 years so they can have a little house on the beach? One of my managers is preparing for retirement now. A multi-millionaire many times over, he bought a ranch in Texas and a double-wide trailer and will live there, 90 miles from the nearest town, shooting deer and squirrels. Now really, how many years did he have to work to achieve that? Was it worth not being home with his children when they were growing up?
     We work so much more now than we ever have before. If raising children is important (and it is), why do we still assume this is the sole province of women? Why in a workplace where people wouldn't dream of asking you about your sex life or how you pray, it's taken for granted that the woman will give up her career for her children while the man will give up his children for his career?

Tough on Crime

2005-08-03T17:18:00.000-04:00

     It's good to know that Fresno, California is tough on crime. If I ever visit there, I won't have to worry about getting hit on the head with a rock, like Rafael Diaz, Jr. in Atlanta or like Elijah Vang in Fresno. In April, Fresno police arrested Elijah's assailant, Maribel Cuevas, for assault with a deadly weapon. A hardened criminal despite no prior record, Maribel spent 5 days in jail for resisting arrest and scratching the arresting officer. Some America-hating, feel-good liberals would have liked to talk to Miss Cuevas, maybe see what her feelings were. Some weak on crime, "everything goes" Lefties probably wouldn't have even let her spend most of a week in jail, even though she's only 11 years old.
     That's right. Eleven. (In case you, you know, needed it spelled out) But don't let her age fool you. Elijah Vang threw a water balloon at her, a harmless prank. Haha, boys will be boys, after all! To respond with a rock is criminal, however, and poor Elijah had to have stitches! Fresno's Republican mayor, Alan Autry (of Heat of the Night fame) feels the police action is appropriate. And you can't accuse Mr. Autry of being hypocritical. While he's fairly moderate, as Republicans go, he's made his reputation on being tough on crime. In 1998, he made a video for Fresnoans (?) and Californians about a new 10-20 law that sends kids 14 years and older to jail for an extra 10-20 years if a gun was involved.
     What this boils down to, of course, is Zero Tolerance. Zero Tolerance has about as positive a reputation these days as "Politically Correct" and "Liberals". But zero tolerance is fundamentally a conservative, tough-on-crime concept. No exceptions - breaking the law is breaking the law. (Unless you're rich. That's different because you're valuable to society.) "Tough on Crime" is a phrase that needs to get attached to a Republican candidate to get elected. (See Willie Horton) Typically, the buzz-words and key phrases these politicians say at election time mean very little. But sometimes they're trapped by their words.
     I'm a 7-month veteran of blogging. I know what most of the comments will be like, "This girl should never be sent to jail. She should have been spanked." "I agree." But this isn't about Maribel. Her arrest was a direct result of the very things Americans have been asking for during election after election. Forget the neighborhood watch. I want the people I elect to protect me from everything and everybody. And the people running for office are just as quick to promise it to a gullible public. Of course they can't really protect you from everything if you don't protect yourself. If you don't know your neighbors or help keep an eye on the neighborhood or help keep your neighborhood clean, no politician will protect you. But we keep electing people who say things that sound good. We keep electing people who make promises we know they'll never keep. And it's our children who will pay for it. Maribel Cuevas was not the first. Nor will she be the last.

The "Very Special" Truth Episode #100

2005-08-01T16:58:00.000-04:00

According to Blogger, this is post #100. (I haven't counted, so I'm going to trust it) In the great American tradition of the Sitcom, I'd like to dedicate what should be a groundbreaking, must-read post into a flashback post of the greatest hits of the past 7 months. Also, because we're apparently in the summer blogging doldrums, it's not exactly sweeps time, so consider this filler (but still with great taste).

Flashback #1) (Jan 14) Urgent Newsflash - President has epiphany!

This was my first (and only) attempt at breaking news. I'll leave making fun of Bushisms to the experts.

Flashback #2) (Feb 1) Why Should We Care if we Torture Some Terrorists?

I thought I made a good attempt at reasoning with the Bush worshippers with this post and with Why I Don't Like the Iraq War. I've come to learn the hard way that their boy can do no wrong, especially when he does wrong.

Flashback #3) (Mar 14) Hebrew National Shortage

This one still hits very close to home. Let me just say that my family still hurts from this painful episode, although as the temperature flirts with triple-digits, we've moved away from homemade chili and Franks & Beans.

Flashback #4) (Apr 18) Pharmacist, Restrain Thyself

This still boils my blood. As a person with very little extended family because many of my relatives were murdered for being Jewish, I understand that "religious freedom" means the freedom to worship as I please. I understand that it means I can't be (shouldn't be) denied a job because of my religion, that the government won't shut down my shul because the president believes something else. It does not mean that I can force my religion on other people or that I can force my employer to observe my religious laws. The religiots just don't get it.

Flashback #5) (May 10) Hello, My Name is Scott and I'll Be Your Waiter

The way certain institutions work in this country piss me off. Here I discussed the counter-productivity of tipping. I can't remember if I've discussed how corrupt real-estate commisions are.

Flashback #6) (May 22) Yes, but what does Benedict say about Viagra?

My first ever guest-post, by the esteemed Oh Really Factor. If I'm lucky, there will be more. Also if I'm lucky, I'll go on vacation again someday.

Flashback #7) (Jun 13) Mawwiage is What Bwings us Togever Today

I love this topic. This post was actually a response to the question I asked the previous Friday. I loved all the comments I got, and I was especially touched by the sincerity of many of the commenters.

Flashback #8) (Jun 29) Are People Smarter in Cold Weather?

Holy corny controversy, Batman! This just goes to show how little I know about what pushes peoples buttons. Forget abortion or dead wives. Give a little love to the neigbors up north and the world erupts. I got 38 comments on... I'm still not sure what the big controversy was

Flashback #9) (Jul 25) Are We Too Rich? (Take 3)

Third in the series, this is the reason I started my blog. I have this great sense that we're mismanaging our great wealth, both as a nation and as individuals. And I believe it's corrupting everything that made us great in the first place. I don't believe in complete wealth distribution and I'm not a socialist (or Communist), but I've had the worst time trying to explain this without people jumping down my throat to tell me that it's the Paris Hiltons of the world that made this country great. When people care at all, that is. It seems money abuse doesn't rank up there with dead blond women.

Well, there you have it! Feel free to post comments in those respective Flashbacks if I've stirred something within you. I really don't want to have 9 separate discussions going on in this post. And don't be too hard on me for not having any original ideas today.

Is it Hypocrisy or Irony?

2005-07-29T13:55:00.000-04:00

This column is rated PG for creepiness and grossness and for the disgusting thoughts of its author
     Conservatives want to have their cake and eat it too, it seems. They loved the story of Susan Torres, the dead woman kept on life-support so her baby can be born. It's a great story for the self-proclaimed "culture of life" crowd. Life Survives Death! What a great headline.
     Susan was 21 weeks pregnant when she died. That's almost 5 months out of the normal 9. Typically, viability of the fetus is around 23-24 weeks, sometimes later. Susan's widower, Jason, decided to keep her body hooked up to machines so that the baby could have another month in the womb and have a chance to live. It's a decision that, while immensely creepy, has not met a lot of controversy. And who could really argue, knowing that despite using her body as a mindless tool for baby creation, they are helping to create a life? BTW, I'm using words like "creepy" and "mindless tool", not because I oppose these efforts, which I don't. I use these words because they are true. I think most of us find something unsettling about a baby being born of a dead woman, as miraculous as we think the baby is.
     Here's what I find funny. Many of the same people who love Susan Torres' story oppose stem cell research, in vitro fertilization, and abortion. At first glance, these stances don't seem to conflict. But look at their arguments: Abortion at any stage is murder, not because of intelligence (which doesn't exist in a fetus), not because of any identifying human characteristics like arms or a head (which doesn't exist in an embryo), but because of their unique DNA (which was unknown when late-term abortions were banned by the church in the middle ages and all abortions were briefly banned in 1588. They were made legal by the church again in 1591 until 1869.) The unique DNA of an embryo is the reason given by at least one commenter here as the reason why it must be allowed to live in the future, why it must not be used for any purpose, even to help save lives via its stem cells. But did Susan Torres not have unique DNA? It's OK to use her body as a baby factory, but it's not OK to use an embryo the size of the period at the end of this sentence for its stem cells?
     Let's take this example to its logical, yet extreme example. Say Jason Torres decides that his wife would have wanted to have 3 children. Presumably her brain cancer did not damage the other eggs in her body. What if he had doctors artificially inseminate Susan so she could have another baby, and another? Are we OK with that morally? What's the difference between the second and third baby and the first one? I can guess one answer - nod if you agree. It's because the first one was already on its way towards life, right? And stopping it would be murder while creating a new life in Susan's dead body would just be unnatural and therefore immoral. So let me throw this crazy idea out. You know all the fertilized eggs left over from in vitro fertilization that are just sitting around waiting to be destroyed? The ones that you say will be murdered if not used? Why not implant them into Susan to be born? And if it can be done in Susan, why not get people to volunteer their bodies to be used as baby factories when they die? Wouldn't that be just as wonderful and miraculous as Susan Torres' baby? No? Hmmmm.

Terror on the Subway

2005-07-26T13:32:00.000-04:00

     On July 7, when I heard about the London terror attacks, I felt sad for the victims, but not devastated. A horrific thing happened to those people riding the subways, but no worse than what happened to the people in the World Trade Center or to innocent Iraqis living next door to criminals that were bombed to oblivion from the sky or to ordinary Israelis riding buses or shopping in malls every day. Just more senseless killing, but not an earth-shattering act. London did not stop on July 7 - businesses operated as usual, the stock exchange pulsed with activity. I did not even think the London attacks were worthy of much debate. What's to talk about, really? Terrorists attack the West. Did Bloomberg overreach when he instituted random bag searches in New York's subways? Maybe, but the intrusion on our civil liberties seems so commonplace now it hardly seemed worth the effort to discuss it. But then we heard that London police had shot and killed an Underground passenger. And so began the unexpected discussion.
     We talked about the victim, a 27 year old Brazilian electrician. We talked about the police. We talked about terror. The people I spoke with expressed their sympathy for the police (and little for the dead man), saying how frightened the police must have been after 2 bombings in the subway and how they could hardly be blamed for having twitchy trigger fingers. I actually agree – I don’t blame the officers too much. But I don’t lay any blame on Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian, either. In fact, his death scares me more than subway bombs. Here are the facts of the case: police were suspicious of this man from the start, because he lived in the same neighborhood as the bombers. Plainclothes officers followed him to the subway station, actually boarding his bus. They noticed he wore a heavy jacket, which made him very suspect in the summer heat. And when he boarded the train and they yelled at him to stop, he ran. This odd behavior, while not normally a death sentence by any twist of the imagination, was enough for my friends to conclude that he alone was responsible for his early death in these fearful times. Who in their right mind could go on a London subway without being aware of the increased security and tension?
     But consider this: First, the terrorists lived in his neighborhood not because it was a place that supported terrorism, but because it was a place that could escape notice. It was home to immigrants, but hard working ones. Before July 7th, police had no reason to suspect any sort of terror activity from there. Second, Menezes was from Gonzaga, Brazil, a small town about 200 miles from the coast. Weather there is closer to Florida’s than England’s. Today, the high in Gonzaga is 86º F. Today’s high in London is 64º F. Keep in mind that right now we’re in the middle of Brazil’s winter and England’s summer. I grew up in South Florida. If I were in London today, I’d be wearing a coat too. My mother, who thinks 64º is practically freezing, would be wearing a heavy coat, if she went outside at all. Third, it seems Menezes’s visa had expired recently. He probably could have renewed it, but neglected to do so. He probably lived with a daily, underlying fear that Immigration would catch up to him. Until July 7th, the worst scenario he could probably imagine was getting caught in a routine traffic stop or to have the police look at his papers. When he ran, he was running from plainclothes officers who had been following him from his home. Whether he knew they were police is in doubt. In addition, he had been attacked by a gang only a few weeks earlier. He had reason to be scared of people, especially if he didn’t know they were police.
     In short, Menezes was caught in unlucky circumstances directly related to the fact that he was a foreign national. But why am I worried? Well, in 2001, Mohamed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijaakers, lived in my hometown in Florida, probably no more than a mile or two away from my parents. Would I be a suspect? Are my parents? I can’t even tell you the number of times I’ve run through airports since 2001, despite the knowledge that security was on alert. Now I wonder what my chances of being shot were. Am I really that different from this Brazilian guy? Can we really blame him and go on as if nothing happened? London police say that they were working on a revised security manual that says to shoot suspected suicide bombers in the head. The idea goes that if you shoot them in the chest, the bomb may explode. But this is flawed, because in Israel, every train station or restaurant or mall has armed security guards at every entrance checking bags and people. If it ever comes down to shooting someone in the head, they know the person is a terrorist. You can’t apply part of the Israeli solution to London and feel safe.
    One last thing to think about – What is the mission of the London police? Is it to fight terrorists? If that’s the case, then by all means go shoot anyone you suspect. Or is it to protect the people who live, work, and visit London? If that’s the case (and I suspect it is, old chap), you don’t protect them by shooting them. How safe would I feel if I knew that if I wore the wrong clothes or acted funny, I might be a target of the police? How safe would I feel bringing my children to the subway if I knew that at any moment they may break out of my arms and start running away? And that I would run after them, jumping turnstiles and ignoring police if I had to? I don’t blame the officers. But I don’t feel any safer if this is our idea of security. 52 innocent people died in the bombings. So far 1 has died in the response. If the thought of us killing our own in panic isn’t the definition of “success” for a terror operation, I don’t know what is. We have to do better.

Are We Too Rich? (Take 3)

2005-07-25T17:34:00.000-04:00

     This is my third attempt to address this topic. Attempt #1 and Attempt #2 left me feeling unsatisfied. (Plus, nobody read my blog then) There's something about this that really bugs me, and I'm having the hardest time elaborating on exactly what. I feel that both times I attempted this in January, I fell short. There were circumstances this weekend that reminded me, so I'm going to try yet again.
     I'm not going to use my standard disclaimer that I'm not a tree-hugging hippie, because some of you know that and the rest won't believe it. Some of you just think my whole reason for existing is to attack Christians. That's fine. At least I still have credibility, right?
&bsp   Six months ago, I linked too much wealth with the cultural and economic demise of the United States in the future. I want to talk about this on a personal, anecdotal level. My wife and I live in a quiet suburb of Atlanta, Georgia. Despite my love of cities, I was tired of the apartment lifestyle. I was tired of living cheek to jowl with other people, of smelling their cigarette smoke on my balcony, of hearing them fight and have sex in the apartment above me. I wanted a house with a yard and a quiet neighborhood street. The neat thing about Atlanta is that you can get these things intown. In fact, there are neighborhoods in walking distance from downtown and midtown that meet these criteria. However, they have one of two problems: they either have a large supply of crack houses or they have a price range close to or above $1 million. So we are as close in to the city as we could get and still afford the house we want (that's not very close in). We're actually surrounded by $800,000-$1.2 million riverfront houses. Our house is set back, in a much more modest neighborhood. But we're still in the million-dollar school system, so our neighborhood is in high demand with families. In fact, I believe we have a disproportionate number of single parents in our neighborhood, since this is the best school district they can afford on one salary. It's a hard-working neighborhood, full of single-parent homes, dual-income homes, and families just starting up. It remains affordable because the people who can buy more expensive houses usually do - there are plenty of choices nearby.
&bsp   So who are my best neighbors? Just about everybody. It's an older neighborhood, so there's no mandatory association, but people work to keep their yards neat and maintained, and there's a volunteer group to keep the entrances pretty. So are my worst neighbors? They're the family that moved in next door about 9 months ago. Here's my introduction to them: I was setting up my yard for Halloween one night after work - putting up lights so the kids won't trip and things like that. I noticed a few SUV's at the house for sale next door. They back out and drive away, except one, which drives over to my house (25 yards away). A middle-aged, slightly balding guy gets out and introduces himself, saying he just bought the house. "Congratulations," I said, holding out my hand. "Welcome to the neighborhood." "Oh, it's not for me," he said. "It's for my daughter. And her kids. And her... live-in." I fought back surprise to stay polite. "Oh. Well, I can't wait to meet them." "I'm not so sure about that. Her boyfriend's not the friendly type. Well, I hope they don't give you too much trouble. I'll probably be around a lot, mowing the lawn and fixing up the house. She's too young to do those sorts of things. I probably stared as his Suburban rumbled away. We've met this girl - she's actually very pleasant. She's a little younger than us - although obviously not "too young" to mow the lawn. Her two kids (by 2 different fathers) seemed nice too, if a little spoiled. We never did meet the boyfriend, but we did learn from conversations with this girl that he doesn't work and neither does she. In the past nine months, we've been treated to gangsta' rap at all hours and the delightful scent of pot smoke wafting from their garage. Now, I'm not in a condo or townhouse. For us to smell pot smoke in our kitchen with the windows closed from next door means they were having quite a party. What happened this weekend was that one of her kids was having a birthday - 5 years old, I think. And they were having a party. I was out working on the lawn, and I got to see the guests arrive. A few had kids in tow, but it was the presents I noticed. No Harry Potter or Tickle-Me-Elmos. They were carrying 6-packs of Natty Lite and closed brown bags. And the entertainment for this children's party? A boombox in the driveway yelling about "pimping 'dem hoes".
     How is this relevant? Well, obviously the girl's father has too much money. He's not super-rich or anything, but for his lifestyle, it's too much. Enough that he never saw the need to educate his 25-year old daughter to keep her legs closed or work for a living or even maintain her own residence. Nice girl, but pretty worthless in society. For her kids' sake, I hope her father lives a long, healthy life. But is this why we have money? Is this the Republican ideal? Is this why when it comes to setting tax policy they oppose taxing gifts and inheritances? I say that because unless you're a militant anarchist, you understand that our government needs revenue to operate. And it has to get that revenue from someplace. Someplace=taxes. So the question is, when we get taxes, what is best for our society? And the answer seems clear: not from people who want to ruin their children. I truly believe that what this father is doing to his daughter is child abuse. Or maybe just plain abuse, even though he treats her like a child. He is funding his daughter's descent into the dregs of our society, and instead of allowing her to reap the fruits of her (non-)labor like a good Republican (I noticed the "W" sticker on the car), he's propping her up and enabling her behavior. Which is actually punishing me and my hard-working neighbors. Because now the prices of starter homes is going up since so many of the purchasers are parents of over-age children who are not price sensitive. I make a good living, but I stretched to my limit to afford my house. This guy bought his deadbeat daughter a house that cost more than mine and promptly began $20,000-$50,000 of renovations.
     I'm not just mad about this girl, although that hits closest to home. I have millionaire coworkers who have children my age. Most are screwed up - they can't finish college, they're getting pregnant (or getting someone pregnant), they're sitting at home jobless. And it's all funded by their parents. (They're all rabid Republicans too, and complain about welfare and race and people being allowed to work on Sunday) The response to a kid getting knocked up? Buy her a $300,000 house! To be fair, some of my coworkers' kids are responsible and mature. Their parents, while wealthy, did not give all their money to them. One coworker, in particular, has 2 houses, an RV, a houseboat, a pontoon boat, and 2 waverunners. These are his toys. His kids? They got summer jobs at McDonalds and Publix in high school, they bought their own homes, and they were married before they thought about having kids. Is it selfish? Or is our society in better shape if it allows people to use their money to spoil themselves, but not ruin the next generation or two? If we as a society have to decide where to get our tax money, should it be from the people working two minimum wage jobs or from the people who have no further use for their own money and are giving it away to a broken generation? Silly questions. Obviously it needs to come from those evildoer minimum wage folks.

We're on Your Side. Trust Us.

2005-07-21T05:17:00.000-04:00

     If there is such a thing as a Law of Unintended Consequences, the US Tax Code is full of them. Virtually every tax on the books is there for a purpose (I say virtually all, because with the size of the code, there have got to be accidental laws in there). The primary purpose of taxes, in general, is to raise revenue so the government can operate. Think of homeowner associate fees. The secondary purpose of many taxes it to influence behavior. For example, in order to encourage charitable giving, the government has made donations to qualified charities tax-deductible. In order to reduce consumption of alcohol and tobacco, there are additional "sin" taxes tacked on. There are also attempts to make the tax burden as fair as possible, while still funding the government. Of course, "Fair" is in the eye of the beholder...
     The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) was an attempt to make things more fair. Outraged that a number of the wealthiest Americans weren't paying a penny of income tax in 1966, the federal government created a parallel tax system to catch the people who were overusing deductions. They made sure it would apply to only the wealthiest Americans. Of course, today, we all know what's happening to the AMT. It is applying to more and more Americans each year as inflation boosts the salaries of ordinary Americans into the 1966-wealthy range. One reason Bush was able to say his tax cuts over the past few years haven't had that much of an impact on tax revenue was because those extra deductions threw a lot of people into the AMT, which meant that they paid more tax anyway. Now a presidential tax panel has recommended eliminating the AMT altogether. It's just too much for the average American to deal with, they said. Scrap the thing and the only losers will be tax accountants. Hey, the government bureaucrats are on our side for once! Or are they? Clearly the AMT was never meant to apply to the estimated 21 million families it will hit in 2005. Most of those people pay taxes and have no weird tax-avoiding deductions other than state income tax or large families. But lets not forget the original purpose behind the AMT - as a band-aid over holes in the regular income tax that allowed the wealthiest Americans to pay less tax than the local schoolteacher or mechanic. Simply getting rid of the AMT will once again open the door for people who make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to deduct 100% of their salaries. And then who will it fall on to make up the rest? The Treasury Department estimates that killing the AMT will cost $1.2 trillion (with a "T") over the next 10 years. Some of that was the hidden cost of the Bush tax cuts. And the rest is legitimate tax that will no longer be paid by the wealthy.
     I'm not saying that Congress failed to fix the AMT in order to get the public support for scrapping it. But it's awfully convenient that the biggest winners will be the rich, while the upper middle class merely dodges the bullet. The AMT isn't the only convenient, "We're from the government and we're here to help you" issue today. I'm sure you've heard of the estate tax, which the Right has dubbed the "Death Tax". A better name would be the "Inheritance Tax", since it's absurd to suggest that you're being taxed for dying. Only the people inheriting money are taxed, and then only if you A) failed to plan correctly and B) left behind a large sum of money. The Estate Tax was designed to prevent dynasties. It's aimed at the super-rich, not to penalize them, but to encourage them to spend their money while they live, either by investing it or enjoying it. I won't argue the pros and cons of such an approach. I will say that again it had unintended consequences. After years of not keeping up with inflation, it became nearly impossible to pass down small family businesses whole. The Republican response has been to push to abolish the tax altogether. They've done an excellent job convincing a lot of Americans that the tax was going to financially ruin their children. The Truth is that the biggest beneficiaries are going to be the super-wealthy, which the upper-middle class dodges another bullet. The family farmer with $5 million worth of land but few liquid assets will be saved, but so will the $5 billion bequeathment from Bill Gates Senior to Junior.
     For better or worse, the American public is being sold a bill of goods. They're being encouraged to choose a small gain today that will come with a large pain tomorrow. If abolishing the AMT and the Estate Tax is really in the middle-class's favor (as I'm sure our friends on the Right will vigorously argue), why not trust them with the truth. Why not tell them how much the people in charge stand to gain personally from these abolishments? Why not share with them where the extra $1.5 trillion will come from? Why not tell them that the reason they are in danger of being hit by taxes that were never meant for them is because Congress dropped the ball? What are they afraid of?

Rove Who?

2005-07-19T20:54:00.000-04:00

Whose Fault is it Anyway?

2005-07-19T17:09:00.000-04:00

     By now I'm sure most of you know my attitude on sensational journalism, especially when it comes to highlighting cute, little white children or hot, young white women. (If you're new and you don't know, then welcome aboard! You'll find out pretty quickly.) The news of three young boys found dead in their grandmother's car trunk a few weeks ago was tragic. And it's commendable that their plight was highlighted while they were still missing, even though they were middle-class Hispanics. In short, the three boys were playing in one of the boy's grandmother's car. They opened the trunk, climbed in, and got stuck there. The families called the police and a massive search in Camden, NJ got underway. Nobody thought to search the car, which was unused and in an overgrown yard. Originally, I said (to my wife, not to the blogosphere) that this was a tragic situation where nobody was to blame. Children do stupid things sometimes. Stories like The Bridge to Terabithia and My Girl have always freaked me out, as the childrens' deaths are all but unpreventable. I once saw a TV movie when I was a kid that showed a boy falling backwards out of his treehouse and breaking his spine, dying instantly. I had nightmares for weeks.
     I empathized with the Camden boys, too. I related to my wife a story of my own from when I was their age. My parents had a minivan. The back seat folded down, and when the back hatch was closed, it created a small space in the bottom rear corner of the vehicle. I was curious what it was like back there, so I pulled the hatch shut, lay down, and pulled the seat on top of me until it clicked. I couldn't tell you what it was like, because immediately I realized I'd done something stupid. I was jammed in there tight and could barely move a muscle. It took several minutes of panicked wiggling to move my arm enough to release the seat. Had I pulled this stunt in something like a refrigerator or had I been maybe 10 pounds fatter, I might have been in real trouble.
     That being said, my whole attitude changed (towards one of the families, not the boys) today when I read that evidence showed that the boys were still alive when the police search began. Nobody thought to seach the grandmother's car. It wasn't until days later when one of the fathers opened the trunk that the grisly discovery was made. Now the Cruz family is holding the police responsible for the deaths. "However, a lawyer for Anibal Cruz's family said responsibility for the deaths is now 'squarely on the shoulders of the police.'" The Cruz family has not decided whether or not to sue.
     Now, it's true that the police are undergoing an internal investigation as to why they did not search the car earlier. Clearly, it would have been a smart place to look, especially since hindsight is the proverbial 20-20 and the case got national attention. But that doesn't make the tragedy their fault. A) The boys were unsupervised. B) The car in question was unlocked and witnesses remember seeing the boys playing in it. C) Neither the owner of the car nor the family of the owner of the car nor the family of the other two boys thought to look in the car at any point. Mrs. Cruz, if you really want to assign blame (although I believe there is none to assign), point the finger at yourself for not teaching your son to keep himself out of danger. Point the finger at yourself for not looking in the car. Don't blame their deaths on the people who came out to help. They didn't lock your son in the trunk and they didn't prevent you from finding them.
     It's interesting to note that at least one mother says she has no intentions of suing. Iraida Agosto, the mother of the 6-year old, whose husband found the bodies, is not blaming anyone. It "isn't going to help us bring him back," she wisely said. It's also interesting to note that the Cruz boy was the 11-year old, the one who should have known better.

Dirty Rove Tricks

2005-07-15T10:36:00.000-04:00

     This is an update to yesterday's article, Help! My Country has been Hijacked by Criminals and All I Got was this Lousy Refund Check!. It might be helpful to read that first, although the primary topic yesterday was the diversionary tactics of politicians and the stupidification of the American public.
     The news today is that it's possible Rove did not leak Valerie Wilson (nee Plame) to Robert Novack, but that Novack leaked her name to Rove. This is unconfirmed, but it makes me very uncomfortable for a few reasons:
     1) In my opinion, the Dems have been overly aggressive in targeting Rove. This will come back to bite them. However, even if this new news is true, it doesn't clear Rove. Scott McClellan clearly communicated in the past that anyone in the White House who was involved would be fired. He may still regret his poor choice of words.
     2) It appears nobody on the Left ever learns their lesson. This looks like a classic Rove stunt. Think back to Rove's fake bugging incident in Texas, where he apparently bugged his own office and then held a press conference to blame it on the opposition. In this case, he carefully orchestrated the idea that he was the leak so the media would pounce on it. The White House, complicit in this scheme, clamped down on information at the press briefings, making them look guilty. This only fired up the media more, looking for whatever was hidden. Now comes his revelation that he was not the original source of the leak. Why didn't he say earlier? Now he can claim the Dems are out to get him and were just looking for an excuse.
     3) The timing is extraordinarily bad, although I wouldn't bet money that this was a coincidence. Bush is about to name his candidate to replace Justice O'Connor. Rove's plan is probably to discredit the Democratic leadership right before the nomination by saying they're shrill naysayers crying wolf every time they see a sheep. The irony of this is that Rove is a wolf disguised as a sheep disguised as a wolf.
     4) We still don't know who leaked Wilson's identity. It may have been Rove or it may not, but Novack clearly said it was from "2 high-level administration" sources. So the question is still there: Why was she outed? Back to conspiracy theories, it now appears that the one linking the outing to revenge against her husband is quaint and petty. The real conspiracy theory should now be that the administration orchestrated the leak to a) cause an uproar, b) blame Rove, c) show Rove to be (somewhat) innocent, and d) derail opposition to Bush's Supreme Court nominee. If this is the case, it goes beyond criminal to treasonous. Playing politics to gain power makes you a jerk, but it's legal and even arguably ethical. Breaking laws and weakening the country's intelligence network to gain power is akin to a coup d'état.
     Thankfully, this administration is too honest and forthcoming to be a party to such paranoid fantasies.

Help, my Country has been Hijacked by Criminals, and All I Got was This Lousy Refund Check!

2005-07-14T17:49:00.000-04:00

     Wouldn't that be a great T-Shirt or what? I think when historians write about this era, they will look at the huge stadiums and arenas partially financed by the government, of the Michael Jackson and OJ trials, of the parade of damsels in distress garnering 24-hour coverage on the news stations, of sales tax holidays and refund checks, and of political feel-good wars like Grenada or Iraq I. This era will be the panem et circenses, or "bread and circuses", of the modern day. That term was used to describe the way the Roman emperors kept the populace content and subjugated. It's amazing and distressing to see how easy it is to distract the American public. Why is it that so many people are content to watch garbage news on television instead of real news, if they pay attention to the news at all? Why are so many people averse to even paying attention to politics, even though it strongly affects their daily lives? Instead, people react to scare tactics and vote on "issues" instead of on policy and principle.
     It's easy to blame the education system. In fact, that's what the Right has done for nearly 50 years. First it was subverting the American way of life because Black children were allowed to attend, so they moved to the far suburbs, where classrooms were still all White. Now, it's subverting the American way of life because it's not religious enough - because it's teaching Reading, Ritin' and 'Rithmatic instead of the Bible. But I don't think the education system is to blame. Obviously parents have a responsibility to teach their children, but they've abandoned this job. Parents today fight with the teachers more than the students do. They sometimes seem more interested in getting their children good grades than in getting them an education. Homeschooling parents usually manage to get a good education drilled into their kids. Does spending an extra 6-8 hours in a school make them dumber, or are the parents allowing and even encouraging lazy, stupid behavior?
     Maybe the current anti-intellectual jihad is a direct consequence of the hippie movement when the boomers were kids. In the 50's and 60's, education was paramount to combat the Soviets. Math and science were pushed hard. Logic was taught so kids could withstand Red propaganda. (A skill we could sorely use today) Then the boomer rebellion came, fueled by the Vietnam conflict. And this was a full-scale rebellion, not only rejecting unquestioned authoritah, er authority, but everything they were expected to do. Make your kids learn science? Hell no, man. That's a downer. My kids are going to be free, man. Science and math and politics are for nerds, man. And so two generations now know virtually nothing about how this country works. (The rest of us are split into two groups - the caretakers and the opportunists, but that's another post)
     Or maybe (and here's the conspiracy theorist talking) we are apathetic about the way this country is run because we've been led to it by years of propaganda and brainwashing. I'm not saying there's some sort of official government conspiracy to keep people down ala 1984. I just wonder if a lot of the PR politicians do is designed to suppress any interest in getting involved. Republicans make a lot of GW getting more votes than any other president in history. In fact, it had to do little with his popularity and more to do with the fact that a) there were no third-party candidates like in 1996 or 2000 b) voter turnout was high - the highest as a percent of the voting age population since 1968 and c) he won. Republicans don't publicize that Kerry also got more votes than any other presidential candidate before him. He was like the Sammy Sosa of candidates. Anyway, the reason turnout was so high in 1968 (61% compared to 56% in 2004 and ~50% for the 36 intervening years) was because in 1968 the country was polarized around an issue - race. George Wallace was a third-party candidate running on a platform of anti-civil rights. He got the southern Democrats so riled up that they went and joined the Republicans.
     Why is this relevant? A lot has been made about the Karl Rove/Valerie Plame scandal lately. Whether or not Rove is guilty (and we don't know that for certain yet), a crime was committed. Until Rove became the primary suspect, the White House was adamant that Plame's outing as a CIA operative was a crime. Scott McClellan insisted that if anyone from the White House was involved in the Plame affair, he or she would be terminated. Rove has actually already admitted to being involved, although his defense is a rather Clinton-esque "I didn't speak her name" when he identified "Wilson's wife". So will Rove be fired for his involvement? My guess is no. Americans don't seem to particularly care very much about Rove or Plame or spies who don't drive sports cars and shoot bad guys while skiing backwards and speaking with British accents. The White House is hoping this will blow over, and the Right-wing media is downplaying everything, saying completely irrelevant things like "Wilson lied", "Plame was a desk-jockey", "Wilson only went because his wife told him to". Eventually, Bush will name a controversial Supreme Court Justice and Rove will be in the clear.
     And Democrats will scratch their heads in bewilderment and wonder how on earth he can get away with this. And it all comes down to "issues". If it's not an exciting story with sex or race or gays or God involved, you can pretty much forget people watching. It's not like Valerie Plame went missing in Aruba. She's not even hot, for goodness sake. And if there's such a thing as "political capital", every organization is too busy burning theirs up fighting issues to waste on a boring legal battle about words spoken to a reporter and shadow corporations in foreign countries. So grab your remote control and your People magazine and flip to TBS - they probably have a James Bond marathon going that will ease your boredom from reading this column.

Values Voters

2005-07-12T00:21:00.000-04:00

     Values voters scored a victory in national elections on June 24 this year. The new conservative President, elected with a strong mandate despite claims of voting irregularity, promised to bring back traditional religious values. His campaign was geared strongly towards religious conservatives and the socially and economically depressed, who helped sweep him into office. Analysts say that his appeal to the poorer classes came strongly from the perception of him as a populist and a "man of the people". After the election, he was heard saying, "the [religious] revolution of [2005] will, if God wills, cut off the roots of injustice in the world. The wave of the [religious] revolution will soon reach the entire world." It's difficult to pin the President down, however, since he usually "avoids interviews with independent journalists, or avoids answering questions by asking other questions and asking them not to ask 'complicated questions'". (src: Wikipedia)
     As you may have guessed, this President is not George W. Bush, although if you change the date from June 24, 2005 to November 2, 2004, there would not be much difference. No, this president is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hard-liner president of Iran who was previously the mayor of Tehran and possibly one of the Iranian terrorists who held American hostages in 1979. It's far too early to say what his legacy as president will be, but as mayor, he strengthened religious rule, promoting separate elevators for men and women and put a serious religious emphasis on city cultural centers.
     Conservatives get all aflutter when you compare their man to Adolf Hitler. So, assuming Ahmadinejad did not participate in the hostage taking (US government analysts say his facial structure does not match the man in the picture, despite otherwise resemblence), let's compare him to Bush. Hey - why not? Despite the fact that Ahmadinejad has not started a reckless war, has not pushed legislation to rape the environment, and has a declared goal of pushing national oil wealth towards the poorer elements of his society, there is a lot to compare. And Ahmadinejad is not an international criminal, so what do the GOP apologists have to whine about? Now, granted, Ahmadinejad is not a great person. And he's certainly not the leader I would want for myself or my country. He's not even the leader I would wish on anyone else, even the Iranians, whom I know very little about. Then again, neither is Bush, whose destructive policies have divided and set back this great nation for a generation or more.
     Basically, Iran is experiencing a "backlash" against the liberal policies of the past few years. The Values Voters there were tired of seeing uppity women without veils and men without beards. They were looking for a return of the "good old days" of 1979, when they hardly had to harass women showing their ankles in public, because none dared to. They find the US and George Bush tired and hypocritical when talking about freedom. Islamic Iranian voters want the freedom to repress women, so why does Bush feel their freedom is less worthy than that of the reformers. The reformers, led by previously popular president Khatami, were destroying the Islamic ways of Iran and were leading the nation into godlessness. Or, at least that's how Iranian conservatives see it. Reformers are upset. "I want the rights and freedoms that everyone is entitled to," said lyricist Payam Eslami. "Normal rights. Nothing more."
     Those words could have been uttered by a homosexual in the US. Unfortunately, it seems the majority of Americans don't understand why they should care. Why they should care about women in Iran or gays in America or how the two are connected. We're like the proverbial frog in the pot of slowly boiling water. The water around is getting warmer, but we can't tell whether we're just getting comfortable or whether we're getting cooked until it's too late. For the people who were feeling just a little too chilly before, calls to lower the gas flame are ridiculed, shut down, and called traitorous. At least 51% of Americans don't think we'd hit the boiling point. Surely the flame will drop long before then. But we only have to look to our neighbors around the world to see what happens when extremism and religious intolerance hits the boiling point.

First they came for the communists,
I did not speak out
because I was not a communist.

When they came for the social democrats,
I did not speak out
because I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists
I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews
I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew;

And when they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

-Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892-1984)

Talkin' on a Jet Plane

2005-07-08T17:57:00.000-04:00

"I don't know when I'll get a signal again"

     With apologies to Peter, Paul, and of course, Mary, I want to talk about cellphones in the sky. That is, the communications revolution that's sweeping the nation. (No, I'm not drunk, but it's Friday afternoon and it has about the same effect) Despite what some haters may say, cellphones are absolutely remarkable. When I got my first cellphone 3 1/2 years ago (so I'm a dinosaur, so what?), I used to stare at the tiny little piece of molded plastic and think about how amazing it was that I could sit in the middle of a field and make a phone call as easily as if I were in my own living room. Easier, actually, since I didn't get good cellphone service in my house. That I could call anywhere in the world, and more amazingly, that anyone in the world could call me (not that anyone did) and my phone would ring almost anywhere I would go. It's such a revolutionary concept that almost nobody even imagined it 30 years ago. I love the beginning chapter of Isaac Asimov's "I, Robot" how a character had to choose between purchasing a car phone for his business or a self-aware, intelligent, walking, humanoid robot to play nursemaid for his daughter. He could only afford one - they cost about the same. Of course, the book was written in 1940, but my wife's cellphone, which is smaller than the palm of her hand, has 2 color LCD screens, and is more powerful than any computer imagined in 1940 was free (with a 2-year contract). The walking, intelligent robot? The closest we can come so far is George Bush, except we're still working on intelligent. (It's a joke! Lighten up.)
     Anyway, the point is that what we take for granted now was beyond comprehension when our parents were young. Its impact on our lives has been immeasurable. For example, in the old days (1999), if I was meeting friends at an open-air concert, I'd have to be very careful to specify where and when I'd meet them. If someone was late or got lost in the crowd, well, good luck finding everyone else. If you couldn't make it because your car broke down? Your friends might be waiting all night. And as far as the car breaking down goes, we have much better peace of mind that we'll be able to summon help when we need it. In the old days, my mother insisted that if I flew into a city where I had family, I had to give them a call to let them know I was in town, even if I was just connecting to a flight or could otherwise not see them. Phone calls are expensive, you know. Today, it doesn't even make sense (although she still asked me if I called so-and-so when I landed in Boston on my way to Maine). I mean, not only is the call free, I don't even know that when the person picks up, they're still in the same city I am. Imagine, in 1985, calling someone on the phone and asking them, "Where are you?"
     There are downsides to this new technology. People blame it for being on call 24 hours a day, for hearing people talking loudly in the grocery store, for people having conversations during a movie. But these rudenesses aren't the phones' fault. They're the fault of people, who seem to forget that certain evil bosses had 24-hour contact policies in the pager days. That there are always rude and thoughtless people in the grocery stores and movie theaters.
     In December, the FCC announced that it may relax restrictions on cellphone use on airplanes. They had banned them because of concerns of interference with ground-based communications, as well as airplane communications. Finding that such interference did not exist and that cellphone use may very well have saved the White House from the fate of the World Trade Center on 9/11, the FCC may soon say that airlines will have the right to decide whether their passengers may use the devices.
     But wouldn't you know, busybodies are bombarding the FCC, demanding that cellphones remain banned from planes. These may or may not be the same people who keep the FCC on speed dial during the Super Bowl commercials, but their opinion is that since they expect quiet on a plane, they want the government to mandate it. It's a ridiculous argument. If an airline wants to keep phones off their planes, they have the right to demand it. But without any health or safety reason to ban them, how can anyone possibly justify the FCC or FAA doing such a thing? Jay Bookman, an otherwise reasonable columnist, opines, "In other words, we know without a doubt that allowing cellphone use in airline cabins would be a disaster.". A disaster? Sitting on a flying bus with people talking is a disaster? If you ban cellphones merely because they inconvenience some people (while conveniencing others), why not ask the FAA to ban children from flying? Or talking? On my redeye flight home from Vegas this past Monday night, I was trying to sleep and the guy across the aisle had his personal light on so he could read a book. Should I petition the FAA to ban lights on nighttime flights? (hmm, that rhymes...) Smoking - that's a health concern, OK. Fireworks and knives and lighters - those are safety concerns, check. Smacking the flight attendant on the rump - harassment concern, plus the flight attendant is more likely to be a middle-aged gay guy nowadays. Don't ask the government to restrict freedoms for your personal peace of mind, though. This goes for phones on planes, but also for flag-burning, for consensual sex between adults, and for anything else that people are trying to get their government to ban in the name of "Because I Said So".

Aruba

2005-07-07T13:04:00.000-04:00

     The story of the missing Alabama teenage in Aruba has been so pervasive and overblown, it rivals the Michael Jackson case and the tsunami for overpromotion. One of my friends sees it as a diversion from real national problems. A new Downing Street memo? Quick, interview Natalee Haolloway's mom! I don't know how much of that is true, although certainly the administration must appreciate reduced attention on the failing war in Iraq. My wife, who couldn't tell you where Downing Street is, much less tell you why they're issuing memos, could tell you every detail of the Aruba case and scans the web nightly for more news on her investigation. This whole overdone story bugs the crap out of me though. It's tragic, sure, but how is it that that the nation is wrapped up in this one pretty, blond girl and not the thousands of other missing people in the United States.
     For example, in 2000, 6,324 people were reported missing and of those, 323 were never found, in the city of Jacksonville, FL alone! In the US, 2,000 people go missing every single day! Most of those (85%-90%) are innocent children. Natalee Holloway is neither a child nor innocent, nor was she in the United States. At the time of her abduction, she left her friends and the relative safety of a nightclub to get a ride to the beach with local men she did not know. My gut tells me that she was involved in illegal drugs and sex on the island. Not that that should condemn her to any fate which may have befallen her. Her case is truly tragic. But no more so than children who are snatched from their own neighborhoods and whose names and faces have never passed before our eyes. For every Natalee Holloway and Jennifer Wilbanks you weep over, how closely do you look at the "Have You Seen Me?" flyers you get in the mail or see in the post office? How much do you pay attention to the people you actually have a chance of helping? (My apologies to the people actually in Aruba combing the beach for traces of Natalee)
     I could accept this orgy of press coverage for what it is - an attempt to fill four 24-hour news channels plus hundreds of local newscasts with tabloid information to sell ad time. No harm, no foul, right? Except that yesterday, emboldened by the nationwide panic over her daughter's disappearance, Natalee's mother issues a press statement criticizing Aruba's response, suggesting that they're not doing everything in their power to find Natalee. Ignore the fact that the small island has completely mobilized to find the girl, that the Netherlands has sent its air force jets to Aruba to search, that hotels and citizens have donated over $20,000 to aid the search. Forget that Aruban tourism, which makes up the major part of the Aruban economy has been hurting since Natalee went missing, although that was probably mostly from parents reconsidering their unwise decisions to send their underage teenagers someplace to get drunk and have sex with strangers for a week. Can't this woman see, even through all her grief, how much Aruba has sacrified for her and her daughter's bad choices? To the media: stop feeding us this junk and let the search for her body go in peace. To those glued to their TV sets: how much will you care about the people in your own community who are weeping over their missing children right this minute, but can't even get the local TV station to show their pictures on the news? It makes me sick.

Respect My Authoritah

2005-07-06T15:27:00.000-04:00

     As we were firing explosives into the air on Monday, celebrating a small band of rebels that revolted against their leader during a time of war, I thought about the subject of authority. One of the major differences between conservative and liberal thought is the respect and deference to voices of authority. The quote "My President, Right or Wrong" is a great example. As respectful and appropriate as it sounds to many right-wingers, it sounds dangerous and anti-America to many on the left.
     This distinction appears to have been repeated over the past 150 years. In the 1860's, Southern Democrats felt free to create their own country because of major splits in attitudes and values, while Republicans were adamant that the President is the ruler of the nation whether you agreed with him or not. In the 1960's, it was Democratic leaders that were willing to undermine the authority of local governors and mayors to enforce desegregation and remove institutional racism, while the Republicans were deferential to those in charge. Likewise, it was left-leaning hippies who protested against the Vietnam War, while the more conservative element supported the administration's moves, even when the administration was Democratic. Perhaps these attitudes stem from the religious bases of the two sides, as I discussed in April in "Pietistic Republicanism". The Republican-leaning pietistic religions rely on strong leaders and rhetoric, while the Democrat-leaning liturgical religions rely on personal interpretation of written law.
     Of course, none of this explains where the "My President, Right or Wrong" bumper stickers on SUVs were when Clinton was president and right-wingers were calling him everything from "Slick Willy" to "Bubba" to "Billery". But that's an analysis for another day. Personally, I don't believe that the righties' hypocrisy on the issue of authority means they don't believe in it. For some reason, it didn't seem to apply to #42, but it continues to be a major rift in inter-party dialogue. Democrats usually live by the mantra, "Question Authority", while Republicans prefer "Respect Authority". Is it any wonder why Republicans are the ones talking lovingly about their fathers bringing out the belt while the Democrats are the ones who would rather use "time-outs" and other alternate discipline?
     With the debut of the new Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the late Roald Dahl has gotten a lot of press recently. Before you start wondering what on earth this has to do with Southern Democrats and the Vietnam War, were you aware that Dahl's books, including Charlie, Matilda, and James and the Giant Peach, are regularly targets of book banning in libraries and schools? Despite the absence of violence (except for the comic sort) and sex, many parents find these books to be highly objectionable. Why? They encourage children to question the authority of their parents. In Dahl's books, children are the heroes. Parents never are. However, Dahl's villains aren't exclusively parents, in the tired old "us vs them" genre. His villains are just as likely to be random adults, aunts, uncles, or even other children. In fact, a common theme in Dahl's books revolves around parents who have died or who are too beset by circumstances to be effective. Nevertheless, according to an article in the New Yorker, one parent looking to ban Dahl from elementary schools in Virginia said, "children misbehave and take retribution on adults, and there's never, ever a consequence for their actions." To many people, children talking back (or worse!) to adults is the worst possible offense. Children are bullying each other? Kids will be kids. Children are disrespectful to a grownup? Now we have a problem.
     I'm not saying kids shouldn't respect adults. Everyone deserves respect, even adults. But the era of Father Knows Best is gone, if it ever really existed. Deferring to people simply because they're older than you or because they hold leadership positions in business or government isn't always the right way. Again, I'm not saying kids shouldn't be deferring to adults, just not for the simple reason that they're younger. They should defer to people who know more, who are actively working to help them, who are working to educate them. And always respect, the way any human should respect another. But the instant true authority disappears, so should nominal authority.
     Many Republicans claim they lost any and all respect for Bill Clinton when his numerous affairs were revealed. Democrats argued that his personal conduct, while troublesome, had nothing to do with his military and economic and social policies. While incredibly misguided, I can understand when people make the decision to see the person instead of the office. That's why it confounds me when conservatives don't have the decency to respect the people who have taken a look at the multiple breaches of trust Bush has committed and have decided for themselves to separate the office from the man. What opponents of Dahl's books, like many conservatives, don't understand, is that the children in his stories aren't rebellious, they're independent. They evaluate actions based on the action, and not on the person performing it. This is what independent thinking is. It's not a rebellion against everything authority stands for. Dislike of Bush doesn't mean an instant repudiation against every one of his policies. Despite the high-profile battles between red and blue in Washington, a lot of lower-profile bills get passed with bipartisan approval. Otherwise intelligent Republicans will defend to the death the appropriateness of John Bolton as UN Ambassador or insist that the rationale from the start for the war in Iraq was the freedom of the Iraqi people. In response, Democrats have been "unifying", a word that means that despite their otherwise intelligence, they'll support partial-birth abortions and Palestinian terrorists. Somehow politics have become a winner-take-all game, and politicians are too scared to lose to actually govern. But instead of blindly obeying authority, instead of following Bush and Frist over the cliff, why can't we learn to question the rules? Why can't we follow our own consciencences and make our own decisions? The King is dead. Long live the King.

Are People Smarter in Cold Weather?

2005-06-29T16:36:00.000-04:00

     Two Canada stories are hitting the news today. Both indicate that our neighbors in the Great White North are sending a big "Screw You" to the people of the United States. I'd think it were really funny, if I weren't one of those people. Anyway...
     Story #1: Canada Approves Same-Sex Marriage. I'm not really obsessed with gay stories or gay rights. I feel strongly about it, but it doesn't usually enter my mind on a daily basis. Mostly I've been reporting and commenting on the news of the day, and thanks to 2004's GOP "Get Out the Vote" effort, it's been in the news a lot. Anystuff, in a story that should sound familiar to Americans (and by that I mean United States of Americans), Canadian courts ruled that the Canadian constitution would not allow barring gays from marrying. But instead of going all reactionary and passing constitutional amendments banning them from marrying or entering into contracts with each other "conferred upon unmarried couples", Canada's legislature decided to pass a law allowing and regulating gay marriage. It's a ballsy move, and I'm sure the wannabe theocrats there won't stop fighting. However, it's a popular initiative in Canada, despite what the so-called liberal CNN says about "fierce opposition". It's pretty clear that despite the widespread support, the timing is somewhat of a reaction to the US's fear campaign against gay marriage. Since the start of the Iraq war, Canada has been looking for ways to be morally superior to the US, and now latched on to one.
     Story #2: Canada to consider export ban on drugs. This whole prescription drug thing has been like a bad conspiracy against Americans. The Bush administration and Republican congressmen try to ban it with a wide range of excuses, including "the drugs from Canada aren't safe". So now the Canadian government is tired of taking abuse and is saying, "You know what? Screw you. I'm taking my drugs and going home." Their reason? Because Canada might run out of medicine. Riiight. Canadians get a discount because their government is buying drugs in bulk, yet they're worried about a shortage? More likely they're worried about the drug companies refusing to sell to them, emboldened by the Bush Administration's willingness to protect them. So we all suffer, and pay more for drugs in the US, subsidizing the rest of the world because our politicians are so busy being in bed with drug reps that they didn't notice they pissed off the people supplying us with cheap pharmaceuticals.
     So the land of ice, beer, and beaver skins is growing a national identity, and, surprise!, it's being defined by being the anti-US. Good for them. Canada's acting more American than us lately anyway. They're acting more like the prototypical pioneers - people who lived and let live and minded their own business - instead of mountain men of the Appalachians - squabbling, starting feuds, and drinking. Maybe the cold makes them smarter. Maybe it just means they don't have the patience to sit around wasting time on stupid stuff. At least they never lost a governor to the debate about whether a treasonous flag was "heritage" or "racist".

Monopoly Money

2005-06-27T18:08:00.000-04:00

     Some businesses take more money and have to overcome more barriers to entry to start than others. For example, if you wanted to build cat condos for a living, you could put a $35 ad in the local paper and wait for an order before building one. Eventually, with good word of mouth, you might hire some help, rent out manufacturing space, and produce a catalog. However, say you wanted to build a computer operating system for a living. Not only would you have to build a top-notch system on your first try, you would have to try to convince computer manufacturers to use your system instead of Windows, even though 97% of PCs use Windows and most of those users have no desire to learn something new. If you really wanted to break into the mainstream market, you would probably have to buy or buy off most of the major computer manufacturers. That would cost a lot of cash, especially considering that Microsoft could probably outspend you no matter who you are.
     That's the power of monopoly. Brief economics refresher: There are two types of monopolies. There are legal monopolies and De facto monopolies. Microsoft Windows is a De facto monopoly. Even though anyone is free to compete, the hurdles they have to face are virtually insurmountable, at least until there is a major technological shakeup in the industry. De facto monopolies are legal, contrary to popular opinion. They cannot, however, abuse their position. They cannot, for example, threaten to deny Windows from one manufacturer unless they promise not to install Netscape, a product that competes with another Microsoft product, Internet Explorer. Because the two products are distinct, Microsoft can't abuse their Windows position to punish IE's competitors.
     The other type of monopoly is a De Jure monopoly, or one specified by law. AT&T used to be a De Jure monopoly. In most places, cable television still is. In my neighborhood, we can't choose which cable company to use. It's Comcast or nothing. Rates are way too high, but they're being held down because they're facing competition from the satellite providers. They did, however, find another way to abuse their monopoly status. There are 3 basic ways for the average consumer to get internet service: Dial-up, DSL, or Cable. (There are other ways, but they are extraordinarily expensive, and thus are usually reserved for large apartment buildings, schools, or businesses) DSL, which runs through your phone line, and Cable are the only two ways to get high-speed internet. The FCC ruled that even though the cable companies and phone comanies had a monopoly on TV and telephone service, they could not use it to unfairly compete against internet providers. That is, anyone trynig to provide high-speed internet would have to install their own wires, while Comcast could piggyback on the cable wires that were paid for by their TV monopoly. Therefore, the cable companies and the telephone companies were forced to rent out their lines at market price to any internet provider, including their own. (Comcast cable would have to pay Comcast TV rent, just like AOL or Mindspring would) That would level the playing field.
     To make a short story long, in another in what is sure to be a long string of poor decisions, the Supreme Court ruled today that cable internet was an "information service", not a "telecommunications service" and that therefore they could not be regulated by the FCC. That means they don't have to rent out their lines. Now, I'm not a Supreme Court justice. I'm not even a lawyer. But I'm reasonable sure that internet is a lot closer to being telecommunications than information. Given that the whole point of the internet is to communicate, and that internet service has information flowing both ways, and that my telephone service, Vonage, is carried over the internet, I'm pretty sure I'm right. According to the article, telephone companies are now looking to get reclassified so that they are not subject to FCC regulation either. In all honesty, that's fair. Why should the telephone companies have an unfair advantage to the cable companies?
     But then again, why should Comcast have an unfair advantage against Earthlink? Business is about risk. Products are priced with risk taken as a factor. If you're selling milk, your prices will have a little extra added in to compensate for the risk of not selling it fast enough before it spoils. If you're buying bonds, you get a better rate of return for the ones given by shakier companies to compensate for the risk of default. When Comcast and BellSouth can have internet service with 0 risk, how can anyone compete? Comcast did not invest in cable lines because they hoped it would payoff someday when internet took off. They invested in the lines with the guarantee from the government that they would make a profit from telephone service.
     So what's next? Will Comcast tell me I can't use Vonage through their service? Will they force me to use their VOIP service? Will they raise their prices to the point where I have to choose between internet and a car payment? So far, I have to admit, they've been very good to me. But that was when they faced competition. Will they be so quick to help me on their 800 line when they know I can't jump to a competitor? (Because I have VOIP, I can't use DSL) Read the Supreme Court decision for yourself. It's interesting to see who dissented. Scalia wrote the main dissent. Thomas wrote the opinion of the court. Scalia's dissent was actually very interesting to read and full of sarcasm and disbelief in how his peers ruled on this case. It's a strange day when I agree with Scalia.

Kelo

2005-06-24T16:19:00.000-04:00

     The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that local governments can seize land if the purpose is to improve it. "Improve it" apparently also means the same as "increase the tax base". Legal watchers are predicting a retail bonanza, as businesses target run-down neighborhoods in otherwise expensive areas for seizure.
     This is really a tragedy on many levels. 1) One of the main pillars this country was founded on was property rights. The ability to own land without fear that it would be taken at the whim of the government was encoded into the Constitution (or so I thought). 2) The effects of gentrification, which have always been hard on the poor, will now be devastating. Until yesterday, poor residents may have had problems paying their rising property taxes, but at least when they sold, it was to the highest bidder in a hot market. Now they won't even get the choice to sell high. They'll be forced to sell at the appraised value.
3) The conservation movement may have just been shot in the back. Modern conservationists have begun purchasing land to protect it. Private citizens have been buying empty land so that it might stay empty, not relying on the cities and states to preserve wilderness. Today, said cities and states can simply take the land away, rendering any attempt to keep any pastoral beauty pointless.
     However, as much as I despise the implications of this ruling, I cannot say that I would have not done the same place in the justices' shoes. (robes?) The applicable clause in the 5th Amendment says, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The argument, therefore, is over the term "public use". New London, Connecticut, argues that shoring up the tax base is in the public interest, especially when the blue-collar city has been depressed for some time. That is, New London is using the seized land for revenue. As odious as this is, it is a legitimate argument. The dissenting opinion from the Supreme Court makes 4 arguments, 1 legitimate, 2 stinking of judicial activism, and a 4th argument that's a little of both. Argument 1: Increasing the tax base is a public interest, not a public use. This is a legitimate argument. In this case, for some reason, it did not resonate with 5 of the justices. Argument 2: Now, "Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory." While true, it does not address the Constitutional issue. It's rhetoric better suited for the legislative floor, not the courthouse. Argument 3: Thomas says that because past use of the Public Use clause has been mostly limited to public works like canals, highways, and utilities, it should stay that way. This reminds me of the Republican claim that although the Patriot Act allows the Feds to invade your privacy, please trust that the government never will. Bottom line - if the law says it can be done, rest assured that someday it will be done. There are 280 million people living in the country. Not everybody out there plays nice. Argument 4: "discrete and insular minorities" will suffer for the overall interests of everyone else. That is, we're robbing the poor to steal from the rich. This is a true concern, and actually has some legal standing. Unfortunately, it's not illegal for the government to shift resources from the poor to the rich. If that were the case, the Bush tax cuts would never have been. However, it is illegal to discriminate against Blacks. If it could be shown that allowing property seizures for economic development would disproportionately affect Blacks, you could say that it would be illegal (although not unconstitutional). Unfortunately, while that still remains a possibility, nobody can prove it. And there is no law against discriminating against poor people.
     Despite my misgivings towards amending the Constitution, this is clearly a loophole. The Supreme Court did their job, allowing a state the right to do what it is Constitutionally allowed to do. If we want to re-examine "Public Use" and redefine it to mean, "Public Works", we'll have to do that with legislature, not with the courts. A sad day for America, true, but not because justices did not do their jobs correctly.

I Say Desecration, You Say Speech

2005-06-22T17:47:00.000-04:00

     I'm not going to go all knee-jerk liberal on you about the Flag Burning Amendment passed by the House today. Personally, I think it's a stupid waste of time. We'd get better use out of our taxpayers' money by renaming french fries, "freedom fries" and by trying to keep dead people hooked up to feeding tubes. I know this amendment, like aforementioned dead people, has been hanging on to life for a decade, but I find the timing rather amusing.
     How is it that when Muslims go nuts about American soldiers peeing on their Koran (purposely or accidentally, although, please - I've never peed on a Bible accidentally. Or purposefully, I guess I should say), conservatives whine that a) Who cares?, b) they would do it to us, c) serves them right for being terrorists, d) what's the big deal? It's just a book, not a life. To a good extent, they're actually right. It doesn't make us right for doing it. I mean, would you rip a lollypop out of a little girl's hands and laugh in her face, justifying that it was OK because the sugar would have rot her teeth? Even if taking away the lollypop was a good thing to do, there are right and wrong ways to do it.
     Whatever. The point is, conservatives just don't see the big-freakin' deal about desecrating a Koran. Which makes it all the more ironic that they are pushing the Flag Burning Amendment! Hey, Republicans, what's the big-freakin' deal? It "accidentally" caught on fire. Oh - I was peeing into an air vent and, oops, the flag got a little urine on it. I needed toilet paper and, well, the flag was just right there.
     The sad thing is that it's a known fact that conservatives don't get sarcasm. There are still studies underway to determine whether or not they have the capability of empathy, but it doesn't look good. So we can say for near certainty that they will never understand that they share the same views as the Muslims they disdain. They would have kittens if a Muslim government that we have relations with (say, Saudi Arabia or Malaysia) had soldiers that routinely desecrated the American flag while that government did absolutely nothing.
     If you tried to burn a flag in protest or (God forbid) wear a flag jacket, you would be arrested and sent to jail. That's the United States, folks. It says a lot about where we've come as a nation that it sounds so foreign to us. But that's how this country worked in the 1950's and 60's. That's the reality that the reactionaries in Congress and the White House are trying to bring us back to.

Morning People II

2005-06-21T13:36:00.000-04:00

The Return of the Morning People

     This may seem like a silly topic to you - along the lines of my Hebrew National Shortage article or my Disturbing Fiber Commentary or my rant on Kitchen Efficiency. Even my wife laughs when I bring it up. What a silly thing to worry about. If you're tired, just go to sleep earlier. Sure waking up at 5:30 is hard, but I do it, so why not you?
     In April, I explained Delayed Sleep Phase Syndrome, a recognized disorder that makes it as difficult for a "Night Person" to wake up at 6am as it would be for a "Morning Person" to wake up at 2am. Can you imagine going to sleep at 7pm and waking up at 2am every weekday of your life? It's one of those things you never get used to. I argued in April that it was a hidden discrimination in the workplace - that the vast majority of corporate dwellers are morning people simply because the Night People are either pushed out or not promoted for being lazy.
     Slate has an interesting article today that suggests that night people may not ever even make it to the corporate world, or even the top ten percent of college graduation. For years, we've been told to eat breakfast because we did better during the day. We were more alert, we were smarter, we worked harder. Studies (funded by Kellogg, but still valid) have repeatedly shown that people who regularly eat breakfast perform better during the day. Nobody knows exactly why that is, but people have put forth a lot of guesses. You know, like it gets your body's engine going, there's a blood sugar rush to the brain, it prevents hunger pang distractions, yada yada yada.
     Slate suggests that nobody has ever looked at that group that doesn't eat breakfast - the ones who can't seem to get out of bed in time to shower, get dressed, eat, and still make the school bus on time. I remember that if it came down to a choice between making the school bus and eating breakfast, I knew which side my mother preferred. Still, maybe the people who don't eat breakfast are the Night People, the people who are groggy and overtired to begin with. Schools start early. If you don't have kids, you might not remember. In my county, elementary schools begin at 8:15. High schools start at 7:30. When I was in high school in Florida, I had to be awake at 5:30 to make the bus to get to school before the bell so I was in my seat on time - otherwise I had detention. Not only that, my father certainly didn't want to drive me to school that was 20-30 minutes from both home and his work. 7:30!! Who among you gets to work at that time? And high school students are most affected by DSPS - due to their changing hormones, many experience some form of DSPS sometime during their teenage years. Slate references a Brown study that showed that the brain patterns of many teenagers look like that of narcoleptics. Narcolepsy can cause sufferers to fall asleep at the snap of a finger. Ever seen students sleeping in class? Sometimes they put their heads on the desk. Sometimes they're still sitting straight up, and occasionally still have their eyes open. Familiar with the "head nod"? Sometimes the first these kids know they're asleep is when their head droops and they jerk back upright, waking them up.
     I've had chalk erasers thrown at my head. I've come very close to throwing them back. The only thing that stopped me was extreme embarrassment at having fallen asleep to begin with. I also didn't get great grades, despite testing well. I don't know if I can correlate that with being sleepy. It would be interesting to pull out the old report cards and see if I did better in late morning or afternoon classes. Either way, Night Kids start out life with a serious disadvantage. In the best case scenario, lower grades only affects college choice, but in college students can sign up for later classes. In more likely scenarios, these kids never really learn what they could be learning in school, making them somewhat developmentally delayed. Some just figure they're stupid and never try too hard in the future. Some may give up entirely, as many developmentally delayed students do. Those kids drop out, join gangs, commit violence. Hmmm - maybe that's why gangs like to hang out at night?
     Slate reports that some schools are experimenting with later start times, and that's a good start. Parents, of course, are put out. Early school times fit in so neatly with their Morning People work schedule. I remember years ago there were some schools that ran on a split-shift to cut costs. I wouldn't have minded going to a school that started at noon. But there's hope on the professional front, as telecommuting becomes more prevalent. Take out 45 minutes of commute in the morning and 30 to 60 minutes of showering and getting dressed, and you're starting to talk about real sleep time. It's an idea whose time is overdue. And maybe those homeschoolers are on to something. In either case, however, you eliminate the social life. Making friends is easy when you're sitting next to them in misery for 8 hours, and that applies whether you're at work or school. Either way, being a Night Person means a lifetime of uphill climbs. All I can say is, "Fight the Man!" Night Power! (away!)

This is so gay...

2005-06-20T12:08:00.000-04:00

     Spain is about to pass a bill legalizing gay marriage in that country. Catholic bishops led a 1/2 million person protest Saturday, but polls indicate that the bill is favored by a majority of Spaniards. Anyway, I'm sure this story was written by a AP staffer in favor of the bill, but these quotes from the protesters are priceless.
     "Marriage can only be between man and a woman," said Agustin Cruz, 41. "It's a divine and natural law. Marriage of homosexuals is a lie. You have to call things by their name. The first lie begins when you start calling queers 'gays.' They're queers, it's not an insult, it's the definition of that race of people."
(I like how calling them gays instead of queers is against natural law)
     Father Jose Ramon Velasco said, "And they shouldn't have the right to adopt because if those children turn out to be homosexual, who will be to blame, the government?" "Back then [1930's] the majority of people also backed Hitler just like the majority back this law"
(I don't know which part I like better, that we have to blame someone if kids are gay, or that voting to extend rights to gays is akin to voting for someone who promises to mass murder them)
     The article also said, The Bishops' Conference last week said the gay marriage bill was the biggest challenge to the church and its values in 2,000 years. I'm not an expert on Spanish government. But unless the church is part of the government, I don't see how this bill affects the church. And I feel like the church has dealt with bigger challenges in 2,000 years - persecution of Christians in Rome, the Reformation in the middle ages, the breakaway of the entire country of England, the Papal Schism of the 14th century, priests molesting little boys in the 20th. To call Spain's legalization of 2 men to share a bank account and own a house together the "biggest challenge to the church in 2,000 years" is to show a complete lack of knowledge and respect for the church's history, and a gross overstatement of the impact of this law.

Criminal Alimony

2005-06-17T13:33:00.000-04:00

     A Georgia Supreme Court case was decided yesterday that made Delta Airlines executives breathe a sigh of relief. They ruled that airlines are not liable for traffic accidents caused by serving their passengers alcohol. The case in question involved a young man who was permanently disabled by a drunk driver. Jack Townsend was a 25 year old college grad who was getting certified to be a teacher. Today he still suffers from sever orthopedic injuries, has short-term memory loss, and works at a Chick-fil-A serving drinks. The driver was sentenced to probation, alcohol treatment, and 100 hours of community service, at the urging of Townsend's obviously very compassionate and forgiving family. But the thought struck me - Townsend will spend the rest of his life in crippling disability, probably never marry, never retire, never have kids or grandkids. After a few years having a blemished driving record, the driver will walk away free to forget that the incident ever occurred.
     Americans' attitudes towards justice have always fascinated me. Punishment has gone through many incarnations over the past few hundred years. (incarceration incarnation contemplation?) Lately, the buzzword has been "Victim's Rights". When it was a new concept in 1981, it referred to the right of crime victims to be informed, present, and heard at criminal proceedings. Today, there is a greater emphasis on the being heard part, implying (or sometimes just outright stating) that victims should have a say in a criminal's punishment. It certainly begs the question, "Why do we punish criminals?" IMNSHO, there are 3 reasons. 1) To deter the criminal from doing it again; 2) To discourage other potential criminals from trying the same thing; and 3) To satisfy a desire for revenge. #1 and #2 are certainly noble goals, although whatever we're doing isn't working very well. All we seem to be doing is creating smarter criminals. #3 is harder to justify. Not only should our government not be in the business of revenge, what good does it do either the victim or society as a whole?
     I read a very interesting paper on legal reparations today. If you get a chance, read it. It outlines reasons to move from a punitive criminal system to a reparative one. In the case of Townsend above, wouldn't it be more fair to have the driver subsidize him for the rest of his life? Certainly Townsend's earning potential is way down. The least the driver could do is send a portion of his paycheck each month to the victim to compensate for his loss of income....forever. Create an alimony of sorts to compensate him for losing his life. If it's appropriate for married people who have "become accustomed" to a lifestyle, shouldn't it be appropriate to a crippled victim? Since Townsend can't drive, maybe the driver should volunteer to chauffeur him around on the weekends (although, I'd personally be a little hesitant to drive with him). If you could enforce this type of penalty regularly, don't you think this would be a greater deterrent to drinking and driving than just losing your license? Appropriate, too. I remember hearing in some Social Studies class way back in the day (with no references to back myself up) that in some times of ancient history, when one man murdered another, instead of being locked up or executed, he was forced to work the fields of the murdered man's widow. Not only was he making some reparations, he was demonstrating good will and remorse. And even though nothing he can do will ever bring the murdered man back, he'll be able to reenter society at some point a lot easier than someone sitting for 15 years in jail. Besides, who can afford to house and feed and guard prisoners for years on end?
     You may remember a week or two ago that I mentioned that someone had knocked my mailbox down, along with those of at least 3 of my neighbors. While I was working at setting a new post the other day, one of my neighbors came over to talk to me. His own mailbox leaned at close to a 45° angle from a previous attack. "Don't you wish we could just kill them? That would teach them a lesson," he said, half in jest. Half. I sympathized with his desire for revenge. Every hour that I worked to pry up old concrete stuck in wet clay led to darker thoughts for the perpetrators. But to be honest, what I really wanted to do, if I caught the vandals, was to force them to not only pay for a new mailbox, but to install it themselves, maybe planting a few flowers under the mailbox, and perhaps mowing my lawn a few times, just to remind them how much work maintaining a house is without having to repair teenage damage. I really wouldn't physically hurt them (I think) and I wouldn't want to see them in jail. What good would that do? Of course the police are worthless. They tried to dissuade me from even filing a report.
     That's the real problem, I think. We ignore so many transgressions around us that some real percentage of the time, crimes go unpunished. How can we expect criminals to stop committing crimes if we aren't serious about reacting to them? I mean, Las Vegas makes billions of dollars by only paying out a tiny percentage of the time. If criminals have better odds on the streets of America, it will never cease. Maybe if we stopped simply filling jail cells and forced criminals (although I agree that violent criminals need to be sequestered from the rest of society) to make real restitution, we could afford to investigate small crimes. Make drunk drivers reimburse their victims for damages, not one time, but for as long as there are damages. Make doctors who commit malpractice correct whatever error they made and restore the patient's quality of life to what it was, instead of getting multi-million dollar settlements. Make shoplifters pay the cost, not only of the items stolen, but of the insurance, the alarm systems, the video cameras. Let's stop trying to punish people for the sake of revenge. It's not working for any of us. Let's try to make things right, instead.

Culture of Reality

2005-06-16T15:21:00.000-04:00

Sometimes the fact are stranger than fiction. Sometimes the facts are just the way things are. Luckily today we have another option - where opinion carries more weight than facts. We've seen this dynamic time and time again.

Cocaine was prohibited in the first part of the 20th century. Newspapers used terms like "Negro Cocaine Fiends" and "Cocainized Niggers" to drive up sales, causing a nationwide panic about the rape of white women by black men, high on cocaine. Many police forces changed from a .32 caliber to a .38 caliber pistol because the smaller gun was supposedly unable to kill black men when they were high on cocaine. src: Wikipedia

1937 saw the passage of the Marijuana Tax Act. Harry J. Anslinger (Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner) testified in hearings on the subject that the hemp plant needed to be banned because it had a violent "effect on the degenerate races". This specifically referred to Mexican immigrants

The Christianist argument that Evolution is only a theory with no more to back it up than the bible does is a third case, as is the 17th century church argument that Earth is the center of the Universe (not to mention that "geometry is the devil").
     However, the one thing that these cases of moral panic have in common is that they all rested near the boundaries of scientific knowledge. At the very least, these things are not readily observable. Evolution usually takes place over thousands and millions of years, and if you've never met a Mexican, who's to say marijuana doesn't have a violent effect? Of course, in all this anti-intellectual fervor, Bob & Mary Schindler, Terri Schiavo's parents have decided to get in on the action.
     I honestly did not expect to write about the results of Terri's autopsy. Even though the autopsy revealed that Terri was, in fact, brain dead by any definition of the word, even though her remaining bran mass weighed less than half of what a normal brain weighs, even though the part of her brain that sees was totally atrophied, I would have abstained. Even though Jeb did not apologize for creating such a huge furor, even though Bill Frist hasn't been impeached for his "expert testimony" that Terri responded to visual stimulation, even though nobody has recanted the slander against Michael Schiavo that he abused his wife, I was going to drop the issue. But now the headlines scream, "Schiavo's parents not swayed by autopsy results"! Of course, that's the AP title. On foxnews.com, the link to the story from the homepage reads, "Schiavo Kin: Autopsy Wrong". So now there is a conspiracy to kill Terri, not just from her widowed husband who wanted to marry another woman and make money from suing doctors, not just from the judges who happened to be assigned the case, not just Terri's doctors themselves, but the medical examiner is in on the conspiracy too?
     Look, I get that Terri's parents cracked a long time ago. They're babbling nonsense to whoever will listen. That's fine - they need help. But Fox News (sic) should not validate their crazy, wild-eyed ideas that despite the fact that the part of her brain that operated her eyes no longer existed, the Schindlers insist that Terri interacted with them and followed balloons around the room with her eyes. Why this hatred of science and facts and knowledge? The findings that Terri was, indeed, dead doesn't piss off the church. It just pisses off the people who wanted to make Terri into a political statement. And of course her parents, who have been divorced from reality since the early 90's. If you were to put Terri through any series of tests to determine A) if she were totally brain dead and B) if her husband had more right to speak for her than her parents, you would come to the same conclusion. Why? Because this woman has been overanalyzed more than anyone in the history of overanalysis, with the possible future exceptions of Jennifer Wilbanks and Natalee Holloway. (Amazing that these women have their own encyclopedia entries already) Every medical and legal test has been conducted, and except for the ones purchased for the sole purpose of disseminating false information, all have come back with the same conclusion. Stop attacking people who know what they're talking about. Is this what America has come to? In the age of Law and Order and CSI, everybody thinks they are qualified lawyers and judges and doctors and medical examiners. People, TV is great and all, but back in reality, these people know what they're talking about.