Okay, I get it. All those involved in Saturday Night Live (SNL) don't particularly care for the notion of Sarah Palin becoming Vice President of the United States of America. Or, at the very least, they think there's a lot of ratings mileage to be had by dumping on this slab of Republican fresh meat. The SNL opening skit from September 13 was very well conceived and excellently executed. To be sure, the Palin/HRC joint appearance skit lambasted Palin, but all the attacks were fair territory on the map of political debate. The September 20 opener for SNL was equally disparaging of the Republican ticket, but again spoke to legitimate areas of concern regarding the fairness and accuracy of political campaign ads.
What is not acceptable is the later skit, accusing Todd Palin of engaging in an incestuous and pedophilic relationship with his daughters. This sort of "humor" is so far outside the bounds of acceptable behavior that it is amazing even NBC couldn't figure it out and axe the skit. Yes, Sarah Palin and to a certain extent Todd have chosen to become public figures and as a result are fair game for what can be expected to be some pretty brutal attacks. The same is not true of their children. The children of political candidates, and indeed all public figures, are private citizens entitled to not only have that right respected but fiercely protected. To accuse Todd Palin of incest with his under age daughters, even in the guise of "humor", makes the attack very personal against those children and attacks them for being involved in two of the strictest taboos our society holds.
If the same sort of filth had been aired charging Barack Obama with engaging in an incestuous relationship with his own young daughters, how long would it have taken before the demand went out to revoke broadcast licenses, fire all those involved, and begin a criminal investigation into possible civil rights violations? Don Imus can report that such a witch hunt would have been fast, furious, and unrelenting.
The story is not even twelve hours old yet, so I will give Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt for the moment, but if he does not quickly come out to publicly and forcefully denounce this skit and the invasion of the privacy and innocence of the Palin daughters I will have no choice but to conlcude that he tacitly endorses this type of comedy in general and the specific attack being made against his political opponent and her family.
That truly would be the sort of change we can believe in from this nation's politicians.
(Strangely, an extensive search of the internet has yet to turn up any trace of video of this SNL skit having been posted. That alone should be a telling incrimination of just how far NBC stepped over the line last night. As soon as the video does become widely available, which it inevitably must, this posting will be updated to include such a link. Lokhi)
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Monday, September 15, 2008
Is Nancy Pelosi Janus' Baby Sister?
(Update - September 16 9:00 AM: What a difference a day makes! Check out this morning's New York Post.)
In Roman mythology, Janus was the two headed god (or two faced) looking both forward and backward. Recent developments surrounding Representative Charlie Rangel of New york could easily lead one to ask if Nancy Pelosi does not in fact count Janus as an ancestor. She certainly displays an adeptness at being two-faced as convenience dictates.
In 2004, Nancy Pelosi was firmly engaged in her all out battle to place herself two heartbeats away from the Presidency. As we all know, she finally succeeded in 2006 when the Democrats gained control of the House of Representatives and elected her to the post of Speaker. One of the key elements she orchestrated her personal campaign of ambition around was ethics. She drove this point home on election night 2006. "The American people voted to restore integrity and honesty in Washington, D.C., and the Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history," Pelosi said.
One of Speaker Pelosi's targets in 2004 was Tom DeLay. Following his indictment and subsequent Ethics Committee rebuke, Pelosi led the charge demanding that DeLay step down as Majority Leader and, preferably, leave the House. Which he ultimately did. She did not feel that such mundane things as a trial or conviction were necessary to obligate him to step down. His position was so important that he must be held to a higher ethical standard. Googling the phrase "Tom DeLay Pelosi resign" produces thousands of results that point to her demands DeLay be removed.
Today Charlie Rangel is under an increasingly dark cloud brought about by an ethics investigation he himself demanded. It appears that the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the group responsible or writing tax law among other things, has a bit of a problem when it comes to remembering to declare all his income. Or pay the taxes. Or even disclose what assets he has. Or maintain a consistent reporting of what worth those assets might hold.
It is commonly agreed ("commonly" being a word so close to consensus that, as with Global Warming this must be a fact) that the Ways and Means Committee is one of the most powerful and important committees on Capitol Hill. Surely Madame Speaker would expect Mr. Rangel to step down from his post immediately, even before the final results of the investigations and any subsequent actions are fully known, since a person in such an important post in our government must be held to a higher ethical standard. Apparently not. Quoting a story at wcbstv.com, "Despite Republican calls for Rangel to be stripped of his Ways and Means Committee chairmanship, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told CBS 2 HD it is not going to happen."
To be fair, Nancy Pelosi did take a bit more hard line stance with fellow Democrat William Jefferson when he was indicted for accepting bribes. And when some of the marked bribe money was found in his freezer. She wrote him a stern letter in May of 2006:
Madame Speaker, ethics is what you do when no one is watching, it is who you are and who you want those you associate with to be. Ethics is not a tool of convenience to be wielded for political gain or ignored when political face stands to be lost. Anyone who lacks the honor to at least strive to act in an ethical manner at all times lacks the right to demand ethical actions from others. You might keep that in mind as you sit there atop your glass Speaker's Throne.
In Roman mythology, Janus was the two headed god (or two faced) looking both forward and backward. Recent developments surrounding Representative Charlie Rangel of New york could easily lead one to ask if Nancy Pelosi does not in fact count Janus as an ancestor. She certainly displays an adeptness at being two-faced as convenience dictates.
In 2004, Nancy Pelosi was firmly engaged in her all out battle to place herself two heartbeats away from the Presidency. As we all know, she finally succeeded in 2006 when the Democrats gained control of the House of Representatives and elected her to the post of Speaker. One of the key elements she orchestrated her personal campaign of ambition around was ethics. She drove this point home on election night 2006. "The American people voted to restore integrity and honesty in Washington, D.C., and the Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history," Pelosi said.
One of Speaker Pelosi's targets in 2004 was Tom DeLay. Following his indictment and subsequent Ethics Committee rebuke, Pelosi led the charge demanding that DeLay step down as Majority Leader and, preferably, leave the House. Which he ultimately did. She did not feel that such mundane things as a trial or conviction were necessary to obligate him to step down. His position was so important that he must be held to a higher ethical standard. Googling the phrase "Tom DeLay Pelosi resign" produces thousands of results that point to her demands DeLay be removed.
Today Charlie Rangel is under an increasingly dark cloud brought about by an ethics investigation he himself demanded. It appears that the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the group responsible or writing tax law among other things, has a bit of a problem when it comes to remembering to declare all his income. Or pay the taxes. Or even disclose what assets he has. Or maintain a consistent reporting of what worth those assets might hold.
It is commonly agreed ("commonly" being a word so close to consensus that, as with Global Warming this must be a fact) that the Ways and Means Committee is one of the most powerful and important committees on Capitol Hill. Surely Madame Speaker would expect Mr. Rangel to step down from his post immediately, even before the final results of the investigations and any subsequent actions are fully known, since a person in such an important post in our government must be held to a higher ethical standard. Apparently not. Quoting a story at wcbstv.com, "Despite Republican calls for Rangel to be stripped of his Ways and Means Committee chairmanship, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told CBS 2 HD it is not going to happen."
To be fair, Nancy Pelosi did take a bit more hard line stance with fellow Democrat William Jefferson when he was indicted for accepting bribes. And when some of the marked bribe money was found in his freezer. She wrote him a stern letter in May of 2006:
Tough, no nonsense, ethical! Mr. Jefferson (is it merely a coincidence that he is on the same committee as Mr. Rangel?) did the only honorable thing, and responded:
Nancy Pelosi clearly made every effort to impose her ethical crusade upon an out of control congress. As Representative Jefferson of Louisiana shows though, what is a mere Democratic Leader to do?In a statement released by his office, Jefferson said he would not agree to Pelosi’s demand.
Madame Speaker, ethics is what you do when no one is watching, it is who you are and who you want those you associate with to be. Ethics is not a tool of convenience to be wielded for political gain or ignored when political face stands to be lost. Anyone who lacks the honor to at least strive to act in an ethical manner at all times lacks the right to demand ethical actions from others. You might keep that in mind as you sit there atop your glass Speaker's Throne.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Commendable Restraint, Dad
(Story updated at 8:00 PM 9/12/08 - link below changed to point to the article directly on the West Volusia News website.)
What do you do when you find a naked male in your teenage daughter's room? A 45-year-old father in Deltona answered that question with a metal pipe. After hearing noises coming from his daughter's room, he opened the door to discover her boyfriend standing in the bedroom. Naked. Not only did Dad not know his baby girl had a boyfriend, he was unaware the boy had been sneaking into the home for more than a year.
Deltona Dad chased the still naked boy from the home and onto the streets of Deltona, in the process inflicting a head injury with the pipe that required hospital care to treat. The dad was charged with "aggravated battery on a child", and bonded out on $10,000.
I'm not a legal scholar, but I am a Dad. It seems to me that if any aggravation took place in this scenario it was on the part of the young naked man in his daughter's bedroom. If anything, the father is to be commended for displaying commendable restraint in that he left the youth in a condition that was treatable rather than fatal.
Take it to trial. The trial ought to last all of about ten minutes. Explain that he had no idea who the boy was, only that there was a naked male in his precious baby's bedroom. As any right-thinking father who loves his family would do, Deltona Dad took prompt action to preserve his daughter from unknown but potentially great personal harm.
If even one member of the jury has - or ever had - a teenage daughter, Deltona Dad walks.
What do you do when you find a naked male in your teenage daughter's room? A 45-year-old father in Deltona answered that question with a metal pipe. After hearing noises coming from his daughter's room, he opened the door to discover her boyfriend standing in the bedroom. Naked. Not only did Dad not know his baby girl had a boyfriend, he was unaware the boy had been sneaking into the home for more than a year.
Deltona Dad chased the still naked boy from the home and onto the streets of Deltona, in the process inflicting a head injury with the pipe that required hospital care to treat. The dad was charged with "aggravated battery on a child", and bonded out on $10,000.
I'm not a legal scholar, but I am a Dad. It seems to me that if any aggravation took place in this scenario it was on the part of the young naked man in his daughter's bedroom. If anything, the father is to be commended for displaying commendable restraint in that he left the youth in a condition that was treatable rather than fatal.
Take it to trial. The trial ought to last all of about ten minutes. Explain that he had no idea who the boy was, only that there was a naked male in his precious baby's bedroom. As any right-thinking father who loves his family would do, Deltona Dad took prompt action to preserve his daughter from unknown but potentially great personal harm.
If even one member of the jury has - or ever had - a teenage daughter, Deltona Dad walks.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Put Down the Pencil Sharpener and Slowly Step Away From the Desk!
On Hilton Head Island, make sure your pencil sharpener is in good working order before taking it to school.
A ten-year-old fourth grader there has been suspended for at least two days, and could face further disciplinary action. What heinous crime did the youngster commit? It seems that his little plastic pencil sharpener broke, and he had the temerity to try and sharpen his pencil with the small blade normally housed within the plastic.
Randy Wall is a spokesman for the school district. He explained that school administrators are always in a very difficult position, stuck between the district's zero tolerance policy and common sense. "We're always going to do something to make sure the child understands the seriousness of having something that could potentially harm another student, but we're going to be reasonable," he said.
Reasonable? If the tiny blade in a hand-held pencil sharpener is such a deadly weapon, why is it even permissible for children to have them in the first place? Hordes of children could soon roam the halls with fingernail-sized blades obtained by smashing the flimsy plastic housing. Social order and the American educational system are in grave peril! Each school needs to have one approved sharpener installed per building with a security guard stationed by it at all times to ensure it is not misused.
Common sense would be the reasonable approach, Mr. Wall. You cite a standard of being able to "potentially harm another student". Yet I'm sure you permit pens, pencils, and compasses (the devices designed to draw circles with, not the orienteering aid) in the classroom. I suspect many if not most students have laces in their shoes and jackets. Are the kids permitted peanuts or peanut butter for lunch? How many X-Acto knives can be found in the art rooms in your school district? All of these items are potentially far more lethal to other students than a blade that is nearly impossible to grasp let alone effectively wield as a weapon.
Common sense? If this is the best you and your fellow bureaucrats can come up with as a common sense reaction then perhaps you should all resign en masse and let the inmates run the asylum. They certainly couldn't do any worse than you, and will almost certainly surprise you.
A ten-year-old fourth grader there has been suspended for at least two days, and could face further disciplinary action. What heinous crime did the youngster commit? It seems that his little plastic pencil sharpener broke, and he had the temerity to try and sharpen his pencil with the small blade normally housed within the plastic.
Randy Wall is a spokesman for the school district. He explained that school administrators are always in a very difficult position, stuck between the district's zero tolerance policy and common sense. "We're always going to do something to make sure the child understands the seriousness of having something that could potentially harm another student, but we're going to be reasonable," he said.
Reasonable? If the tiny blade in a hand-held pencil sharpener is such a deadly weapon, why is it even permissible for children to have them in the first place? Hordes of children could soon roam the halls with fingernail-sized blades obtained by smashing the flimsy plastic housing. Social order and the American educational system are in grave peril! Each school needs to have one approved sharpener installed per building with a security guard stationed by it at all times to ensure it is not misused.
Common sense would be the reasonable approach, Mr. Wall. You cite a standard of being able to "potentially harm another student". Yet I'm sure you permit pens, pencils, and compasses (the devices designed to draw circles with, not the orienteering aid) in the classroom. I suspect many if not most students have laces in their shoes and jackets. Are the kids permitted peanuts or peanut butter for lunch? How many X-Acto knives can be found in the art rooms in your school district? All of these items are potentially far more lethal to other students than a blade that is nearly impossible to grasp let alone effectively wield as a weapon.
Common sense? If this is the best you and your fellow bureaucrats can come up with as a common sense reaction then perhaps you should all resign en masse and let the inmates run the asylum. They certainly couldn't do any worse than you, and will almost certainly surprise you.
Anyone Remember 9/11/2001?
Seven years ago at this time, I was sitting in my office in a large suburb of Washington, D.C. We were just about to receive word that a plane had flown into the World Trade Center in New York. Initial reports were that it was a small plane, and several of us were joking, wondering what kind of an idiot could manage to fly a plane into a building that big on a clear day.
Several minutes later, word filtered in that another airplane had hit the second tower, and that it was a full sized passenger jet. As had been the first crash. Suddenly the joking was over, as we realized this was truly something serious.
In 2001, the internet was not nearly the source of live streaming video that it is today. CNN.com and MSNBC.com were among the primary sources of information on the attacks, along with local radio stations we were able to pull in. Online images were static snapshots, and as horrific as the pictures were they paled in comparison to motion footage. Work all but came to a halt that day. By 9:30 in the morning, the phones on our call center floor were nearly silent. We didn't have television available in the office, but as a technology company we had some pretty savvy players on our team. Within a few hours someone managed to get a broadcast signal pulled in and fed through a projector onto a darkened wall. The grainy images of people leaping to their deaths ahead of the collapse of the towers was the first thing we saw of the events in New York. We weren't working that day, but no one went anywhere, either. Some had no place else to go. Others, such as me, were effectively trapped in the area when the decision was made to suspend commuter rail service. Though train service was later restored that evening, I arranged to spend that night at the home of colleagues who lived nearby.
Seven years later, web news services acknowledge the day in passing, and all the radio news broadcasts I have heard give a nod to the day by reciting a laundry list of events before moving on to more important matters. We still have troops in the field taking fire as a result of these attacks. In Afghanistan we continue to pursue bin Laden. More indirectly as a result of the attacks, troops are also on active duty in Iraq.
We have not only been allowed to forget what really happened on 9-11, there has in fact been an active effort to put a wall between then and now. Remember, just not too acutely. Video of the planes hitting the towers? The towers falling? Fires burning and smoke rising over Manhattan? Dust covered wraiths wandering in a daze through the streets of New York? Effective refugees streaming across the river bridges to escape the island? Devastated friends and relatives desperate to find loved ones? All of these images are too intense to share with the American people. The wounds are too raw. We need to heal and move on. Seeing these pictures only inflames hate, and we need to be better than that.
Bullshit.
That's right, bullshit. We need to be reminded as often as possible of exactly what happened. What was done to us. Why we have men and women dying today in the Middle East, dying to help prevent even more Americans from dying here at home tomorrow.
Too many want everything to be all better, for the horror to be gone. And well, if Osama bin Laden and his buddies are still out there, well he hasn't done much recently. We're in his back yard now. We're provoking them. We should just be nice and go home and they'll just leave us all alone.
The growing segment of this population who wants to play ostrich, who thinks that it will all just get better if we stop worrying about 9-11 so much, disgusts me. The notion that running away from evil will end evil will only empower and embolden evil.
Two years ago, CNN online replayed their television broadcast for that day. I went to their web site that morning. I turned on the video stream, and I watched it every minute of the next six to eight hours. Yes it was disturbing. Yes it brought up memories and emotions I had forgotten I was experiencing that day, emotions I am feeling freshly again as these words are being written today. That was the single greatest public service that CNN has ever performed, and if only they would run that webcast again I would gladly watch. Again and again.
Maybe then this would stop being "Bush's War". Maybe then this would stop being "Bush Lied and Soldiers Died". Maybe we would remember what it is we're supposed to be fighting for, and actually rediscover the nerve to get the job done. Yes we need more men, and more materiel, especially in Afghanistan. What we need more than those though, desperately more, is will. The will to decide that what was done to us is not acceptable and will not be done again to us or anyone else. The will to partner with other nations and root out Al-Qaeda and all related terrorist organizations around the globe. The will to commit to winning rather than just treading water. The will to take this war back from the politicians and return it to honoring the memories of those who have died as a result of this war, not just here in the United States but in an ever growing list of countries around the world.
There is a web site that has gathered together much of what is available regarding 9-11. The September 11 Digital Archive (http://911digitalarchive.org/index.php). Go there. Review. Remember. Get those feelings back. Then find the courage to confront your political leaders. Tell them in no uncertain terms that 9-11 does not belong to either political party, that the lives of our soldiers are not to be used as sacrifices for domestic political victories. That the war on terror is not a Republican issue or a Democrat issue, but that it is a human issue. That politicians who can see no farther than "how will this effect our chances in the election" do a disservice to their country, to their constituents, and to the world. That if they can't do anything useful they should simply get off the stage, and if they can't figure out where the exit is on their own we will be more than happy to help them find it.
Sadly, we can't all just get along. We can however remember, stand up, and do our part to ensure that those who won't get along are not in a position to prevent the rest of us from getting along, living our lives and enjoying our families and loved ones.
Several minutes later, word filtered in that another airplane had hit the second tower, and that it was a full sized passenger jet. As had been the first crash. Suddenly the joking was over, as we realized this was truly something serious.
In 2001, the internet was not nearly the source of live streaming video that it is today. CNN.com and MSNBC.com were among the primary sources of information on the attacks, along with local radio stations we were able to pull in. Online images were static snapshots, and as horrific as the pictures were they paled in comparison to motion footage. Work all but came to a halt that day. By 9:30 in the morning, the phones on our call center floor were nearly silent. We didn't have television available in the office, but as a technology company we had some pretty savvy players on our team. Within a few hours someone managed to get a broadcast signal pulled in and fed through a projector onto a darkened wall. The grainy images of people leaping to their deaths ahead of the collapse of the towers was the first thing we saw of the events in New York. We weren't working that day, but no one went anywhere, either. Some had no place else to go. Others, such as me, were effectively trapped in the area when the decision was made to suspend commuter rail service. Though train service was later restored that evening, I arranged to spend that night at the home of colleagues who lived nearby.
Seven years later, web news services acknowledge the day in passing, and all the radio news broadcasts I have heard give a nod to the day by reciting a laundry list of events before moving on to more important matters. We still have troops in the field taking fire as a result of these attacks. In Afghanistan we continue to pursue bin Laden. More indirectly as a result of the attacks, troops are also on active duty in Iraq.
We have not only been allowed to forget what really happened on 9-11, there has in fact been an active effort to put a wall between then and now. Remember, just not too acutely. Video of the planes hitting the towers? The towers falling? Fires burning and smoke rising over Manhattan? Dust covered wraiths wandering in a daze through the streets of New York? Effective refugees streaming across the river bridges to escape the island? Devastated friends and relatives desperate to find loved ones? All of these images are too intense to share with the American people. The wounds are too raw. We need to heal and move on. Seeing these pictures only inflames hate, and we need to be better than that.
Bullshit.
That's right, bullshit. We need to be reminded as often as possible of exactly what happened. What was done to us. Why we have men and women dying today in the Middle East, dying to help prevent even more Americans from dying here at home tomorrow.
Too many want everything to be all better, for the horror to be gone. And well, if Osama bin Laden and his buddies are still out there, well he hasn't done much recently. We're in his back yard now. We're provoking them. We should just be nice and go home and they'll just leave us all alone.
The growing segment of this population who wants to play ostrich, who thinks that it will all just get better if we stop worrying about 9-11 so much, disgusts me. The notion that running away from evil will end evil will only empower and embolden evil.
Two years ago, CNN online replayed their television broadcast for that day. I went to their web site that morning. I turned on the video stream, and I watched it every minute of the next six to eight hours. Yes it was disturbing. Yes it brought up memories and emotions I had forgotten I was experiencing that day, emotions I am feeling freshly again as these words are being written today. That was the single greatest public service that CNN has ever performed, and if only they would run that webcast again I would gladly watch. Again and again.
Maybe then this would stop being "Bush's War". Maybe then this would stop being "Bush Lied and Soldiers Died". Maybe we would remember what it is we're supposed to be fighting for, and actually rediscover the nerve to get the job done. Yes we need more men, and more materiel, especially in Afghanistan. What we need more than those though, desperately more, is will. The will to decide that what was done to us is not acceptable and will not be done again to us or anyone else. The will to partner with other nations and root out Al-Qaeda and all related terrorist organizations around the globe. The will to commit to winning rather than just treading water. The will to take this war back from the politicians and return it to honoring the memories of those who have died as a result of this war, not just here in the United States but in an ever growing list of countries around the world.
There is a web site that has gathered together much of what is available regarding 9-11. The September 11 Digital Archive (http://911digitalarchive.org/index.php). Go there. Review. Remember. Get those feelings back. Then find the courage to confront your political leaders. Tell them in no uncertain terms that 9-11 does not belong to either political party, that the lives of our soldiers are not to be used as sacrifices for domestic political victories. That the war on terror is not a Republican issue or a Democrat issue, but that it is a human issue. That politicians who can see no farther than "how will this effect our chances in the election" do a disservice to their country, to their constituents, and to the world. That if they can't do anything useful they should simply get off the stage, and if they can't figure out where the exit is on their own we will be more than happy to help them find it.
Sadly, we can't all just get along. We can however remember, stand up, and do our part to ensure that those who won't get along are not in a position to prevent the rest of us from getting along, living our lives and enjoying our families and loved ones.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Make Way for the NAACOP
WCBStv.com is reporting on New York Governor David Paterson's assertion that the McCain-Palin campaign is racist.
What, you might well ask, is the basis for this accusation? Governor Paterson can probably best speak for himself:
"I think the Republican Party is too smart to call Barack Obama 'black' in a sense that it would be a negative. But you can take something about his life, which I noticed they did at the Republican Convention – a 'community organizer.' They kept saying it, they kept laughing," he said.
Gee, Guv, I'm not so sure your logic holds up there. I went to school with a large number of blacks ("African American" had not yet been invented as a term of division and victimization in the 1970s), and as far as I know not a single one of them were "community organizers". Throughout my career in a number of fields I have had bosses, colleagues, and subordinates who were black; not once did it occur to me to think of them as "community organizers".
Governor Paterson, do you think perhaps it would be accurate for the NAACP to change the name of the organization to National Association for the Advancement of Community Organizing People? No?
When Eliot Spitzer's personal foibles compelled him to resign his office, thereby elevating Paterson to the Governorship, there were stories in the news. Hey, did you know that Paterson guy will be the first legally blind governor? I'm pretty sure no one was using the phrase "legally blind" as a code word for black. That was simply a statement of fact. As it is a fact that Paterson is black.
Also a fact is Barack Obama's former life as a community organizer. He uses that past career as both explanation for why he's such a swell guy and justification for his leadership experience. When Sarah Palin raised the community organizer experience, it was to compare and contrast that entry on the resume with her own time serving Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. Is there anyone willing to make the absurd claim that "mayor" is code for "white"? Kwame Kilpatrick and Marion Barry don't exactly fit that stereotype - though both men have stereotyping issues of their own to overcome, so perhaps they aren't the best examples to cite here.
Governor Paterson, and everyone else: words mean things. The argument is used all the time to explain why certain words are not to ever be used - except for those times when it's okay. Rather than muddy the waters by trying to ascribe different, offensive, meanings to words spoken by public figures why not simply assume that what is said is what is meant unless facts prove otherwise?
Not very effective politics, I understand that. But it is an effective social policy that we as individuals can choose to implement over the objections of our politicians.
What, you might well ask, is the basis for this accusation? Governor Paterson can probably best speak for himself:
"I think the Republican Party is too smart to call Barack Obama 'black' in a sense that it would be a negative. But you can take something about his life, which I noticed they did at the Republican Convention – a 'community organizer.' They kept saying it, they kept laughing," he said.
Gee, Guv, I'm not so sure your logic holds up there. I went to school with a large number of blacks ("African American" had not yet been invented as a term of division and victimization in the 1970s), and as far as I know not a single one of them were "community organizers". Throughout my career in a number of fields I have had bosses, colleagues, and subordinates who were black; not once did it occur to me to think of them as "community organizers".
Governor Paterson, do you think perhaps it would be accurate for the NAACP to change the name of the organization to National Association for the Advancement of Community Organizing People? No?
When Eliot Spitzer's personal foibles compelled him to resign his office, thereby elevating Paterson to the Governorship, there were stories in the news. Hey, did you know that Paterson guy will be the first legally blind governor? I'm pretty sure no one was using the phrase "legally blind" as a code word for black. That was simply a statement of fact. As it is a fact that Paterson is black.
Also a fact is Barack Obama's former life as a community organizer. He uses that past career as both explanation for why he's such a swell guy and justification for his leadership experience. When Sarah Palin raised the community organizer experience, it was to compare and contrast that entry on the resume with her own time serving Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. Is there anyone willing to make the absurd claim that "mayor" is code for "white"? Kwame Kilpatrick and Marion Barry don't exactly fit that stereotype - though both men have stereotyping issues of their own to overcome, so perhaps they aren't the best examples to cite here.
Governor Paterson, and everyone else: words mean things. The argument is used all the time to explain why certain words are not to ever be used - except for those times when it's okay. Rather than muddy the waters by trying to ascribe different, offensive, meanings to words spoken by public figures why not simply assume that what is said is what is meant unless facts prove otherwise?
Not very effective politics, I understand that. But it is an effective social policy that we as individuals can choose to implement over the objections of our politicians.
Monday, September 08, 2008
Courting the PETA Vote to Combat Global Warming?
Dr. Rajendra Pachauri is the Chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). For those who have been Rip van Winkleing, these are the "consensus guys". That's the UN team who sought input from all the world's leading scientists and consolidated it into a massive report that proved human beings are single-handedly responsible for sending the planet down the crapper by causing global warming. Any data by scientists who disagreed with the desired outcome of the report was discarded, though those contributors names were retained to bolster the strength of the consensus. No amount of intellectual dishonesty is too much when the laudable goal of global governance and population oppression is at stake.
Dr. Pachauri is also to be congratulated on his good fortune. Last week he was re-elected to a second six-year term as head of the IPCC. Good for him - one six year term is simply not enough time to destroy the economy of an entire planet.
His latest gambit to save the planet: 'In terms of immediacy of action and the feasibility of bringing about reductions in a short period of time, it clearly is the most attractive opportunity,' said Pachauri. 'Give up meat for one day [a week] initially, and decrease it from there.'
Right. No thanks. Not only is the idea not the most attractive, it is not in the least bit attractive, Dr. P.
Does anyone think the fact Rajendra Pachauri is a strict vegetarian, or a follower of the Hindu faith might have in any way colored his suggestions? Surely I'm not the only cynic out there.
Dr. Pachauri, as a citizen of the second most populous nation on Earth, might take a look around next time he's wandering the 'hood and discern an even better approach to reducing the human carbon footprint: birth control! I'm just saying, Doc, people who are never born won't eat any meat - or use any other resources for that matter.
Rather than taxing and otherwise reducing the technological level of the planet to that of Calcutta in 1908, perhaps civilization, including those who are members of emerging nations, would be better served by pushing for development of replacement technologies that sustain and advance the standard of living for all peoples.
(On an only moderately related note, check out the photograph on Dr. Pachauri's Wikipedia page. Is Rajendra Pachuri really just Steve Jobs' alter ego? Has anyone ever seen the two of them together?)
.jpg)
Dr. Pachauri is also to be congratulated on his good fortune. Last week he was re-elected to a second six-year term as head of the IPCC. Good for him - one six year term is simply not enough time to destroy the economy of an entire planet.
His latest gambit to save the planet: 'In terms of immediacy of action and the feasibility of bringing about reductions in a short period of time, it clearly is the most attractive opportunity,' said Pachauri. 'Give up meat for one day [a week] initially, and decrease it from there.'
Right. No thanks. Not only is the idea not the most attractive, it is not in the least bit attractive, Dr. P.
Does anyone think the fact Rajendra Pachauri is a strict vegetarian, or a follower of the Hindu faith might have in any way colored his suggestions? Surely I'm not the only cynic out there.
Dr. Pachauri, as a citizen of the second most populous nation on Earth, might take a look around next time he's wandering the 'hood and discern an even better approach to reducing the human carbon footprint: birth control! I'm just saying, Doc, people who are never born won't eat any meat - or use any other resources for that matter.
Rather than taxing and otherwise reducing the technological level of the planet to that of Calcutta in 1908, perhaps civilization, including those who are members of emerging nations, would be better served by pushing for development of replacement technologies that sustain and advance the standard of living for all peoples.
(On an only moderately related note, check out the photograph on Dr. Pachauri's Wikipedia page. Is Rajendra Pachuri really just Steve Jobs' alter ego? Has anyone ever seen the two of them together?)
Rajendra Pachuri
.jpg)
Steve Jobs
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Californian Defies Stereotypes
Reading an article posted online in The Press Democrat, it would seem that not all Californians are crazed denizens of an alternate universe where common sense is prohibited and personal liberty is an affront to society at large. Indeed, it would seem that there are not only rational people living in California but they are in fact doing so by choice.
Carl Malamud is a Sebastopol, California, resident who has this silly notion that state governments, in fact all level of government, have no legitimate right to claim copyright to the laws they pass.
"We exercise our copyright to benefit the people of California," said Linda Brown, deputy director of the Office of Administrative Law, which manages the state's laws. "We are obtaining compensation for the people of California."
Really? The state government of California is the people of California. It is not some autonomous institution that the people have been blessed with. Whether elected representatives or employees of agencies constituted through the actions of elected representatives the government is an extension of the people, working on behalf of and for the benefit of the people.
One can obtain a digital copy of the California Code for a bargain price of only $1,556. A printed copy runs at $2,315. That's right - any citizen wishing to know and understand the laws they are obligated to live under must pay for that privilege. Laws conceived, created, and enacted by elected citizens whose salaries are paid by tax dollars extracted from those very same citizens. Citizens should then pay for the privilege of accessing the laws they have enacted? Would you stand for having to deposit a dollar every time you wanted to access your home or automobile, or turn on the television set you paid for to watch the ball game? Me neither.
Or, they can go to Carl Malamud's web site, public.resource.org, and review all 33,000 pages of the California Code for . . . free! The PDF files are even available for download.
Malamud has apparently done this before. In 1994 he was behind an effort that ultimately led to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission posting public corporate filings on the internet, making them freely and reasonably accessible to all. Earlier this year he convinced the State of Oregon that the laws of Oregon belong to the people of Oregon, and the copyright assertion by that state has since been dropped. Once he injects a bit of common sense into the California bureaucracy, Carl Malamud intends to go on and do the same for the remainder of the states and the Federal government as well.
A quick trip to the web site (I will definitely be going back) shows entries from at least 47 states. Though hardly exhaustive for each state, it is still a remarkable compilation of the laws of this land. I've done time in California (lived there as a requirement of my employment, not as a guest of the State thank you very much), and feel entitled to know the laws I was subject to. Just to thumb my nose at Sacramento I will certainly be downloading a copy of the California Code of Regulations.
Then I might just send an email to The Governator and Linda Brown (or try staff@oal.ca.gov) confessing my "crime". Why not do the same, especially if you live in California at the moment? Let them come and get us all for taking possession of what is ours in the first place! Crashing the email servers would be fun, too.
Carl Malamud is a Sebastopol, California, resident who has this silly notion that state governments, in fact all level of government, have no legitimate right to claim copyright to the laws they pass.
"We exercise our copyright to benefit the people of California," said Linda Brown, deputy director of the Office of Administrative Law, which manages the state's laws. "We are obtaining compensation for the people of California."
Really? The state government of California is the people of California. It is not some autonomous institution that the people have been blessed with. Whether elected representatives or employees of agencies constituted through the actions of elected representatives the government is an extension of the people, working on behalf of and for the benefit of the people.
One can obtain a digital copy of the California Code for a bargain price of only $1,556. A printed copy runs at $2,315. That's right - any citizen wishing to know and understand the laws they are obligated to live under must pay for that privilege. Laws conceived, created, and enacted by elected citizens whose salaries are paid by tax dollars extracted from those very same citizens. Citizens should then pay for the privilege of accessing the laws they have enacted? Would you stand for having to deposit a dollar every time you wanted to access your home or automobile, or turn on the television set you paid for to watch the ball game? Me neither.
Or, they can go to Carl Malamud's web site, public.resource.org, and review all 33,000 pages of the California Code for . . . free! The PDF files are even available for download.
Malamud has apparently done this before. In 1994 he was behind an effort that ultimately led to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission posting public corporate filings on the internet, making them freely and reasonably accessible to all. Earlier this year he convinced the State of Oregon that the laws of Oregon belong to the people of Oregon, and the copyright assertion by that state has since been dropped. Once he injects a bit of common sense into the California bureaucracy, Carl Malamud intends to go on and do the same for the remainder of the states and the Federal government as well.
A quick trip to the web site (I will definitely be going back) shows entries from at least 47 states. Though hardly exhaustive for each state, it is still a remarkable compilation of the laws of this land. I've done time in California (lived there as a requirement of my employment, not as a guest of the State thank you very much), and feel entitled to know the laws I was subject to. Just to thumb my nose at Sacramento I will certainly be downloading a copy of the California Code of Regulations.
Then I might just send an email to The Governator and Linda Brown (or try staff@oal.ca.gov) confessing my "crime". Why not do the same, especially if you live in California at the moment? Let them come and get us all for taking possession of what is ours in the first place! Crashing the email servers would be fun, too.
Saturday, September 06, 2008
'Georgia Congressman Calls Obamas 'Uppity'"
AP Story - 9/5/08
Is it a case of professed ignorance to conceal racism, or have the PC Police finally run up against their worst imaginable nightmare - success?
Representative Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) described the Obamas as a couple who ". . . thinks that they're uppity." Westmoreland was asked if that was really the word he meant to use, and confirmed that, yes, it was exactly what he meant.
Is Westmoreland to be believed when he claims to be unaware that "uppity" was commonly used as a derogatory term to describe blacks seeking equal treatment? Being a white man born in 1950 and raised in the south, Democrats are not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on that one. The head of the Georgia Democrat Party demanded Westmoreland apologize, saying the congressman's comments were “more of the same, tired old politics that are dividing this country.”
What if Westmoreland was sincere though? What if, as he claims, he was thinking of the dictionary definition that identifies uppity as "someone who is haughty, snobbish or has inflated self-esteem"? What if the negative connotation of that particular word, from a racial rather than social perspective, truly never crossed his mind or had ever even passingly resided there?
Accepting for the sake of argument the premise that Rep. Westmoreland was innocent of harboring racially insensitive intent in his comments, the Political Correctness movement is faced with a terrible dilemma. If the intent of PC is to stamp out divisiveness and inequality, to build a world in which we can simply all just get along, aren't they obligated to applaud a mind that has moved beyond misapplied connotations of words to instead use words with their explicit denotations instead?
Not really. Removing all racist, sexist, and every other divisionist interpretation words might carry would destroy the power base of the PC Police. Such an outcome would be as unthinkable as removing every facet of black existence in America from the realm of a white oppressive agenda would be to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. A community devoid of victims is not in need of self proclaimed messiahs.
This is just the most recent in a long string of attacks against legitimate use of the English language. In 1999, David Howard, an aid in the administration of Washington, D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams, was in a meeting with two city employee's. The city treasury was in a particularly dire condition at that time, and Howard expressed that he would need to be "niggardly" with his agency's budget. One of those in attendance at the meeting lacked a functional understanding of the English language, and as a result Howard was soon compelled to resign his position simply because the word niggardly is homophonously similar to nigger. Not that the two words have anything in common. Niggardly means miserly, and has no etymological connection to nigger at all. The two words sound alike though, and that is deemed more than sufficient for a public lynching.
Are the Obamas uppity? Perhaps. Does that make the one calling them that racist? Not necessarily. Racism is in the mind of the offender, not in the mind of the beholder who is desperate to find offense hiding beneath every rock and behind every tree. In the absence of proof otherwise, Westmoreland deserves to be taken at face value and on the strength of his assertions.
(Note: Some may be offended by the word "nigger" being used above. I most emphatically do not apologize for the appropriate and germane use of that word in a discussion regarding racial insensitivity and the harm specific words might have the capacity to inflict. No mature, intellectually honest author in any milieu would use the word "wee-wee place" to describe the penis in an article involving male genitalia. The same should be true for nigger or any other emotionally traumatic word. Applying a childish synonym or pretending to avoid the offensive word while using it endlessly, such as "the N-word", is intellectually dishonest and actually retards the stated goal of bringing respect and maturity to society as a whole. Those who are not satisfied with this explanation are welcome to go elsewhere, or take up their objections with someone who cares. Lokhi)
Is it a case of professed ignorance to conceal racism, or have the PC Police finally run up against their worst imaginable nightmare - success?
Representative Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) described the Obamas as a couple who ". . . thinks that they're uppity." Westmoreland was asked if that was really the word he meant to use, and confirmed that, yes, it was exactly what he meant.
Is Westmoreland to be believed when he claims to be unaware that "uppity" was commonly used as a derogatory term to describe blacks seeking equal treatment? Being a white man born in 1950 and raised in the south, Democrats are not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on that one. The head of the Georgia Democrat Party demanded Westmoreland apologize, saying the congressman's comments were “more of the same, tired old politics that are dividing this country.”
What if Westmoreland was sincere though? What if, as he claims, he was thinking of the dictionary definition that identifies uppity as "someone who is haughty, snobbish or has inflated self-esteem"? What if the negative connotation of that particular word, from a racial rather than social perspective, truly never crossed his mind or had ever even passingly resided there?
Accepting for the sake of argument the premise that Rep. Westmoreland was innocent of harboring racially insensitive intent in his comments, the Political Correctness movement is faced with a terrible dilemma. If the intent of PC is to stamp out divisiveness and inequality, to build a world in which we can simply all just get along, aren't they obligated to applaud a mind that has moved beyond misapplied connotations of words to instead use words with their explicit denotations instead?
Not really. Removing all racist, sexist, and every other divisionist interpretation words might carry would destroy the power base of the PC Police. Such an outcome would be as unthinkable as removing every facet of black existence in America from the realm of a white oppressive agenda would be to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. A community devoid of victims is not in need of self proclaimed messiahs.
This is just the most recent in a long string of attacks against legitimate use of the English language. In 1999, David Howard, an aid in the administration of Washington, D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams, was in a meeting with two city employee's. The city treasury was in a particularly dire condition at that time, and Howard expressed that he would need to be "niggardly" with his agency's budget. One of those in attendance at the meeting lacked a functional understanding of the English language, and as a result Howard was soon compelled to resign his position simply because the word niggardly is homophonously similar to nigger. Not that the two words have anything in common. Niggardly means miserly, and has no etymological connection to nigger at all. The two words sound alike though, and that is deemed more than sufficient for a public lynching.
Are the Obamas uppity? Perhaps. Does that make the one calling them that racist? Not necessarily. Racism is in the mind of the offender, not in the mind of the beholder who is desperate to find offense hiding beneath every rock and behind every tree. In the absence of proof otherwise, Westmoreland deserves to be taken at face value and on the strength of his assertions.
(Note: Some may be offended by the word "nigger" being used above. I most emphatically do not apologize for the appropriate and germane use of that word in a discussion regarding racial insensitivity and the harm specific words might have the capacity to inflict. No mature, intellectually honest author in any milieu would use the word "wee-wee place" to describe the penis in an article involving male genitalia. The same should be true for nigger or any other emotionally traumatic word. Applying a childish synonym or pretending to avoid the offensive word while using it endlessly, such as "the N-word", is intellectually dishonest and actually retards the stated goal of bringing respect and maturity to society as a whole. Those who are not satisfied with this explanation are welcome to go elsewhere, or take up their objections with someone who cares. Lokhi)
1-800-STAMP24?
Oh, sure, the phone number on the current duck stamp was supposed to read 1-800-STAMP24. As everyone knows, though, mistakes do sometimes happen.
Such as accidentally printing the number as 1-800-TRAMP-24.
What a difference a couple of letters make.
1-800-STAMP24 takes callers to the opportunity to purchase the current Migratory Bird Conservation and Hunting.
1-800-TRAMP-24 takes callers to the opportunity to purchase, well, whatever one might expect to purchase at a service called "Intimate Connections". (Editorial Note: Anyone unable to imagine what might be purchase through such a service really ought not be reading this post.)
A spokesperson for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has said the $15.00 stamps will continue to be sold with the "misprinted" phone number. Reprinting the stamps would cost $300,000, money they believe would be better spent on conservation. Perhaps for the next stamp they should budget one hour's worth of minimum wage time for a proof reader?
In an interview with the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Rachel Levin with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said "The stamp is perfectly usable. It will just be a lot more interesting for people now."
So, why night take a few minutes out of your busy day and show your interest in "conservation". Pick up a phone and call 1-800-TRAMP24. No doubt, they will have many interesting suggestions as to what you might do with a duck . . ..
Such as accidentally printing the number as 1-800-TRAMP-24.
What a difference a couple of letters make.
1-800-STAMP24 takes callers to the opportunity to purchase the current Migratory Bird Conservation and Hunting.
1-800-TRAMP-24 takes callers to the opportunity to purchase, well, whatever one might expect to purchase at a service called "Intimate Connections". (Editorial Note: Anyone unable to imagine what might be purchase through such a service really ought not be reading this post.)
A spokesperson for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has said the $15.00 stamps will continue to be sold with the "misprinted" phone number. Reprinting the stamps would cost $300,000, money they believe would be better spent on conservation. Perhaps for the next stamp they should budget one hour's worth of minimum wage time for a proof reader?
In an interview with the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Rachel Levin with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said "The stamp is perfectly usable. It will just be a lot more interesting for people now."
So, why night take a few minutes out of your busy day and show your interest in "conservation". Pick up a phone and call 1-800-TRAMP24. No doubt, they will have many interesting suggestions as to what you might do with a duck . . ..
Friday, September 05, 2008
Question of the Day: September 5, 2008
A circle is said to have no beginning and no end. If this is indeed the case, do circles in fact exist?
C-SPAN (Almost) Rocks
Last night I watched the John McCain show. I happened to watch it on a PBS channel, mainly because the picture quality was far better than what Comcast gives me for C-Span. Even seeing the speeches on PBS, I was reminded why I have gravitated towards C-SPAN for viewing conventions and State of the Union addresses in recent years.
PBS did not have any annoying crawls across the bottom of the screen. They did however have a cast of characters who felt the need to tell me what was about to be said, what just had been said, what it meant, what I should think about what I had just seen and heard, and how this all relates to the much larger picture of doing whatever it takes to get Barack Obama elected as the savior of the United States and all humanity.
CNN and FOX crank that nonsense up a bit further. With their endless crawls across the bottom of the screen and constant flicker of graphics placed just below the speaker, viewers are subjected to reiteration, interpretation and overt political commentary while the speech is still in progress.
Anyone who is going to rely on Wolf Blitzer, Brit Hume, Tom Brokaw, Katie Couric or Charlie Gibson to tell them what to think and who to vote for really shouldn't be involved in the electoral process. Or the gene pool for that matter.
As an informed voter, I do not require my news to be interpreted or presented, I simply ask that it be reported. Provide me with access to the facts, and I will evaluate those facts and arrive at my own conclusions. Presenting the viewer with a conclusion and then supporting that conclusion with only selected, non-contradictory facts is not reporting it is editorializing.
Strangely, these same people criticize and dismiss as irrelevant all the moronic Dittoheads for receiving their daily briefing from the puppet master and then acting in lockstep accordance with Rush Limbaugh. Worse, they truly don't seem to recognize a parallel between the two situations.
News ought not be a matter of Right and Left, or even of Right and Wrong, even when that news is alleged coverage of political events. News simply is. Deliver the facts, as many as possible from all possible viewpoints. Put that news channel on television, put that philosophy into a daily newspaper, and I will be among the first to watch or activate my subscription.
C-SPAN comes closest, though when they open the phone lines at the end of any covered event, the calls they take and commentary they make quickly reveals a discernible bias on their part as well.
No matter how hard we try, Heaven will clearly never be a place on Earth.
PBS did not have any annoying crawls across the bottom of the screen. They did however have a cast of characters who felt the need to tell me what was about to be said, what just had been said, what it meant, what I should think about what I had just seen and heard, and how this all relates to the much larger picture of doing whatever it takes to get Barack Obama elected as the savior of the United States and all humanity.
CNN and FOX crank that nonsense up a bit further. With their endless crawls across the bottom of the screen and constant flicker of graphics placed just below the speaker, viewers are subjected to reiteration, interpretation and overt political commentary while the speech is still in progress.
Anyone who is going to rely on Wolf Blitzer, Brit Hume, Tom Brokaw, Katie Couric or Charlie Gibson to tell them what to think and who to vote for really shouldn't be involved in the electoral process. Or the gene pool for that matter.
As an informed voter, I do not require my news to be interpreted or presented, I simply ask that it be reported. Provide me with access to the facts, and I will evaluate those facts and arrive at my own conclusions. Presenting the viewer with a conclusion and then supporting that conclusion with only selected, non-contradictory facts is not reporting it is editorializing.
Strangely, these same people criticize and dismiss as irrelevant all the moronic Dittoheads for receiving their daily briefing from the puppet master and then acting in lockstep accordance with Rush Limbaugh. Worse, they truly don't seem to recognize a parallel between the two situations.
News ought not be a matter of Right and Left, or even of Right and Wrong, even when that news is alleged coverage of political events. News simply is. Deliver the facts, as many as possible from all possible viewpoints. Put that news channel on television, put that philosophy into a daily newspaper, and I will be among the first to watch or activate my subscription.
C-SPAN comes closest, though when they open the phone lines at the end of any covered event, the calls they take and commentary they make quickly reveals a discernible bias on their part as well.
No matter how hard we try, Heaven will clearly never be a place on Earth.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Safety Break
If you happen to be driving along the Eisenhower Interstate Highway system this Labor Day weekend, you may notice "Safety Break" signs posted at many of the highway rest areas. When you do, please consider taking a moment to drop in. Not only will you benefit from the chance to stretch your legs and take care of a few other necessities, but you may just get an opportunity to help someone else out in the process.
At many of the Safety Break locations you will find complimentary food and drinks being handed out. These sites are staffed by a variety of charitable and public service oriented organizations. Though the food and beverage offerings are not for sale, donations are gratefully accepted - and necessary to keep these facilities operating.
I'm am personally familiar with the logistics of one of these operations as the parent of a Webelos Scout whose Pack and Troop are manning the north bound I-81 rest area near Inwood, West Virginia. From Noon Friday until 6:00 PM Monday scouts are staffing the tables, handing out hot dogs, chili dogs, and a variety of drinks to road weary travelers. Did I mention they are supervised throughout by a team of dedicated Scout leaders and parents? Perhaps committed is a better word to describe the leaders and parents - or in need of being committed?
This weekend, and any time you are traveling and find one of these Safety Breaks in operation, take advantage. Grab a bite to eat and a bit to drink, and drop a little bit in the donation jar. The food will be every bit as good, and you can be certain your funds will be put to a better use and be far more appreciated than they will be by a King or a Clown.
At many of the Safety Break locations you will find complimentary food and drinks being handed out. These sites are staffed by a variety of charitable and public service oriented organizations. Though the food and beverage offerings are not for sale, donations are gratefully accepted - and necessary to keep these facilities operating.
I'm am personally familiar with the logistics of one of these operations as the parent of a Webelos Scout whose Pack and Troop are manning the north bound I-81 rest area near Inwood, West Virginia. From Noon Friday until 6:00 PM Monday scouts are staffing the tables, handing out hot dogs, chili dogs, and a variety of drinks to road weary travelers. Did I mention they are supervised throughout by a team of dedicated Scout leaders and parents? Perhaps committed is a better word to describe the leaders and parents - or in need of being committed?
This weekend, and any time you are traveling and find one of these Safety Breaks in operation, take advantage. Grab a bite to eat and a bit to drink, and drop a little bit in the donation jar. The food will be every bit as good, and you can be certain your funds will be put to a better use and be far more appreciated than they will be by a King or a Clown.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Sarah Palin
Am I the only one who thinks Sarah Palin looked like a clone of Geena Davis in "Commander in Chief" during her introductory speech today?
American Communist Lackey Union?
I know that's not the officially designated meaning of that acronym, but it would be pretty tough to build a compelling argument that naming them the American Communist Lackey Union is inaccurate.
As reported this morning on the WND web site, the ACLU (more properly known as the American Civil Liberties Union) has filed suit in US District Court in Florida on behalf of two high school students who are "offended by the school's policy of allowing prayer at voluntary events and holding Christmas concerts at churches".
Offended? Get over it. I may have missed it and am willing to stand corrected if so, but I'm pretty sure that no part of the Constitution or it's subsequent amendments guarantee we won't suffer the unimaginable trauma of being offended.
Daniel Mach, director of litigation for the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Beliefs, "said he believes the school should refrain from endorsing religions". Perhaps Mr. Mach should take a look at his office letterhead and then pull out a dictionary for a bit of remedial education. "Freedom of Religion" is emphatically not the same thing as "Freedom FROM Religion".
Religion exists, in this country and in this world. Religions fit under several broad umbrellas, and each umbrella shelters numerous variations on a particular theme. Even the vast majority of agnostic and atheist individuals subscribe to moral codes and conventions of social comportment that are reflective of those religions they denounce. The only difference is that their chosen lifestyle does not invoke deity as a framework.
That students are permitted to pray does not obligate others to follow along. That attendees at events are asked to stand as a prayer is offered does not obligate them to agree with the prayer any more than a child being asked to stand with his classmates while the Pledge of Allegiance is recited is obligated to believe or even recite the words of the Pledge. It is simply a show of respect and social common courtesy for their peers. That the school cafeteria chooses to serve cheeseburgers on Thursday is neither an indication the Jews are unwelcome or Jimmy Buffet is their hero. Unless conducted within the context of a broader service, concerts given in the month of December in a church are merely taking advantage of an available venue and not inherently religious simply because of the location.
Being exposed to a wide variety of experiences, evaluating those experiences, and discussing them with respected elders in your community - such as parents - is what is required to grow up and become a functional, educated citizen. No single group has a monopoly on what is right, or what should properly be encountered in public. Likewise, no single group is entitled to prevent the public expression of any other viewpoint or lifestyle.
"The government should not be in the business of deciding which religions to promote," [Mach] said in an ACLU statement. "Individuals, families and religious communities should be free to make their own decisions about religion."
How right you are, Mr. Mach. The government should also not be in the business of deciding which viewpoints, religious or otherwise, are to be suppressed.
As reported this morning on the WND web site, the ACLU (more properly known as the American Civil Liberties Union) has filed suit in US District Court in Florida on behalf of two high school students who are "offended by the school's policy of allowing prayer at voluntary events and holding Christmas concerts at churches".
Offended? Get over it. I may have missed it and am willing to stand corrected if so, but I'm pretty sure that no part of the Constitution or it's subsequent amendments guarantee we won't suffer the unimaginable trauma of being offended.
Daniel Mach, director of litigation for the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Beliefs, "said he believes the school should refrain from endorsing religions". Perhaps Mr. Mach should take a look at his office letterhead and then pull out a dictionary for a bit of remedial education. "Freedom of Religion" is emphatically not the same thing as "Freedom FROM Religion".
Religion exists, in this country and in this world. Religions fit under several broad umbrellas, and each umbrella shelters numerous variations on a particular theme. Even the vast majority of agnostic and atheist individuals subscribe to moral codes and conventions of social comportment that are reflective of those religions they denounce. The only difference is that their chosen lifestyle does not invoke deity as a framework.
That students are permitted to pray does not obligate others to follow along. That attendees at events are asked to stand as a prayer is offered does not obligate them to agree with the prayer any more than a child being asked to stand with his classmates while the Pledge of Allegiance is recited is obligated to believe or even recite the words of the Pledge. It is simply a show of respect and social common courtesy for their peers. That the school cafeteria chooses to serve cheeseburgers on Thursday is neither an indication the Jews are unwelcome or Jimmy Buffet is their hero. Unless conducted within the context of a broader service, concerts given in the month of December in a church are merely taking advantage of an available venue and not inherently religious simply because of the location.
Being exposed to a wide variety of experiences, evaluating those experiences, and discussing them with respected elders in your community - such as parents - is what is required to grow up and become a functional, educated citizen. No single group has a monopoly on what is right, or what should properly be encountered in public. Likewise, no single group is entitled to prevent the public expression of any other viewpoint or lifestyle.
"The government should not be in the business of deciding which religions to promote," [Mach] said in an ACLU statement. "Individuals, families and religious communities should be free to make their own decisions about religion."
How right you are, Mr. Mach. The government should also not be in the business of deciding which viewpoints, religious or otherwise, are to be suppressed.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
HRC and WJC
No one who spends more than about three seconds with me when a conversation concerning The Clintons erupts will ever mistake me for a partisan of their particular brand of politics. The social and financial constraints they and their ilk wish to inflict on this nation are irrational at best, and downright dangerous at worst from both a fiscal and national security standpoint.
And yet.
And yet, I have truly enjoyed the past two nights of the Democrat Convention.
Tuesday night I listened to Hillary Clinton. Revisionist history aside, I found myself appreciating her speech. Some of the details and interpretations of her experiences in the 1990s don't agree with the days I lived through at that time, but I've come to expect and accept that I will be hearing those fairy tales when listening to these people speak.
What impressed me the most was how she delivered the speech. There were times Tuesday night when I heard echoes of former Texas governor Anne Richards giving her famous "silver foot in his mouth" keynote address at the 1988 convention. With the tonality and pacing, there were several points I kept waiting for Hillary to deliver the line. More than that though, I was truly amazed at just how far the junior Senator from New York has come during the past eighteen months that have been this campaign. The lady at that podium was composed, confident, and poised to a degree that the shrill voiced cackler never could have pulled off.
I still couldn't find much to agree with her about. She did a great job of selling Hillary, which was to be expected. She endorsed Barack Obama, which was required, though it came across sounding more like "since you screwed up and didn't pick me, Barack Obama is at least a whole lot better than that McCain guy."
On a side note, Chelsea really needs to go back to the day job. She is definitely not film narrator material, as she proved during the introductory video for her mother.
Then came Wednesday night.
William Jefferson Clinton took the stage and it was clear that he had come home. He not only looked like he was in his element, he clearly reveled in the adulation. Sure, he made a pretense of trying to get everyone quiet and back in their seats, but he didn't resent a minute of the time they spent worshiping him.
And then he finally began to speak. First, he is to be commended for giving a truly unequivocal endorsement of Barack Obama as a strong leader ready and capable of assuming the mantle of responsibility that comes with the Oval Office. Whether he was sincere in expressing those words or not, Bill Clinton sounded like he meant them. The anointing of Barack Obama was far stronger than many pundits believed would be the case before Clinton spoke.
Listening to Bill Clinton speak, I could not help but be impressed. Much of the time I was loudly disagreeing with him from the couch, pointing out lies and inconsistencies much to the consternation of my wife who was not nearly as personally invested in the evening as I was. And yet, I also found myself liking hearing him deliver the speech and on some levels wanting to believe what he was saying.
In that respect, I was transported back to the days of Ronald Reagan. Even for those who disagreed with what he might be saying, it was almost impossible to not feel good hearing Reagan say it. Bill Clinton possesses that same oratorical capacity to make his audience want to be on his side. I found myself thinking much the same thing when reading Clinton's autobiography. The section on the presidential years was mostly tedious since it was so well known and predictably self serving. Even so, the narrative voice of Bill Clinton was unquestionably appealing. From the earliest pages, he was the stereotypical Elder Southern Gentleman telling a tale. Anyone would be excited to sit out on the wrap around front porch with him, sipping lemonade beneath the slowly spinning ceiling fan while Clinton spins whatever entertaining yarn he wants you to hear.
Politically The Clintons and I have fewer points of commonality than disagreement. Even so, while I don't think I'll ever want to knock back a bourbon with Hillary, Bill Clinton is one of the few politicians of either party I would truly enjoy spending an evening with, having a couple of beers and maybe watching the West Virginia Mountaineers or Maryland Terrapins steamroll the Arkansas Razorbacks.
And yet.
And yet, I have truly enjoyed the past two nights of the Democrat Convention.
Tuesday night I listened to Hillary Clinton. Revisionist history aside, I found myself appreciating her speech. Some of the details and interpretations of her experiences in the 1990s don't agree with the days I lived through at that time, but I've come to expect and accept that I will be hearing those fairy tales when listening to these people speak.
What impressed me the most was how she delivered the speech. There were times Tuesday night when I heard echoes of former Texas governor Anne Richards giving her famous "silver foot in his mouth" keynote address at the 1988 convention. With the tonality and pacing, there were several points I kept waiting for Hillary to deliver the line. More than that though, I was truly amazed at just how far the junior Senator from New York has come during the past eighteen months that have been this campaign. The lady at that podium was composed, confident, and poised to a degree that the shrill voiced cackler never could have pulled off.
I still couldn't find much to agree with her about. She did a great job of selling Hillary, which was to be expected. She endorsed Barack Obama, which was required, though it came across sounding more like "since you screwed up and didn't pick me, Barack Obama is at least a whole lot better than that McCain guy."
On a side note, Chelsea really needs to go back to the day job. She is definitely not film narrator material, as she proved during the introductory video for her mother.
Then came Wednesday night.
William Jefferson Clinton took the stage and it was clear that he had come home. He not only looked like he was in his element, he clearly reveled in the adulation. Sure, he made a pretense of trying to get everyone quiet and back in their seats, but he didn't resent a minute of the time they spent worshiping him.
And then he finally began to speak. First, he is to be commended for giving a truly unequivocal endorsement of Barack Obama as a strong leader ready and capable of assuming the mantle of responsibility that comes with the Oval Office. Whether he was sincere in expressing those words or not, Bill Clinton sounded like he meant them. The anointing of Barack Obama was far stronger than many pundits believed would be the case before Clinton spoke.
Listening to Bill Clinton speak, I could not help but be impressed. Much of the time I was loudly disagreeing with him from the couch, pointing out lies and inconsistencies much to the consternation of my wife who was not nearly as personally invested in the evening as I was. And yet, I also found myself liking hearing him deliver the speech and on some levels wanting to believe what he was saying.
In that respect, I was transported back to the days of Ronald Reagan. Even for those who disagreed with what he might be saying, it was almost impossible to not feel good hearing Reagan say it. Bill Clinton possesses that same oratorical capacity to make his audience want to be on his side. I found myself thinking much the same thing when reading Clinton's autobiography. The section on the presidential years was mostly tedious since it was so well known and predictably self serving. Even so, the narrative voice of Bill Clinton was unquestionably appealing. From the earliest pages, he was the stereotypical Elder Southern Gentleman telling a tale. Anyone would be excited to sit out on the wrap around front porch with him, sipping lemonade beneath the slowly spinning ceiling fan while Clinton spins whatever entertaining yarn he wants you to hear.
Politically The Clintons and I have fewer points of commonality than disagreement. Even so, while I don't think I'll ever want to knock back a bourbon with Hillary, Bill Clinton is one of the few politicians of either party I would truly enjoy spending an evening with, having a couple of beers and maybe watching the West Virginia Mountaineers or Maryland Terrapins steamroll the Arkansas Razorbacks.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Perhaps Green Isn't So Bad After All
It's amazing what you can run into wandering around the internet. Take this article found on treehugger.com for example.
Given the sheltered existence I lead, I have never heard of the LUSH chain of "fresh, handmade cosmetics" stores. From what I can tell, the big draw is that these guys are very environmentally friendly - natural ingredients, recycled materials, and an absolute minimum of packaging.
A practice they have apparently chosen to extend to their in store staff as well. In order to help educate the public about how much wasteful packaging exists on nearly every product sold, LUSH is asking their US employees to show up for work in nothing but their aprons today. Which, from the accompanying YouTube video, seem to be on a par with hospital gowns but not quite as effective at concealing the wearer.
Less packaging is a good thing. At least while the weather holds. I'd even consider making a special trip down to the Washington, DC, area to purchase minimally packaged products from minimally packaged purveyors.
For those who asked I would claim it was because of my newly found commitment to a Greener Lifestyle. The half tank of gas or more spent on each trip would probably more than offset any carbon credit eco-points I might earn as an ecologically sensitive consumer though.
Given the sheltered existence I lead, I have never heard of the LUSH chain of "fresh, handmade cosmetics" stores. From what I can tell, the big draw is that these guys are very environmentally friendly - natural ingredients, recycled materials, and an absolute minimum of packaging.
A practice they have apparently chosen to extend to their in store staff as well. In order to help educate the public about how much wasteful packaging exists on nearly every product sold, LUSH is asking their US employees to show up for work in nothing but their aprons today. Which, from the accompanying YouTube video, seem to be on a par with hospital gowns but not quite as effective at concealing the wearer.
Less packaging is a good thing. At least while the weather holds. I'd even consider making a special trip down to the Washington, DC, area to purchase minimally packaged products from minimally packaged purveyors.
For those who asked I would claim it was because of my newly found commitment to a Greener Lifestyle. The half tank of gas or more spent on each trip would probably more than offset any carbon credit eco-points I might earn as an ecologically sensitive consumer though.
What Am I Missing?
I'm willing to admit that I may not be the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, but I can walk and chew gum at the same time while still continuing to breathe unassisted. Why is it, then, that I don't understand this whole illegal immigrant thing?
Yesterday, nearly 600 immigrants from eight countries were rounded up at the Howard Industries transformer plant in Laurel, Mississippi, on suspicion of being in the United States illegally.
In many cases, mothers were fitted with monitoring bracelets and allowed to go home to care for young children who might otherwise be unattended. Husbands were not so lucky, with some being transferred to a holding facility and others being brought to federal court on criminal charges of allegedly using false Social Security numbers and residency identification. Immigrant parents are afraid to send their kids to school for fear they'll be picked up. One detainee described the horrible experience of co-workers applauding as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents led suspects away.
"We have kids without dads and pregnant mothers who got their husbands taken away. It was like a horror story. They got handled like they were criminals."
They got handled like they were criminals.
This is the area where I need a little bit of help.
It is conceivable that several of those detained are in this country legally. They will be processed and eventually released. It is unfortunate, but many innocent citizens are arrested every day for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with immigration or ethnicity and later cleared and released.
Of those who are in the U.S. illegally though, why shouldn't they be treated like criminals? Why shouldn't law abiding citizens applaud when those who disdain our laws are arrested and taken away?
Are any of those in this country illegally here because a gun was put to their heads and they were forced to come here? Doubtful.
Is this another example of evil federal officials sending in the ICE storm troopers in an anti-Mexican racist cleansing of the homeland? Again doubtful, otherwise those detainees from Brazil, El Salvador, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, and Peru would have been left alone. (Germany? Who let that arrest happen?)
The solution to the problem of government agents carting away illegal immigrants by the busload from factories and plants across the country is not to have the government stop enforcing immigration laws, as some would wish. Much as not exceeding the speed limit will generally protect a driver form receiving a speeding ticket, not entering the country by illegal methods will generally protect an immigrant from being arrested for being here illegally.
Mississippi is to be applauded for following Arizona's lead and making Mississippi an unwelcome place to those in this country illegally. Beginning July 1 of this year, all Mississippi businesses with government contracts are obligated to check the immigration status of all new employees through a Homeland Security system. All other business are required to comply beginning January 1, 2009. An additional provision of the law makes it a felony for an illegal immigrant to accept a job in Mississippi.
Laws like these are the sort of action necessary to begin taking control of the border security problem. If there are no jobs available to those who "only" violate the territorial sovereignty of the United States, then they won't be nearly as inclined to enter this country in the first place. Cut down the flood of people with legitimate economic interests entering this country illegally rather than through proper channels and the security of this nation will be improved at all ports of entry. Those with nefarious intent will be more readily identified because they won't have as dense a crowd to hide in.
As has been noted previously, illegal immigration is not a “Mexican” problem, nor will it be solved by building a fence on the southern border. That Mexicans make up the majority of those here illegally is only a matter of proximity and economic conditions in that country, not race.
Until someone can rationally explain to me why I should believe otherwise, I refuse to feel sorry for families traumatized by the consequences of their own decision to enter this country illegally. “You made your bed, now sleep in it!” comes to mind, and places the burden of guilt for the disruption these families experience squarely where it belongs.
Yesterday, nearly 600 immigrants from eight countries were rounded up at the Howard Industries transformer plant in Laurel, Mississippi, on suspicion of being in the United States illegally.
In many cases, mothers were fitted with monitoring bracelets and allowed to go home to care for young children who might otherwise be unattended. Husbands were not so lucky, with some being transferred to a holding facility and others being brought to federal court on criminal charges of allegedly using false Social Security numbers and residency identification. Immigrant parents are afraid to send their kids to school for fear they'll be picked up. One detainee described the horrible experience of co-workers applauding as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents led suspects away.
"We have kids without dads and pregnant mothers who got their husbands taken away. It was like a horror story. They got handled like they were criminals."
They got handled like they were criminals.
This is the area where I need a little bit of help.
It is conceivable that several of those detained are in this country legally. They will be processed and eventually released. It is unfortunate, but many innocent citizens are arrested every day for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with immigration or ethnicity and later cleared and released.
Of those who are in the U.S. illegally though, why shouldn't they be treated like criminals? Why shouldn't law abiding citizens applaud when those who disdain our laws are arrested and taken away?
Are any of those in this country illegally here because a gun was put to their heads and they were forced to come here? Doubtful.
Is this another example of evil federal officials sending in the ICE storm troopers in an anti-Mexican racist cleansing of the homeland? Again doubtful, otherwise those detainees from Brazil, El Salvador, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, and Peru would have been left alone. (Germany? Who let that arrest happen?)
The solution to the problem of government agents carting away illegal immigrants by the busload from factories and plants across the country is not to have the government stop enforcing immigration laws, as some would wish. Much as not exceeding the speed limit will generally protect a driver form receiving a speeding ticket, not entering the country by illegal methods will generally protect an immigrant from being arrested for being here illegally.
Mississippi is to be applauded for following Arizona's lead and making Mississippi an unwelcome place to those in this country illegally. Beginning July 1 of this year, all Mississippi businesses with government contracts are obligated to check the immigration status of all new employees through a Homeland Security system. All other business are required to comply beginning January 1, 2009. An additional provision of the law makes it a felony for an illegal immigrant to accept a job in Mississippi.
Laws like these are the sort of action necessary to begin taking control of the border security problem. If there are no jobs available to those who "only" violate the territorial sovereignty of the United States, then they won't be nearly as inclined to enter this country in the first place. Cut down the flood of people with legitimate economic interests entering this country illegally rather than through proper channels and the security of this nation will be improved at all ports of entry. Those with nefarious intent will be more readily identified because they won't have as dense a crowd to hide in.
As has been noted previously, illegal immigration is not a “Mexican” problem, nor will it be solved by building a fence on the southern border. That Mexicans make up the majority of those here illegally is only a matter of proximity and economic conditions in that country, not race.
Until someone can rationally explain to me why I should believe otherwise, I refuse to feel sorry for families traumatized by the consequences of their own decision to enter this country illegally. “You made your bed, now sleep in it!” comes to mind, and places the burden of guilt for the disruption these families experience squarely where it belongs.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Jericho Scott - Welcome to the Real World
Jericho Scott is a nine year old boy. He plays baseball, or at least he did until recently. It seems little Jericho throws a 40 mile per hour fastball. That is not typical for those in his peer group. Indeed, many of those who had to face this demon of the diamond were frightened.
Reading the story, it turns out that there were more than a few parents also who felt Jericho was just too good to be facing their little Johnnys and Joanies (it's a mixed gender league). He might strike them out - and that could hurt their feelings. He might strike them - and that would just plain hurt. Not that he ever has hit a batter, but hey, it could happen.
Reading further, it turns out that another team in the league wanted him to join them at the start of the season. That team happens to be the defending league champion. That team also happens to be sponsored by the employer of one of the league administrators. That would also just happen be one of the same league administrators who decided that when Jericho's team was going to let him continue pitching instead of exiling him to second base or the outfield that Jericho's team would simply be disbanded and the players distributed to other teams.
Well, most of the players anyway. Jericho of course isn't all that welcome in these parts any more. The league did offer to refund his $50.00 registration fee, and many have even suggested he should be placed on an older team or in a more competitive league. Because letting a little boy play a child's game with his friends and neighbors for the simple joy of it is ridiculous.
Jericho Scott has been taught at nine years old one of the most fundamental rules of our society: Strive to succeed at all costs, just don't be so good at it that you actually do succeed or your jealous peers will tear you down. The corollary lesson learned is that wild success is okay, so long as you do it on the terms of those in power rather than your own terms. The winners, the leaders, the successful ones are those who say screw it and do what they want and do it well.
Quoting from the article:
Reading the story, it turns out that there were more than a few parents also who felt Jericho was just too good to be facing their little Johnnys and Joanies (it's a mixed gender league). He might strike them out - and that could hurt their feelings. He might strike them - and that would just plain hurt. Not that he ever has hit a batter, but hey, it could happen.
Reading further, it turns out that another team in the league wanted him to join them at the start of the season. That team happens to be the defending league champion. That team also happens to be sponsored by the employer of one of the league administrators. That would also just happen be one of the same league administrators who decided that when Jericho's team was going to let him continue pitching instead of exiling him to second base or the outfield that Jericho's team would simply be disbanded and the players distributed to other teams.
Well, most of the players anyway. Jericho of course isn't all that welcome in these parts any more. The league did offer to refund his $50.00 registration fee, and many have even suggested he should be placed on an older team or in a more competitive league. Because letting a little boy play a child's game with his friends and neighbors for the simple joy of it is ridiculous.
Jericho Scott has been taught at nine years old one of the most fundamental rules of our society: Strive to succeed at all costs, just don't be so good at it that you actually do succeed or your jealous peers will tear you down. The corollary lesson learned is that wild success is okay, so long as you do it on the terms of those in power rather than your own terms. The winners, the leaders, the successful ones are those who say screw it and do what they want and do it well.
Quoting from the article:
League officials say Jericho's mother became irate, threatening them and vowing to get the league shut down.
"I have never seen behavior of a parent like the behavior Jericho's mother exhibited Wednesday night," Noble [League attorney Peter Noble] said.
Scott [Nicole Scott, Jericho's mother] denies threatening any one, but said she did call the police.
What planet has Noble been living on that he's never seen a parent get feisty over a group of self-important idiots trying to keep their kid down? I'm disappointed for my kids when they are kept on the bench instead of put into the game, but I accept that some kids are better than other kids at certain things, and that there not only will but in fact should be winners in losers in most facets of life. If others are better and get the bulk of the field time, so be it. However, if one of my children were a stand-out star in their sport and they were being benched in favor of a kid without the capacity to find the ground with their foot I would be inclined to call into question either the mental capacity or the ethical development of the coaching staff and or league officials. Their choice - admitting to either explanation for their incompetence would be acceptable to me.
Jericho Scott - you go ahead and keep doing what you want and doing it well. I guarantee you that fifteen years from now when you win your first Cy Young award that there will be several current officials of the Youth Baseball League of New Haven who will be telling anyone who will listen how they recognized your talent way back in 2008 and pushed you onward and upward to bigger and better things when lesser souls would have tried to hold you back. When that happens, I hope you have the grace and class to smile indulgently and ignore them.
Then you truly will be a winner, and they will be revealed for the petulant children they truly are.
What planet has Noble been living on that he's never seen a parent get feisty over a group of self-important idiots trying to keep their kid down? I'm disappointed for my kids when they are kept on the bench instead of put into the game, but I accept that some kids are better than other kids at certain things, and that there not only will but in fact should be winners in losers in most facets of life. If others are better and get the bulk of the field time, so be it. However, if one of my children were a stand-out star in their sport and they were being benched in favor of a kid without the capacity to find the ground with their foot I would be inclined to call into question either the mental capacity or the ethical development of the coaching staff and or league officials. Their choice - admitting to either explanation for their incompetence would be acceptable to me.
Jericho Scott - you go ahead and keep doing what you want and doing it well. I guarantee you that fifteen years from now when you win your first Cy Young award that there will be several current officials of the Youth Baseball League of New Haven who will be telling anyone who will listen how they recognized your talent way back in 2008 and pushed you onward and upward to bigger and better things when lesser souls would have tried to hold you back. When that happens, I hope you have the grace and class to smile indulgently and ignore them.
Then you truly will be a winner, and they will be revealed for the petulant children they truly are.
Grow Up!
"Seniors see red over 'old people crossing' sign" screams the headline in the World Net Daily article. The picture accompanying the story shows a London traffic sign warning that the area is an "Elderly People" crossing. The sign is a red bordered triangle depicting a stereotypical old couple, shuffling along, hunched over, the old woman hanging on her old man companion, who is only kept from falling over by his cane.
Predictably, senior citizen groups are in an uproar because the sign doesn't accurately portray the fitter, more active population of seniors wandering the streets these days.
No kidding.
The depiction is not flattering, but then it isn't intended to be. Drivers are not being advised to keep an eye out for seventy year old decathletes who make forty-something blog authors seem near death. The sign is intended to advise that this is an area where drivers have a high probability of encountering pedestrians who are likely older and likely to be incapable of clearing the crosswalk in a timely manner. The sign very clearly and succinctly conveys that message in a manner that anyone can comprehend.
As a society, we are becoming conditioned to ferret out any possible offense in every situation. If it isn't immediately apparent on the surface the offensive message will no doubt be discernible if only we dig a little deeper.
Grow up. Please. This sign is no more offensive to seniors than are the signs warning that children play in a given area (not all of them will run into the street - should that sign be banned also?), or deaf children are in an area (not all children there are deaf - isn't that offensive to those who are afflicted with an aural detection capacity?), or school children could potentially be crossing ahead (because being on their way to school they are too ignorant to look both ways before crossing?).
Not every person in a given area will fit the characteristics of the class drivers are being alerted to be vigilant for. For those who don't belong to the group in question - great! For those who do, they would probably appreciate not being run down by an impatient or inattentive driver. Those same drivers will no doubt appreciate not doing the running over.
Ultimately, how many of us lead lives so cushy that how Less Than Fully Active and Capable Citizens of Advancing Chronology are depicted on traffic safety signs rises up to the level of serious issues to be tackled?
Predictably, senior citizen groups are in an uproar because the sign doesn't accurately portray the fitter, more active population of seniors wandering the streets these days.
No kidding.
The depiction is not flattering, but then it isn't intended to be. Drivers are not being advised to keep an eye out for seventy year old decathletes who make forty-something blog authors seem near death. The sign is intended to advise that this is an area where drivers have a high probability of encountering pedestrians who are likely older and likely to be incapable of clearing the crosswalk in a timely manner. The sign very clearly and succinctly conveys that message in a manner that anyone can comprehend.
As a society, we are becoming conditioned to ferret out any possible offense in every situation. If it isn't immediately apparent on the surface the offensive message will no doubt be discernible if only we dig a little deeper.
Grow up. Please. This sign is no more offensive to seniors than are the signs warning that children play in a given area (not all of them will run into the street - should that sign be banned also?), or deaf children are in an area (not all children there are deaf - isn't that offensive to those who are afflicted with an aural detection capacity?), or school children could potentially be crossing ahead (because being on their way to school they are too ignorant to look both ways before crossing?).
Not every person in a given area will fit the characteristics of the class drivers are being alerted to be vigilant for. For those who don't belong to the group in question - great! For those who do, they would probably appreciate not being run down by an impatient or inattentive driver. Those same drivers will no doubt appreciate not doing the running over.
Ultimately, how many of us lead lives so cushy that how Less Than Fully Active and Capable Citizens of Advancing Chronology are depicted on traffic safety signs rises up to the level of serious issues to be tackled?
Thursday, August 07, 2008
The First One Hundred Posts
When Go Play in the Street was initially conceived, the title of this post should have been “The First One Hundred Days”. Good intentions are wonderful things; but as anyone knows who has fumbled helplessly for an excuse that doesn’t exist, good intentions simply don’t get the job done. Begun on November 5, 2004, a Friday, daily posts should have set the hundredth free upon the internet somewhere around February 13, 2005. Even being generous and allowing for the odd weekend and holiday, certainly this point should have been reached by March 1 of that year.
Only three years, five months, and a handful of days behind schedule. Not bad for government work. Unfortunately, this isn’t government work. It is, instead, simply a labor of love.
Quite a bit has happened along the way. Yasser Arafat exited the world stage. Ariel Sharon did as well, though he insists on lingering in the wings – not alive but refusing to succumb to death. Saddam Hussein also left this life, though in his case a bit more assistance was provided to him than the others. Who ever expected to see an execution broadcast to the world via cell phone video? Many other leaders have come and gone, both through the political process and a bit more permanently. Ronald Reagan comes to mind.
In the first meaningful post to this blog I predicted the popular election of Hamas, and warned against defying the will of the Palestinian people simply because it was not the will of Israel and the United States. Fourteen months later, in January of 2006, Hamas did indeed win control of the Palestinian parliament. As predicted, those who demand free and fair elections (so long as the results are the ones desired) were not happy, declared the elections invalid, unacceptable, and generally a bad thing all around. Funding to the region was cut off and the Palestinians physically isolated from the rest of the world to convince them to see things our way. So much for respecting the will of the people and the integrity of the ballot box.
Would that every prediction could be so accurate. Living the life of a lottery winner would no doubt be a pleasure!
I’ve had the opportunity to travel extensively during this time. Many places didn’t live up to their advance billing. Many others, often places I would have never considered going, were far more interesting than I could have ever imagined and I would gladly go back again.
I have reconnected with old friends and made many new ones during these years. I’ve been given a grandchild, and seen a son head off to Iraq. I was also more privileged than some in that I also was able to see him safely home again. To those who have served and returned home I say thank you and welcome home. To those still over there – all the many “over there” locations we are currently involved in – thanks to you as well, and we’ll be waiting for you. To those who went and couldn’t make it back, thanks to you, and to the families you left behind.
It has been said elsewhere that the last shall be first. If you are encountering this blog for the first time today then this last (or at least most recent) post will indeed be the first you encounter. Please go back and enjoy one perspective on politics, human perversity, and general observation from nearly four years in a life.
Much has changed in those four years, and for good or ill all too much has remained the same.
Only three years, five months, and a handful of days behind schedule. Not bad for government work. Unfortunately, this isn’t government work. It is, instead, simply a labor of love.
Quite a bit has happened along the way. Yasser Arafat exited the world stage. Ariel Sharon did as well, though he insists on lingering in the wings – not alive but refusing to succumb to death. Saddam Hussein also left this life, though in his case a bit more assistance was provided to him than the others. Who ever expected to see an execution broadcast to the world via cell phone video? Many other leaders have come and gone, both through the political process and a bit more permanently. Ronald Reagan comes to mind.
In the first meaningful post to this blog I predicted the popular election of Hamas, and warned against defying the will of the Palestinian people simply because it was not the will of Israel and the United States. Fourteen months later, in January of 2006, Hamas did indeed win control of the Palestinian parliament. As predicted, those who demand free and fair elections (so long as the results are the ones desired) were not happy, declared the elections invalid, unacceptable, and generally a bad thing all around. Funding to the region was cut off and the Palestinians physically isolated from the rest of the world to convince them to see things our way. So much for respecting the will of the people and the integrity of the ballot box.
Would that every prediction could be so accurate. Living the life of a lottery winner would no doubt be a pleasure!
I’ve had the opportunity to travel extensively during this time. Many places didn’t live up to their advance billing. Many others, often places I would have never considered going, were far more interesting than I could have ever imagined and I would gladly go back again.
I have reconnected with old friends and made many new ones during these years. I’ve been given a grandchild, and seen a son head off to Iraq. I was also more privileged than some in that I also was able to see him safely home again. To those who have served and returned home I say thank you and welcome home. To those still over there – all the many “over there” locations we are currently involved in – thanks to you as well, and we’ll be waiting for you. To those who went and couldn’t make it back, thanks to you, and to the families you left behind.
It has been said elsewhere that the last shall be first. If you are encountering this blog for the first time today then this last (or at least most recent) post will indeed be the first you encounter. Please go back and enjoy one perspective on politics, human perversity, and general observation from nearly four years in a life.
Much has changed in those four years, and for good or ill all too much has remained the same.
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
John McCain Asked - I Answered
John McCain (or more likely some generic flunky within the campaign) posted a question today on LinkedIn. Since he was kind enough to ask, I thought it would only be polite to answer.
Question:
What new ideas or technologies should we be investing in today?
Question:
What new ideas or technologies should we be investing in today?
Our government has thrown around enough money subsidizing special interests and excusing failure. It is time for solutions.
Please read the speech below, and share your answers with me to this pressing question:
http://www.johnmccain.com/energysecurity/
What new technologies or new ideas should we be investing in today?
My Answer:
John -
Greenhouse gasses may or may not be the issue all the doomsayers insist, but even the most anti-green people out there would have to agree that it can't hurt anything to stop pumping carbon into the atmosphere.
It can't hurt, that is, unless in doing so you bankrupt the world’s consumers, starve them by burning their food for fuel, and regulate viable alternatives out of existence. Let it become economically viable and you will be amazed at how Green big business suddenly and truly becomes. Not “carbon credits” or “cap and trade” but the real, meaningful thing.
Drill. Now. Whether it takes two years or seven or ten or twenty doesn't really matter, we will still need that oil when it hits the market. If all goes well it won't be needed to power transportation, but we will still use computers and plastic bags, still wear clothes and eyeglasses, still drink bottled water and play sports and engage in a whole host of activities that require petroleum. Converting carbon into things instead of burning it for energy will still keep the bulk of it locked up and out of the atmosphere.
Having acknowledged that, get the heck out of the way of the American Capitalist. Don't bribe him; just let him do what he does best. Find newer and better ways to produce energy from wind, water, the sun, geothermal, nuclear and many other means that will be developed over time. It doesn't take tax money being fished out of my pocket to bring about innovation. Only the foolish sort of people who truly believe large corporations actually pay taxes instead of passing those costs along to the consumer will believe that your proposed $5,000 tax credit to the purchaser is anything other than a stage magician’s trick that will raise the sticker price of those new zero-emission cars by exactly $5,000. From your lips to big auto’s hips – and the consumer is supposed to feel good because he’s being “given” something. It takes government removing regulatory roadblocks and disincentives. It takes leadership with the courage to explain to the tree huggers that the barn swallow existed long before barns did, and the same bird would muddle along just fine if all barns were eliminated tomorrow. Some old things give way to new - that is life, and natural, and not always pleasant. Plants and animals managed to become extinct long before humankind showed up to help things along, and would continue to do so even if the mother ship came and collected each of us this afternoon.
What we need to invest in is the free market and ingenuity. Leave the thinkers and tinkerers alone to do their jobs, and they will come up with profitable ways to feed, clothe, shelter, and power this civilization that do not render the planet uninhabitable. When they do so, do not penalize them for success. Winning is a not a crime, it is a virtue. Winning is accomplished by those who are not too lazy to get off their backsides and accomplish something with the life they have been given. The Constitution points out the God given right to the pursuit of happiness. Nowhere are you guaranteed it will be brought to you while chomping Ding Dongs in front of the television set.
You want a new idea to invest in, John? Invest in respect - respect for oneself, respect for one's family, respect for one's community, and respect for the idea that no one should ever be allowed to do for you that which you are more than capable of doing yourself.
Nail that, and the rest would wind up taking care of itself.
Where Are the PC Police?
From The Salt Lake Tribune, online, August 6, 2008
Kresta Spencer and Carrie Taylor hosted a "celebration of their love", and wanted to share their joy with the readers of the Logan, Utah, The Herald-Journal. So, they took out an ad on the Wedding Announcements page - since the paper apparently lacks a Celebration of Love announcements page. And as a lesbian couple, they can't exactly get married in Utah.
And that is where the fun begins. While there were communications expressing support for the couple, a strongly worded letter to the editor denouncing the inclusion of the ad in The Herald-Journal led to well over 200 comments online as well as at least two other published, directly related, letters to the editor and their associated comments. The battle lines are predictably drawn between "You're all going to burn in Hell" and "We have rights as human beings too - leave them alone!". There is also a predictably large contingent of "Swiss" out there advocating rational thought, calm dialogue, and "gee, gosh, can't we all just find some way to get along."
In addition to the two additional letters to the editor mentioned above ("fairly" balanced with one pro and one con on the subject), the article also reports numerous telephone call, emails, and at least four subscription cancellations over the newspaper daring to print such an immoral ad.
Which leads to the question - Where are the PC police?
Clearly, Logan, Utah, and the areas exposed to the article and its derivatives are a hotbed of anti-homosexual hate mongering. Many of the online posters probably could be tracked down if absolutely necessary, but four subscribers to the paper have conveniently self-identified and need to be immediately arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent possible under hate crimes laws. Four examples to hold up before the populace should be enough to make the rabble-rousers cower suitably in their dank little bolt-holes.
How dare they inflict financial harm upon the paper because of their bigoted views? What country do they think they live in that they can cancel subscriptions with impunity just because they don't wish to be subjected to a bunch of faggot-pandering promoters of sin? Do they really believe they can force their narrow minded and self-righteous morality on others who are more enlightened?
Look, what you do in your own bedroom is your own business and for the most part I'm going to leave you alone over it. I also would never think of inflicting the view of me in a Speedo on innocent beach goers - though recognize there are men even older and more overweight than myself who lack my insight and compassion for others. I simply do my best not to direct my gaze at the spectacle.
There is probably much that you do that annoys me, revolts me, and yes even disturbs me deeply on a completely visceral level. I fully expect that upon close interaction and examination you would be able to say the same about me.
Those differences are good, and healthy, and to be encouraged.
I fully embrace your freedom of expression, even as I expect you to embrace mine. Not just even but especially if you disagree with it. As soon as I can deny you the right to your expression, someone else has the right to deny me. I fear that far more that I fear you quoting Gloria Steinem or Snoop Dog at me.
It is through disagreement and dialogue that we grow, as individuals and as a people. Argument - in the civilized sense of the word, rather than the playground interpretation most people embrace - and moral suasion are the way to determine over much time what we collectively as a society feel is right. Come to my church, hear about the world of my God as interpreted by my clergy, and walk away with what you will. Or take away nothing - your choice, and perhaps your loss. In exchange, when you approach me on the street and tell me why your path is so much better than mine I promise I will listen and consider your words. I won't guarantee to agree with you, but I also won't beat you up, burn your home, or demand you be persecuted for a hate crime just because you don't share my world view and had the temerity to try and broaden my horizons with the arguments of your sincerely held perspective. (And no, that is not a typographical error. Hate crimes laws are institutionalized persecution, wrapped up in a shiny, acceptable, prosecution bow.)
Conversation. Dialogue. Mutual understanding. The end results are far more enduring than simply bludgeoning one message or another out of existence. Because the message, the viewpoint, the lifestyle that is "eliminated" in fact isn't. At best it is driven underground, where it festers, and grows, becomes wiser and stronger and bides its time for an appropriate opportunity to make a bid for daylight. And that chance will come. Look at all the Christians who suddenly came scrambling out of the woodwork after the fall of the Soviet Union. Or those who still exist in China.
This is not the "Swiss" solution, which figures as long as no one is actually shooting and everyone is being left alone then everything must be alright. This is a much tougher solution, because it seeks to bring all parties to a broader understanding that everyone can live with. Balkanization of humanity is not, in the long run, productive for anyone.
Morality can never be successfully legislated. It can only be arrived at through a long and sometimes tortuous process of soul searching and debate. Understanding will always triumph over imposition, no matter how long it takes.
Kresta Spencer and Carrie Taylor hosted a "celebration of their love", and wanted to share their joy with the readers of the Logan, Utah, The Herald-Journal. So, they took out an ad on the Wedding Announcements page - since the paper apparently lacks a Celebration of Love announcements page. And as a lesbian couple, they can't exactly get married in Utah.
And that is where the fun begins. While there were communications expressing support for the couple, a strongly worded letter to the editor denouncing the inclusion of the ad in The Herald-Journal led to well over 200 comments online as well as at least two other published, directly related, letters to the editor and their associated comments. The battle lines are predictably drawn between "You're all going to burn in Hell" and "We have rights as human beings too - leave them alone!". There is also a predictably large contingent of "Swiss" out there advocating rational thought, calm dialogue, and "gee, gosh, can't we all just find some way to get along."
In addition to the two additional letters to the editor mentioned above ("fairly" balanced with one pro and one con on the subject), the article also reports numerous telephone call, emails, and at least four subscription cancellations over the newspaper daring to print such an immoral ad.
Which leads to the question - Where are the PC police?
Clearly, Logan, Utah, and the areas exposed to the article and its derivatives are a hotbed of anti-homosexual hate mongering. Many of the online posters probably could be tracked down if absolutely necessary, but four subscribers to the paper have conveniently self-identified and need to be immediately arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent possible under hate crimes laws. Four examples to hold up before the populace should be enough to make the rabble-rousers cower suitably in their dank little bolt-holes.
How dare they inflict financial harm upon the paper because of their bigoted views? What country do they think they live in that they can cancel subscriptions with impunity just because they don't wish to be subjected to a bunch of faggot-pandering promoters of sin? Do they really believe they can force their narrow minded and self-righteous morality on others who are more enlightened?
Look, what you do in your own bedroom is your own business and for the most part I'm going to leave you alone over it. I also would never think of inflicting the view of me in a Speedo on innocent beach goers - though recognize there are men even older and more overweight than myself who lack my insight and compassion for others. I simply do my best not to direct my gaze at the spectacle.
There is probably much that you do that annoys me, revolts me, and yes even disturbs me deeply on a completely visceral level. I fully expect that upon close interaction and examination you would be able to say the same about me.
Those differences are good, and healthy, and to be encouraged.
I fully embrace your freedom of expression, even as I expect you to embrace mine. Not just even but especially if you disagree with it. As soon as I can deny you the right to your expression, someone else has the right to deny me. I fear that far more that I fear you quoting Gloria Steinem or Snoop Dog at me.
It is through disagreement and dialogue that we grow, as individuals and as a people. Argument - in the civilized sense of the word, rather than the playground interpretation most people embrace - and moral suasion are the way to determine over much time what we collectively as a society feel is right. Come to my church, hear about the world of my God as interpreted by my clergy, and walk away with what you will. Or take away nothing - your choice, and perhaps your loss. In exchange, when you approach me on the street and tell me why your path is so much better than mine I promise I will listen and consider your words. I won't guarantee to agree with you, but I also won't beat you up, burn your home, or demand you be persecuted for a hate crime just because you don't share my world view and had the temerity to try and broaden my horizons with the arguments of your sincerely held perspective. (And no, that is not a typographical error. Hate crimes laws are institutionalized persecution, wrapped up in a shiny, acceptable, prosecution bow.)
Conversation. Dialogue. Mutual understanding. The end results are far more enduring than simply bludgeoning one message or another out of existence. Because the message, the viewpoint, the lifestyle that is "eliminated" in fact isn't. At best it is driven underground, where it festers, and grows, becomes wiser and stronger and bides its time for an appropriate opportunity to make a bid for daylight. And that chance will come. Look at all the Christians who suddenly came scrambling out of the woodwork after the fall of the Soviet Union. Or those who still exist in China.
This is not the "Swiss" solution, which figures as long as no one is actually shooting and everyone is being left alone then everything must be alright. This is a much tougher solution, because it seeks to bring all parties to a broader understanding that everyone can live with. Balkanization of humanity is not, in the long run, productive for anyone.
Morality can never be successfully legislated. It can only be arrived at through a long and sometimes tortuous process of soul searching and debate. Understanding will always triumph over imposition, no matter how long it takes.
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Thank God I'm a Guy
The reports have been around for several years now, slowly growing over time. It seems that the problem is no longer confined to Americans afflicted with far more money than common sense. It is apparently no longer enough to buy a girl a diamond, drape her in the finest fashions, buy her a little puppy whose hair can be dyed to coordinate with its owner and give her a sleek new car to tote all the above around town in.
The latest must have is a Designer Vagina.
You can get your "vaginal rejuvenation" if things just aren't quite the way they used to be. For the girl who has everything (or who's had everyone?) how about a "revirgination"? And who can possibly resist "designer vaginoplasty" or the holy grail of vaginal plastic surgery, "G-spot amplification"?
Much more than sound or even sensible medical practice, what this sounds like is the redirection of fees that more productively should be spent in the psychological arm of the medical profession to the plastic surgeons of the world.
Ladies - he isn't going to stick around just because you hang a pair of basketballs from your chest. Nor will he refuse to look at you if you're only blessed with softballs. Do you really think Pamela Anderson had any trouble getting a date? Then why the augmentation surgery (followed later by the "return to normal" surgery)?
I would love to find one woman on the planet who can honestly say she has suffered rejection do to a lack of correction available through the list of vagino-surgeries above. Is there anyone out there who was headed to the altar and at the last minute had him sit her down for "the talk"? "Sorry, Hon, but I'm afraid it just isn't going to work out between us. You're the sweetest, most wonderful human being I've ever met. Your multi-billion dollar inheritance can keep us going in the lean times until my eco-friendly hemp guitar string company finally takes off. We're more compatible in the sack than anyone I've ever been with - and trust me, darling, that is a LONG list! But, well, your labia minora are just a little too ragged and uneven for me to spend the rest of forever with."
For that matter, I'd settle for one woman who can honestly say she was just about to get lucky when the scoundrel called it off. "Whoa, baby. You've got me all worked up and darn near ready to explode, but it ain't about to happen with THAT thing."
The truth is, ladies, you really don't need any of that stuff to make you desirable. Next time you're in the locker room at the gym during shower time take a look around. There will be far more bellies and sags and stretch marks and imperfections walking around than Playboy centerfolds. Yet for all that, I imagine you'll find a very high percentage of those damaged packages sporting gold on the third finger of their left hands. It is you he wants, and once he wants you, there is no greater imaginable specimen of goddeshood than you. Sure, physical attributes may help spark an initial connection but that begins losing its importance about two minutes after you open your mouth. Unless the only thing he's interested in is a business transaction it doesn't matter how well sculpted or gargantuan your personal equipment is.
Of course there is a vitally necessary and appropriate place for plastic surgery. Reconstruction following accident, illness, and other surgeries are all appropriate and beneficial uses of the surgeon's art. But thinking that changing the package you came wrapped in from the factory is going to make you a better and more sought after person is nothing but the sheerest nonsense, and those who cater to the desires of these disturbed women are no better than the snake oil salesmen of yore.
The latest must have is a Designer Vagina.
You can get your "vaginal rejuvenation" if things just aren't quite the way they used to be. For the girl who has everything (or who's had everyone?) how about a "revirgination"? And who can possibly resist "designer vaginoplasty" or the holy grail of vaginal plastic surgery, "G-spot amplification"?
Much more than sound or even sensible medical practice, what this sounds like is the redirection of fees that more productively should be spent in the psychological arm of the medical profession to the plastic surgeons of the world.
Ladies - he isn't going to stick around just because you hang a pair of basketballs from your chest. Nor will he refuse to look at you if you're only blessed with softballs. Do you really think Pamela Anderson had any trouble getting a date? Then why the augmentation surgery (followed later by the "return to normal" surgery)?
I would love to find one woman on the planet who can honestly say she has suffered rejection do to a lack of correction available through the list of vagino-surgeries above. Is there anyone out there who was headed to the altar and at the last minute had him sit her down for "the talk"? "Sorry, Hon, but I'm afraid it just isn't going to work out between us. You're the sweetest, most wonderful human being I've ever met. Your multi-billion dollar inheritance can keep us going in the lean times until my eco-friendly hemp guitar string company finally takes off. We're more compatible in the sack than anyone I've ever been with - and trust me, darling, that is a LONG list! But, well, your labia minora are just a little too ragged and uneven for me to spend the rest of forever with."
For that matter, I'd settle for one woman who can honestly say she was just about to get lucky when the scoundrel called it off. "Whoa, baby. You've got me all worked up and darn near ready to explode, but it ain't about to happen with THAT thing."
The truth is, ladies, you really don't need any of that stuff to make you desirable. Next time you're in the locker room at the gym during shower time take a look around. There will be far more bellies and sags and stretch marks and imperfections walking around than Playboy centerfolds. Yet for all that, I imagine you'll find a very high percentage of those damaged packages sporting gold on the third finger of their left hands. It is you he wants, and once he wants you, there is no greater imaginable specimen of goddeshood than you. Sure, physical attributes may help spark an initial connection but that begins losing its importance about two minutes after you open your mouth. Unless the only thing he's interested in is a business transaction it doesn't matter how well sculpted or gargantuan your personal equipment is.
Of course there is a vitally necessary and appropriate place for plastic surgery. Reconstruction following accident, illness, and other surgeries are all appropriate and beneficial uses of the surgeon's art. But thinking that changing the package you came wrapped in from the factory is going to make you a better and more sought after person is nothing but the sheerest nonsense, and those who cater to the desires of these disturbed women are no better than the snake oil salesmen of yore.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Now Global Warming is Racist
House Majority Whip: Climate Change Hurts Blacks More - By Jeff Poor, Business & Media Institute
7/29/2008 2:14:30 PM
Speaking before the National Press Club, House Majority Whip James Clyburn stated “It is critical our community (African American) be an integral and active part of the debate because African-Americans are disproportionately impacted by the effects of climate change economically, socially and through our health and well-being,”.
7/29/2008 2:14:30 PM
Speaking before the National Press Club, House Majority Whip James Clyburn stated “It is critical our community (African American) be an integral and active part of the debate because African-Americans are disproportionately impacted by the effects of climate change economically, socially and through our health and well-being,”.
Note to Congress: That Apology Is Not On My Behalf
H. Res. 194 - Passed by the House of Representatives of the United States of America July 29, 2008.
This resolution passed by the House specifically states that the House of Representatives "(3) apologizes to African Americans on behalf of the people of the United States, for the wrongs committed against them and their ancestors who suffered under slavery and Jim Crow;".
On behalf of myself, I explicitly remove my name from that apology.
And now the explanation.
To begin with, not a single person alive today either owned or lived as a slave in the United States of America. An apology is required to be delivered of a wrongdoer to the wronged. Neither party exists in the case of slavery, and therefore no apology is valid. While so-called Jim crow laws are substantially more recent, the parties involved are for the most part nearing the end of their days.
It is also not valid for a branch of the Federal government of the United States of America to offer an apology for slavery as the US Government never actively created or furthered slavery and discrimination. The constitution acknowledged the fact that slavery pre-existed the Union. It even shrewdly accorded the "other Persons" (slaves) a value equal to three-fifths that of a "free Person" (primarily whites) - not as a means of demeaning or lessening the stature of blacks but to prevent the southern slave-holding states from amassing even greater power and representation in the Congress and federal government. The federal government did nothing but take an active role in the abolition of slavery and race-based discrimination. From the Emancipation Proclamation to the 13th Amendment to the Civil Rights laws of the 1960s the national leaders took the appropriate actions to negate the efforts at sate and local levels of government. The Supreme Court decision of 1896 in Plessy v. Ferguson can be viewed as a thinly veiled affirmation of discrimination - or it might charitably be construed as a sincere, if misguided, notion that separate but equal truly was just that. In either case, the Court corrected itself and removed any doubt concerning its position when rendering the Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954.
The resolution additionally states "Whereas slavery in America resembled no other form of involuntary servitude known in history, as Africans were captured and sold at auction like inanimate objects or animals;". This assertion alone calls into question the competence of the framers of this resolution and its overall legitimacy. Slave auctions are hardly a uniquely American or even caucasian practice. Peoples and races from around the globe can point to their pasts and acknowledge that particular distinction.
Portuguese Prince Henry established a slave market and fort in 1445.
The Siberian region, Slavic peoples and Vikings are just a few examples with an ancient historical slave trade.
Arabs didn't want to be left out of the game.
China, Korea, and India all got in on the act.
So to proclaim that slavery as practiced in the US was uniquely horrific is ridiculous and completely undermines the premise of the resolution.
Let there be no misunderstanding: Slavery is a despicable and completely indefensible practice. In an ideal history it never would have happened, and the vestiges of those events would preferably not still taint the world today. However slavery is an historical human failure, one that has at one time or another negatively impacted and been visited upon all races. The twisted logic is that their ancestors having been victimized in the past, blacks today are inheritor victims and owed recompense by inheritor perpetrators (whites). Following that rationale to its absurd conclusion, all human beings owe reparations to all other human beings. So let's just call it even and look to the future.
As has been pointed out elsewhere in this blog, history teaches what has gone before - if we have the collective courage to study and learn from the lesson. History - taken in its totality rather than in self-serving snapshots - can be a highly effective guide to future behavior. No amount of reparations, whether monetary, tangible property, or affirmative action, is going to eliminate the atrocities of the past. Offering up a collective "White Man's burden" mea culpa and throwing in a handful of guilt money, both tangible and metaphorical, will not alleviate the sins of the past nor will it place the aggrieved parties on an equal plane with the oppressors. The history will still be there, attitudes both individual and collective will remain fundamentally unchanged, and human nature will compel the beneficiaries of those handouts not to strive for a greater future but rather to strive for a future even greater handout. Human beings who get something for nothing inevitably want to get more something - and are always willing to contribute more nothing. Anyone who has raised a child can attest to that universal truth.
I fully regret this particular aspect of the past and the pain and suffering caused. Baptizing in the blood of collective guilt will not however make it go away, and so I choose not to take part in this self-serving exercise in political grandstanding that is H. Res. 194. The sins of the past are expiated not by tossing an offering into the plate and moving on to happier thoughts, but rather by learning from the mistakes that were made and consciously choosing not to perpetrate them in the future.
This resolution passed by the House specifically states that the House of Representatives "(3) apologizes to African Americans on behalf of the people of the United States, for the wrongs committed against them and their ancestors who suffered under slavery and Jim Crow;".
On behalf of myself, I explicitly remove my name from that apology.
And now the explanation.
To begin with, not a single person alive today either owned or lived as a slave in the United States of America. An apology is required to be delivered of a wrongdoer to the wronged. Neither party exists in the case of slavery, and therefore no apology is valid. While so-called Jim crow laws are substantially more recent, the parties involved are for the most part nearing the end of their days.
It is also not valid for a branch of the Federal government of the United States of America to offer an apology for slavery as the US Government never actively created or furthered slavery and discrimination. The constitution acknowledged the fact that slavery pre-existed the Union. It even shrewdly accorded the "other Persons" (slaves) a value equal to three-fifths that of a "free Person" (primarily whites) - not as a means of demeaning or lessening the stature of blacks but to prevent the southern slave-holding states from amassing even greater power and representation in the Congress and federal government. The federal government did nothing but take an active role in the abolition of slavery and race-based discrimination. From the Emancipation Proclamation to the 13th Amendment to the Civil Rights laws of the 1960s the national leaders took the appropriate actions to negate the efforts at sate and local levels of government. The Supreme Court decision of 1896 in Plessy v. Ferguson can be viewed as a thinly veiled affirmation of discrimination - or it might charitably be construed as a sincere, if misguided, notion that separate but equal truly was just that. In either case, the Court corrected itself and removed any doubt concerning its position when rendering the Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954.
The resolution additionally states "Whereas slavery in America resembled no other form of involuntary servitude known in history, as Africans were captured and sold at auction like inanimate objects or animals;". This assertion alone calls into question the competence of the framers of this resolution and its overall legitimacy. Slave auctions are hardly a uniquely American or even caucasian practice. Peoples and races from around the globe can point to their pasts and acknowledge that particular distinction.
Portuguese Prince Henry established a slave market and fort in 1445.
The Siberian region, Slavic peoples and Vikings are just a few examples with an ancient historical slave trade.
Arabs didn't want to be left out of the game.
China, Korea, and India all got in on the act.
So to proclaim that slavery as practiced in the US was uniquely horrific is ridiculous and completely undermines the premise of the resolution.
Let there be no misunderstanding: Slavery is a despicable and completely indefensible practice. In an ideal history it never would have happened, and the vestiges of those events would preferably not still taint the world today. However slavery is an historical human failure, one that has at one time or another negatively impacted and been visited upon all races. The twisted logic is that their ancestors having been victimized in the past, blacks today are inheritor victims and owed recompense by inheritor perpetrators (whites). Following that rationale to its absurd conclusion, all human beings owe reparations to all other human beings. So let's just call it even and look to the future.
As has been pointed out elsewhere in this blog, history teaches what has gone before - if we have the collective courage to study and learn from the lesson. History - taken in its totality rather than in self-serving snapshots - can be a highly effective guide to future behavior. No amount of reparations, whether monetary, tangible property, or affirmative action, is going to eliminate the atrocities of the past. Offering up a collective "White Man's burden" mea culpa and throwing in a handful of guilt money, both tangible and metaphorical, will not alleviate the sins of the past nor will it place the aggrieved parties on an equal plane with the oppressors. The history will still be there, attitudes both individual and collective will remain fundamentally unchanged, and human nature will compel the beneficiaries of those handouts not to strive for a greater future but rather to strive for a future even greater handout. Human beings who get something for nothing inevitably want to get more something - and are always willing to contribute more nothing. Anyone who has raised a child can attest to that universal truth.
I fully regret this particular aspect of the past and the pain and suffering caused. Baptizing in the blood of collective guilt will not however make it go away, and so I choose not to take part in this self-serving exercise in political grandstanding that is H. Res. 194. The sins of the past are expiated not by tossing an offering into the plate and moving on to happier thoughts, but rather by learning from the mistakes that were made and consciously choosing not to perpetrate them in the future.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
"'Wrong bras' can damage breasts" - Oh Really?
The headline writers at BBC online did their job well. As a typical male human being, how could I possibly consider passing up a story that promises breasts?
It seems that poor support can lead to "fragile ligaments" in the breasts being stretched, no doubt leading inevitably to the dreaded sag. The article goes on to report that during exercise the breasts can move over eight and a quarter inches - up and down, in and out, side to side - and that most bras only handle the vertical movement. Makes one want to seriously reconsider the wisdom of not taking full advantage of that gym membership.
Apparently, women are collectively a bunch of fools who won't consider a bra that doesn't match up with preconceived notions about what the "right" kind of bra should look like. The thing doesn't like like the sports bra they've been told about all their lives? Then it clearly can't be one. Next! The story also claims that most women are so beholden to Project Runway that they will only wear bras for everyday use that are too big or too small in order to appear to have some mythical "proper size" equipment depending from their chests. And to top it all off, the Women's Collective is also apparently too stupid to realize that over time such things as pregnancy (and the subsequent breast feeding), weight gain and loss, and menopause change the size of the breasts and requires a corresponding adjustment in bra size.
Now, I'm just a male, afflicted with the biological imperative to appreciate all the entertaining possibilities a pair of soft squishies has to offer. That same biological imperative also diverts blood flow from critical organs - such as the brain - making it difficult at best to give due consideration to the learned study reported in this article.
However, I do have a few thoughts on the subject.
First, I'm going to go way out on a limb here and make the wild guess that breasts were invented months if not entire years or perhaps even decades before the whole bra concept came along. Back in the day, I'm guessing early human females actually ran around without any supportive structures whatsoever. It would seem that somehow we managed to not just survive but actually thrive as a species - with the whole breast thing not only intact but flourishing.
Second, I'll grant that there probably is some well intentioned and even serious science behind this research. That the research was likely conceived by a bunch of mid- to late-twenties men who are unquestionably brilliant and well endowed (financially) by their universities yet incapable of getting a date outside the red light district is no doubt purely coincidental. The results of the research however have more likely been co-opted by those who sell bras to further their own personal aims of financial success.
The only lifting and separating going on here will be my wallet from my pocket and my money from my wallet. No doubt my wife is going to require 57 different types of bra (multiple copies of each), much as she needs 157 different pairs of shoes. All these different bras will need a place to live while not being worn, hence the need to purchase a brand new dresser dedicated to lingerie storage. The new dresser will need a place in the bedroom - she's unlikely to agree to getting into the lacy underthings while standing in the middle of the living room - so in order to have a larger bedroom I'll need to acquire a larger home as well.
It's a cleverly disguised financial stimulus package on a scale that absolutely dwarfs anything congress could imagine even on a good day.
My how far we've come since the advent of the simple "over the shoulder boulder holder".
It seems that poor support can lead to "fragile ligaments" in the breasts being stretched, no doubt leading inevitably to the dreaded sag. The article goes on to report that during exercise the breasts can move over eight and a quarter inches - up and down, in and out, side to side - and that most bras only handle the vertical movement. Makes one want to seriously reconsider the wisdom of not taking full advantage of that gym membership.
Apparently, women are collectively a bunch of fools who won't consider a bra that doesn't match up with preconceived notions about what the "right" kind of bra should look like. The thing doesn't like like the sports bra they've been told about all their lives? Then it clearly can't be one. Next! The story also claims that most women are so beholden to Project Runway that they will only wear bras for everyday use that are too big or too small in order to appear to have some mythical "proper size" equipment depending from their chests. And to top it all off, the Women's Collective is also apparently too stupid to realize that over time such things as pregnancy (and the subsequent breast feeding), weight gain and loss, and menopause change the size of the breasts and requires a corresponding adjustment in bra size.
Now, I'm just a male, afflicted with the biological imperative to appreciate all the entertaining possibilities a pair of soft squishies has to offer. That same biological imperative also diverts blood flow from critical organs - such as the brain - making it difficult at best to give due consideration to the learned study reported in this article.
However, I do have a few thoughts on the subject.
First, I'm going to go way out on a limb here and make the wild guess that breasts were invented months if not entire years or perhaps even decades before the whole bra concept came along. Back in the day, I'm guessing early human females actually ran around without any supportive structures whatsoever. It would seem that somehow we managed to not just survive but actually thrive as a species - with the whole breast thing not only intact but flourishing.
Second, I'll grant that there probably is some well intentioned and even serious science behind this research. That the research was likely conceived by a bunch of mid- to late-twenties men who are unquestionably brilliant and well endowed (financially) by their universities yet incapable of getting a date outside the red light district is no doubt purely coincidental. The results of the research however have more likely been co-opted by those who sell bras to further their own personal aims of financial success.
The only lifting and separating going on here will be my wallet from my pocket and my money from my wallet. No doubt my wife is going to require 57 different types of bra (multiple copies of each), much as she needs 157 different pairs of shoes. All these different bras will need a place to live while not being worn, hence the need to purchase a brand new dresser dedicated to lingerie storage. The new dresser will need a place in the bedroom - she's unlikely to agree to getting into the lacy underthings while standing in the middle of the living room - so in order to have a larger bedroom I'll need to acquire a larger home as well.
It's a cleverly disguised financial stimulus package on a scale that absolutely dwarfs anything congress could imagine even on a good day.
My how far we've come since the advent of the simple "over the shoulder boulder holder".
Friday, July 25, 2008
What Goes Around Comes Around
In a Breitbart story posted July 25, it is lamented that poor Danny Glover can't get investors to pony up funding for his proposed movie about Haitian independence in 1804. It seems all the producers and money types he approached in the US, Great Britain, and Europe are of the opinion that there aren't enough white heroes in the movie for it to do well in Europe and Japan. Poor Prospects for ticket sales rationally mean poor prospects for funding.
Spike Lee went ballistic when Clint Eastwood didn't include black soldiers in "Flags of Our Fathers". That selfish, racist bastard apparently felt that the fact there were no actual black soldiers in the battles depicted was justification for excluding him from the movie.
I'm going to go way out on a limb here and suggest that rewriting the script to include a band of Anglos fighting side by side with their Haitian brethren to help create the Republic would be a bit of a non-starter. Creating sympathetic white characters to promote sales would be an affront to black pride around the planet, especially when it flies so completely in the face of historical fact.
And that's okay. The movie deserves to be made, and to succeed or fail on its own merits. History should never be rewritten to solicit an audience, nor should historical fact be changed or ignored to soothe the feelings of those who might not be comfortable with the past.
Adolf Hitler, The Crusades, the invasion of the Mongol Hordes, the Persian Empire, the White Man's Slaughter of the Indians - all of these are historical incidents. It would be difficult to find someone who would point with pride to any of these who would not be soundly derided by the majority of his or her peers.
History is not improved by giving it a fresh new coat of paint and slapping a few smiley face stickers on it. History simply is. And it only has value when it is examined in all of its stark, sometimes unpleasant, reality. Learning from mistakes and emulating successes should be the lessons that history teaches.
Not that the liberation of Haiti from French rule was a multicultural kumbaya moment.
Spike Lee went ballistic when Clint Eastwood didn't include black soldiers in "Flags of Our Fathers". That selfish, racist bastard apparently felt that the fact there were no actual black soldiers in the battles depicted was justification for excluding him from the movie.
I'm going to go way out on a limb here and suggest that rewriting the script to include a band of Anglos fighting side by side with their Haitian brethren to help create the Republic would be a bit of a non-starter. Creating sympathetic white characters to promote sales would be an affront to black pride around the planet, especially when it flies so completely in the face of historical fact.
And that's okay. The movie deserves to be made, and to succeed or fail on its own merits. History should never be rewritten to solicit an audience, nor should historical fact be changed or ignored to soothe the feelings of those who might not be comfortable with the past.
Adolf Hitler, The Crusades, the invasion of the Mongol Hordes, the Persian Empire, the White Man's Slaughter of the Indians - all of these are historical incidents. It would be difficult to find someone who would point with pride to any of these who would not be soundly derided by the majority of his or her peers.
History is not improved by giving it a fresh new coat of paint and slapping a few smiley face stickers on it. History simply is. And it only has value when it is examined in all of its stark, sometimes unpleasant, reality. Learning from mistakes and emulating successes should be the lessons that history teaches.
Not that the liberation of Haiti from French rule was a multicultural kumbaya moment.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Every Day Is Earth Day!
As I was waiting at the four-way stop sign, I couldn't help but notice the car in front of me. It was a rather new looking Prius, that not-quite silver color that isn't gray, either.
There was a "Save the Planet" type bumper sticker in place, almost as predictable as the three piece pinstripe suit on the stereotypical banker of days gone by. Between the car and the bumper sticker, it was clear that the long-tressed wispy blond (no doubt a Clairol Nice'n Easy Perfect 10) was a far more dedicated acolyte of AlGore than I ever fear I might become in even my worst nightmares.
The baby in the back seat - where did that brown hair come from? - was buckled in to what appeared to be a top of the line car safety seat.
Why, then, was this socially conscious, ecologically humble specimen of über humanity seen disposing her cigarette butt out the car window before accelerating onto the highway?
There was a "Save the Planet" type bumper sticker in place, almost as predictable as the three piece pinstripe suit on the stereotypical banker of days gone by. Between the car and the bumper sticker, it was clear that the long-tressed wispy blond (no doubt a Clairol Nice'n Easy Perfect 10) was a far more dedicated acolyte of AlGore than I ever fear I might become in even my worst nightmares.
The baby in the back seat - where did that brown hair come from? - was buckled in to what appeared to be a top of the line car safety seat.
Why, then, was this socially conscious, ecologically humble specimen of über humanity seen disposing her cigarette butt out the car window before accelerating onto the highway?
Monday, July 21, 2008
WTF?!
(The linked web page in general is NSFW - though the video itself is not necessarily so.)
Right around the thirty second mark in this video, what could possibly justify shooting a man who is bound, blindfolded and standing still?
A)
B)
C)
D) All of the above.
The correct answer is D) All of the above. There is no way to justify this.
Even if your mother really is that phrase Don Imus made famous, once you put on a uniform, any uniform, you need to show far more restraint than that. I certainly hope Obama doesn't see this and get any great ideas for crowd control in Denver . . ..
Right around the thirty second mark in this video, what could possibly justify shooting a man who is bound, blindfolded and standing still?
A)
B)
C)
D) All of the above.
The correct answer is D) All of the above. There is no way to justify this.
Even if your mother really is that phrase Don Imus made famous, once you put on a uniform, any uniform, you need to show far more restraint than that. I certainly hope Obama doesn't see this and get any great ideas for crowd control in Denver . . ..
Thursday, July 17, 2008
I'm An Asshole . . . And I'm Proud of It!
(Story Linked in title.)
To begin with, Sarah E. Muller of Summerfield, Florida, is an idiot. She should be aware that as a general rule it cannot help your cause to refer to a judge in his own courtroom as an "asshole". Just as it can't be considered very good practice to refer to the officer who has just pulled you over for driving eighty in a school zone in less than flattering terms while he's asking for your license, registration, and current location of your common sense.
However, upon reading the tale as recounted online at ocala.com from the Star-Banner it would seem that Ms. Muller's assessment of Judge R. James McCune Jr. (what exactly is it with those people who feel compelled to be known as "First Initial Middle Name" anyway?) is completely accurate if somewhat less than politically correct.
After initially expressing herself, Judge R. James asked her to clarify her remark. Perfectly following the instructions given, Sarah repeated her character assessment of the jurist.
For doing exactly as instructed the judge charged her with "direct criminal contempt of the court".
Applying logic like that, anyone who is pulled over on the highway and asked to exit the vehicle is in a tough spot. Comply, and you stand to be charged with being a pedestrian on the highway. Refuse, and your stuck with failure to obey an officer. Certainly seems like an opportunity for less than fully scrupulous jurisdictions to engage in a bit of revenue enhancement if nothing else.
Back to our friend the judge though. Clearly no one enjoys being referred to as a solid waste transfer orifice. Particularly if they are one. That aside, the offense is so trivial that at most is merits no more than a stern admonishment about how one should properly comport oneself in public venue. Certainly three days in jail and $233 in fines, fees, and court costs (not to mention the theoretical maximum of six months in jail and a $500 fine!) is beyond excessive.
Any person with the authority to mete out such punishments should be a big enough person that they don't actually need to do so.
There are only two possible messages the actions of the Right Honorable Judge R. James McCune Jr. sends to Ms. Muller and to the community at large. Neither of those messages is positive.
The first is that good ol' R. Jimmie is an outwardly pretentious self important snob who feels nothing but contempt for the little people, while inwardly he is a craven, insecure little twit who has no business holding the bench he sits upon.
The second possible message is that he stands in front of the shaving mirror every morning singing Dennis Leary's paean "I'm An Asshole". I suspect I'm right, Jimmy, in thinking that Carly Simon would be dead on in accusing you of thinking this song is about you.
And you're proud of it.
To begin with, Sarah E. Muller of Summerfield, Florida, is an idiot. She should be aware that as a general rule it cannot help your cause to refer to a judge in his own courtroom as an "asshole". Just as it can't be considered very good practice to refer to the officer who has just pulled you over for driving eighty in a school zone in less than flattering terms while he's asking for your license, registration, and current location of your common sense.
However, upon reading the tale as recounted online at ocala.com from the Star-Banner it would seem that Ms. Muller's assessment of Judge R. James McCune Jr. (what exactly is it with those people who feel compelled to be known as "First Initial Middle Name" anyway?) is completely accurate if somewhat less than politically correct.
After initially expressing herself, Judge R. James asked her to clarify her remark. Perfectly following the instructions given, Sarah repeated her character assessment of the jurist.
For doing exactly as instructed the judge charged her with "direct criminal contempt of the court".
Applying logic like that, anyone who is pulled over on the highway and asked to exit the vehicle is in a tough spot. Comply, and you stand to be charged with being a pedestrian on the highway. Refuse, and your stuck with failure to obey an officer. Certainly seems like an opportunity for less than fully scrupulous jurisdictions to engage in a bit of revenue enhancement if nothing else.
Back to our friend the judge though. Clearly no one enjoys being referred to as a solid waste transfer orifice. Particularly if they are one. That aside, the offense is so trivial that at most is merits no more than a stern admonishment about how one should properly comport oneself in public venue. Certainly three days in jail and $233 in fines, fees, and court costs (not to mention the theoretical maximum of six months in jail and a $500 fine!) is beyond excessive.
Any person with the authority to mete out such punishments should be a big enough person that they don't actually need to do so.
There are only two possible messages the actions of the Right Honorable Judge R. James McCune Jr. sends to Ms. Muller and to the community at large. Neither of those messages is positive.
The first is that good ol' R. Jimmie is an outwardly pretentious self important snob who feels nothing but contempt for the little people, while inwardly he is a craven, insecure little twit who has no business holding the bench he sits upon.
The second possible message is that he stands in front of the shaving mirror every morning singing Dennis Leary's paean "I'm An Asshole". I suspect I'm right, Jimmy, in thinking that Carly Simon would be dead on in accusing you of thinking this song is about you.
And you're proud of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)