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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)