Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Bring back the War Department
This post is not meant to be a shrill anti-Bush rant, but I'm not sure how we can defend the Orwellian name of the Department of Defense. Bush was clear tonight as he has been since his second inagural that he believes his mission is to end tyranny in the world. By his invasion of Iraq, this certainly means that military options are in play to end such tyranny. Therefore, we need to either bring back the old "War Department" and make rummy the SecWar or rename it the Department of Offense. I think it's a real reach to think that what we're doing in Iraq is defensive. I'd be honored to die, or have a relative die, in defense of my country, but I'm not sure that I'm willing to die so some Iraqi can elect fundamentalists associated with Iran. The only way in which it's even a smidgen justified is if you twist football phrase and say the best defense as a good offense. I don't anticipate any foreign armies taking Venice Beach, Galveston, or the Jersey Shore any time soon. That's where you'd have an aptly named DoD. Maybe call it the Dept of Ending Tyranny Abroad so Freedom Can Be On the March, but DOETASFCBOTM doesn't seem to fit with the military's love of acronyms.
Cloning
And what the hell was that comment imploring the congress to act on human-animal cloning? Did I miss something? Is the Planet of the Apes a reality? Granted that presidents need to propose new initiatives in this thing, but how deep do you have to dig for that?
UPDATE: Bob Cesca notes over at HuffPost...
Words about New Orleans: 165. Words about legislation prohibiting the creation of a race of Pig Men: 86
UPDATE: Bob Cesca notes over at HuffPost...
Words about New Orleans: 165. Words about legislation prohibiting the creation of a race of Pig Men: 86
SOTU
A few thoughts on the State of the Union address before I get spun to death.
1. I'm a big fan of a so called Manhattan Project to reduce dependence on foreign oil. I thought the speech tonight was most notable for an oilman declaring that we are "addicted to oil." I think that his request to improve math and science education dovetails well with research into new types of energy as well as acceleration of existing alternative energy sources. Unfortunately, words aren't often followed by deeds with Bush so I'll be skeptical to see if anything happens.
2. I thought it was interesting that he mentioned Social Security reform from last year and gave Dems an applause line. When I was really into the debate last year, I recall it was Bush's stubborness to give up on private accounts that really doomed progress when there were compromise measures on the table. By recommending a bipartisan research panel, I hope that this is a harbinger of conciliation and not the creation of a debating society.
3. For the majority of the speech, he seemed to be speaking in broad strokes that were hard for most people to argue with. Other than the above, I didn't find it to be rhetorically compelling.
4. Speaking of rhetoric, he corrected one of my pet peeves by saying that we had killed or captured many Al Qaeda leaders, instead of "75%" of Al Qaeda leaders. Unfortunately he laughably continued to suggest that those that oppose his wiretapping also oppose fighting terrorism.
5. I still don't get the logic that if we fight them over there, we don't have to fight them over here. He repeated this again and it seems rhetorically dangerous. Just because we've been lucky and have evaded attacks doesn't mean this will always be the case. After 9/11 Britain certainly tightened up their security, but that didn't preven the London bombings.
6. The rest we've all heard before a hundred times. Freedom's on the march. Democracies aren't terrorists (except apparently in Palestine). Affordable healthcare for all Americans. Tax cuts. No child left behind. Blah, blah, blah.
7. The elephant in the room for me when he gave his laundry list of tyrannies (Syria, Iran, Burma, etc.) was China. It's a tyranny. He said 50% of the world is free. Get some elections in China and that becomes 75%. I realize that it would be political and economic suicide to mention this, but it's still notable.
Now I'm off to be spun by Ken Mehlman and Howard Dean.
1. I'm a big fan of a so called Manhattan Project to reduce dependence on foreign oil. I thought the speech tonight was most notable for an oilman declaring that we are "addicted to oil." I think that his request to improve math and science education dovetails well with research into new types of energy as well as acceleration of existing alternative energy sources. Unfortunately, words aren't often followed by deeds with Bush so I'll be skeptical to see if anything happens.
2. I thought it was interesting that he mentioned Social Security reform from last year and gave Dems an applause line. When I was really into the debate last year, I recall it was Bush's stubborness to give up on private accounts that really doomed progress when there were compromise measures on the table. By recommending a bipartisan research panel, I hope that this is a harbinger of conciliation and not the creation of a debating society.
3. For the majority of the speech, he seemed to be speaking in broad strokes that were hard for most people to argue with. Other than the above, I didn't find it to be rhetorically compelling.
4. Speaking of rhetoric, he corrected one of my pet peeves by saying that we had killed or captured many Al Qaeda leaders, instead of "75%" of Al Qaeda leaders. Unfortunately he laughably continued to suggest that those that oppose his wiretapping also oppose fighting terrorism.
5. I still don't get the logic that if we fight them over there, we don't have to fight them over here. He repeated this again and it seems rhetorically dangerous. Just because we've been lucky and have evaded attacks doesn't mean this will always be the case. After 9/11 Britain certainly tightened up their security, but that didn't preven the London bombings.
6. The rest we've all heard before a hundred times. Freedom's on the march. Democracies aren't terrorists (except apparently in Palestine). Affordable healthcare for all Americans. Tax cuts. No child left behind. Blah, blah, blah.
7. The elephant in the room for me when he gave his laundry list of tyrannies (Syria, Iran, Burma, etc.) was China. It's a tyranny. He said 50% of the world is free. Get some elections in China and that becomes 75%. I realize that it would be political and economic suicide to mention this, but it's still notable.
Now I'm off to be spun by Ken Mehlman and Howard Dean.
Monday, January 30, 2006
Logical Fallacies
In the post below, I mention how a misreading of cause-and effect can cause bad things...faulty inferences...to occur. I mentioned religion as a misreading of causality. This is the old Post hoc ergo propter hoc (After the fact therefore because of the fact) fallacy. I found a good example of this as it pertained to the devastating San Francisco earthquake of 1906. Excerpt below...article here.
One of the things that fascinated me, not least because it seems to have happened in the aftermath of Krakatoa, was that [the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906] had an effect on religion. After Krakatoa, you had a lot of people who were Islamic saying this is clearly a sign from Allah. This volcano is a sign that he's angry. We must rise up and kill our rulers, the Dutch, and drive them out. And essentially they did. And one might argue that Krakatoa triggered the first militant fundamentalist Islamic uprising in the world-a long, long time before Israel 1948 and all those things. A similar thing happened in California not, however, with the Muslims but with fundamentalist Christians. There was a church down in Los Angeles in a place called Azusa Street, which was a fledgling church of people who called themselves Pentecostalists. They spoke in tongues, they waved their arms around and did all sorts of crazy things. All things that would appear to others as crazy. And all that sort of direction came about because of manifestations as they saw it from God. He would send signs down. Miracles would be called. People would, as I mentioned, talk in tongues. On the week before the San Francisco earthquake, this little church had a modest-size meeting, and a couple of people spoke in tongues, and it was all going along quite nicely, but the Pastor stood up and said we are expecting a sign from the Lord.
Three days later San Francisco, arguably the most sinful of all American cities given over to drinking and whoring and gambling and all those fun things that happened in the aftermath of the gold rush days. But a city that lived for fun, for sin was destroyed by an earthquake. And so the Pastor, not unreasonably, said, well there's no doubt about it, this is the sign from God that we've been waiting for. And suddenly this little church was overrun with people, I mean tens of thousands of people came, they had overspill locations. It became like the Crystal Cathedral that you see in Los Angeles today and the link is not actually an unreasonable one to make because out of the Pentecostalist church that began in essentially 1906 came all the great evangelical movements from Aimee Semple McPherson right through to Pat Robertson and Tammy Fay and Jim Bakker. One might argue--and I don't want to make too much of this--that the power of the Christian right and particularly the Pentecostal brand of Evangelicals has had a crucially important effect on contemporary American politics. That movement was triggered in large part by what was perceived as a sign from God on April 18, 1906. So, the downstream effects of the San Francisco earthquake, if you do say, it caused Pentecostalism, it gave us conservative Christianity, and it gave us certain political effects that are being felt around the world.
So a tectonic plate shift 100 years ago is responsible for the Bush administration. A reach but something on which to muse...
One of the things that fascinated me, not least because it seems to have happened in the aftermath of Krakatoa, was that [the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906] had an effect on religion. After Krakatoa, you had a lot of people who were Islamic saying this is clearly a sign from Allah. This volcano is a sign that he's angry. We must rise up and kill our rulers, the Dutch, and drive them out. And essentially they did. And one might argue that Krakatoa triggered the first militant fundamentalist Islamic uprising in the world-a long, long time before Israel 1948 and all those things. A similar thing happened in California not, however, with the Muslims but with fundamentalist Christians. There was a church down in Los Angeles in a place called Azusa Street, which was a fledgling church of people who called themselves Pentecostalists. They spoke in tongues, they waved their arms around and did all sorts of crazy things. All things that would appear to others as crazy. And all that sort of direction came about because of manifestations as they saw it from God. He would send signs down. Miracles would be called. People would, as I mentioned, talk in tongues. On the week before the San Francisco earthquake, this little church had a modest-size meeting, and a couple of people spoke in tongues, and it was all going along quite nicely, but the Pastor stood up and said we are expecting a sign from the Lord.
Three days later San Francisco, arguably the most sinful of all American cities given over to drinking and whoring and gambling and all those fun things that happened in the aftermath of the gold rush days. But a city that lived for fun, for sin was destroyed by an earthquake. And so the Pastor, not unreasonably, said, well there's no doubt about it, this is the sign from God that we've been waiting for. And suddenly this little church was overrun with people, I mean tens of thousands of people came, they had overspill locations. It became like the Crystal Cathedral that you see in Los Angeles today and the link is not actually an unreasonable one to make because out of the Pentecostalist church that began in essentially 1906 came all the great evangelical movements from Aimee Semple McPherson right through to Pat Robertson and Tammy Fay and Jim Bakker. One might argue--and I don't want to make too much of this--that the power of the Christian right and particularly the Pentecostal brand of Evangelicals has had a crucially important effect on contemporary American politics. That movement was triggered in large part by what was perceived as a sign from God on April 18, 1906. So, the downstream effects of the San Francisco earthquake, if you do say, it caused Pentecostalism, it gave us conservative Christianity, and it gave us certain political effects that are being felt around the world.
So a tectonic plate shift 100 years ago is responsible for the Bush administration. A reach but something on which to muse...
Economic
It appears that we've had a raging economic debate going on all weekend here (while I was dead drunk in a ditch somewhere, shirking my moderating duties). In failing to distill their individual theories through the lens of the globalized economy, especially the possibility of China's economy overheating and their inability to control it through monetary policy, both authors do a disservice to our esteemed readership. Or something. My point is really that economics is some hard shit with lots of variables that aren't always consistent. Things are seldom black or white. Maybe tax cuts/increases help the economy, maybe they don't...it depends on a multitude of different things. While I'm no economist, I'm a decent statistician and the biggest mistake made with statistics is to infer causality (high contrast example: I got a raise after a big thunderstorm so therefore thunderstorms cause raises). That kind of thinking is how we ended up with religion.
Friday, January 27, 2006
I'm purple...
Okay, I'll take the bait and allow JimL to set the hook. He claims I'm a shameless partisan that lambastes the right while giving the left a free pass. I confess I have a contrarian streak. This makes it much easier to bitch about people with power. The left is powerless and inept and therefore makes a pretty weak target. Additionally, nothing makes my blood boil more than people who impose their morality on others and people that take rights away from Americans. The left hasn't been doing this much lately with the exception of trying to fine people who buy cereal with cartoon characters used in advertising.
But to try and establish my purple credentials:
John Kerry is a fool. He is perhaps the least politically savvy politician ever. This latest effort to call for a filibuster from the ski slopes in the Swiss alps just reinforces the stereotype he rightfully earned during the campaign. The stupidest thing he ever did, however, was when a reporter teed up the easiest question ever during the campaign. If you knew then what you know now, would you still vote for the war in Iraq. The moron said yes. I'd agree to take a year off my life if I never had to hear him speak again. I think he and Bush have each done one thing right in their lives. Kerry had that great line about who wants to be the last person to die for a mistake. Bush had that strike he threw at Yankee stadium after 9/11.
Gore isn't much better. The fact that Kerry and Gore couldn't beat a seriously weak Bush in either election bespeaks the political and strategic bankruptcy of the left. The left has no coherent ideology that a layperson can identify with. The left also has no personality. If the evangelicals would just let McCain run, he would slaughter all comers.
Cindy Sheehan doesn't know when to stop and the fact that she and other Hollywood crazies are the poster-children for the left is the reason the left can't get traction. The Dems need some kind of leadership to distance from these nutjobs. As I understand it, Sheehan is currently in Venezuela hobnobbing with Hugo Chavez. The lefties that have actual charisma are way too left for regular folks to identify with. The sensible centrists have no charisma. They're fucked.
As a career third-party voter, I'd love for a true centrist to emerge that had sensible economic policies and didn't want to force their personal Jesus on me. The lobby, the church, and the lefty interest groups are too strong, as well as the goofball primary system. I'm fucked. So I'm going to continue to complain about powerful people putting stupid policies in place. Since George is damn near a monarch, there's a good chance most of this complaining will be about him.
But to try and establish my purple credentials:
John Kerry is a fool. He is perhaps the least politically savvy politician ever. This latest effort to call for a filibuster from the ski slopes in the Swiss alps just reinforces the stereotype he rightfully earned during the campaign. The stupidest thing he ever did, however, was when a reporter teed up the easiest question ever during the campaign. If you knew then what you know now, would you still vote for the war in Iraq. The moron said yes. I'd agree to take a year off my life if I never had to hear him speak again. I think he and Bush have each done one thing right in their lives. Kerry had that great line about who wants to be the last person to die for a mistake. Bush had that strike he threw at Yankee stadium after 9/11.
Gore isn't much better. The fact that Kerry and Gore couldn't beat a seriously weak Bush in either election bespeaks the political and strategic bankruptcy of the left. The left has no coherent ideology that a layperson can identify with. The left also has no personality. If the evangelicals would just let McCain run, he would slaughter all comers.
Cindy Sheehan doesn't know when to stop and the fact that she and other Hollywood crazies are the poster-children for the left is the reason the left can't get traction. The Dems need some kind of leadership to distance from these nutjobs. As I understand it, Sheehan is currently in Venezuela hobnobbing with Hugo Chavez. The lefties that have actual charisma are way too left for regular folks to identify with. The sensible centrists have no charisma. They're fucked.
As a career third-party voter, I'd love for a true centrist to emerge that had sensible economic policies and didn't want to force their personal Jesus on me. The lobby, the church, and the lefty interest groups are too strong, as well as the goofball primary system. I'm fucked. So I'm going to continue to complain about powerful people putting stupid policies in place. Since George is damn near a monarch, there's a good chance most of this complaining will be about him.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Today's Constitutional Abomination
...but not here. Witness the following statement in the new Iraqi constitution:
"The freedom of communication, and mail, telegraphic, electronic, and telephonic correspondence, and other correspondence shall be guaranteed and may not be monitored, wiretapped or disclosed except for legal and security necessity and by a judicial decision."
I'm really curious what the President feels his limits are under his supposed statutory authority to do anything to protect Americans. Using the same justification, he has legalized torture and allowed American citizens to be held without charges or access to attorneys. An article in Slate posits:
Bush and his lawyers contend that the president's national security powers are unlimited. And since the war on terror is currently scheduled to run indefinitely, the executive supremacy they're asserting won't be a temporary condition.
More good stuff:
[I]n inverting specific prohibitions into blanket permission that Gonzales reaches for the genuinely Orwellian. The Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 not only does not authorize Bush's warrant-less snooping but clearly and specifically prohibits it by prescribing the FISA court system as the "exclusive" method for authorizing electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes...[Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales proposes that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act must either be read as consistent with the position that [the president] can wiretap whomever he wants (thus becoming meaningless) or, alternatively, be dismissed as an unconstitutional irrelevancy.
In other words, laws either mean what we want them to or they are unconstitutional. This is really what these people are saying.
But why does this all-purpose rationale not also extend to press censorship or arresting political opponents, were the president to deem such measures vital to the nation's security?
They've insinuated to varying degrees that political opponents are traitors and that all bad news is the fault of a biased press...if things get bad enough, they just might lock them up and shut 'em down. Fox News can stick around as the state-run news channel.
"The freedom of communication, and mail, telegraphic, electronic, and telephonic correspondence, and other correspondence shall be guaranteed and may not be monitored, wiretapped or disclosed except for legal and security necessity and by a judicial decision."
I'm really curious what the President feels his limits are under his supposed statutory authority to do anything to protect Americans. Using the same justification, he has legalized torture and allowed American citizens to be held without charges or access to attorneys. An article in Slate posits:
Bush and his lawyers contend that the president's national security powers are unlimited. And since the war on terror is currently scheduled to run indefinitely, the executive supremacy they're asserting won't be a temporary condition.
More good stuff:
[I]n inverting specific prohibitions into blanket permission that Gonzales reaches for the genuinely Orwellian. The Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 not only does not authorize Bush's warrant-less snooping but clearly and specifically prohibits it by prescribing the FISA court system as the "exclusive" method for authorizing electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes...[Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales proposes that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act must either be read as consistent with the position that [the president] can wiretap whomever he wants (thus becoming meaningless) or, alternatively, be dismissed as an unconstitutional irrelevancy.
In other words, laws either mean what we want them to or they are unconstitutional. This is really what these people are saying.
But why does this all-purpose rationale not also extend to press censorship or arresting political opponents, were the president to deem such measures vital to the nation's security?
They've insinuated to varying degrees that political opponents are traitors and that all bad news is the fault of a biased press...if things get bad enough, they just might lock them up and shut 'em down. Fox News can stick around as the state-run news channel.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Munich...not the movie.
I've been noodling on doing a big tour-de-force post on the similarities between Iran and Germany in 1935. To me this is the scariest problem in the world. Alas, I was beaten to the punch by Newt Gingrich here and at length here. Now Newt and I don't always agree, but I've always thought he was a smart guy with interesting things to say. He says:
Indeed, the new Iranian President does not even require us to read a book like Mein Kampf to understand how serious he is. He enthusiastically makes speeches proclaiming to the world his commitment to genocidal annihilation of another nation. Furthermore his senior foreign policy leader has endorsed his vicious threats.
Meanwhile the civilized world wrings its hands and the United Nations acts with contemptible weakness.
[T]he combination of two elements--the virulence of the ideology of Iran’s current regime and advanced military capabilities it is working energetically to acquire--when added to Iran’s inherent endowment--its strategic location, natural resources, population, and proximity to the vital resources of other nations in the region and the seaways through which these sources reach the rest of the world--poses a threat of such scope and magnitude which leave us with no choice but to take it with the utmost seriousness. We must prepare and take actions of the same intensity and seriousness as the threat.
I feel there's going to be a Munich moment, similar to when Britain chose to appease Hitler rather than confront him. I see the new Iranian leadership as pure evil, and the US is not in a strategically ideal position. Russia and China are acting in their economic self-interest instead of the world's best interest by not denouncing and distancing from Ahmadinejad when he claims the Holocaust didn't happen, Israel should be destroyed, or other incendiary rubbish of that ilk.
The Munich moment was a point of inflection for the Third Reich that allowed them to proceed unabated with their plans until finally the conquest of Poland was too much. A point of inflection with Iran is nearing, I don't know when, but the consequencing will be staggering.
Indeed, the new Iranian President does not even require us to read a book like Mein Kampf to understand how serious he is. He enthusiastically makes speeches proclaiming to the world his commitment to genocidal annihilation of another nation. Furthermore his senior foreign policy leader has endorsed his vicious threats.
Meanwhile the civilized world wrings its hands and the United Nations acts with contemptible weakness.
[T]he combination of two elements--the virulence of the ideology of Iran’s current regime and advanced military capabilities it is working energetically to acquire--when added to Iran’s inherent endowment--its strategic location, natural resources, population, and proximity to the vital resources of other nations in the region and the seaways through which these sources reach the rest of the world--poses a threat of such scope and magnitude which leave us with no choice but to take it with the utmost seriousness. We must prepare and take actions of the same intensity and seriousness as the threat.
I feel there's going to be a Munich moment, similar to when Britain chose to appease Hitler rather than confront him. I see the new Iranian leadership as pure evil, and the US is not in a strategically ideal position. Russia and China are acting in their economic self-interest instead of the world's best interest by not denouncing and distancing from Ahmadinejad when he claims the Holocaust didn't happen, Israel should be destroyed, or other incendiary rubbish of that ilk.
The Munich moment was a point of inflection for the Third Reich that allowed them to proceed unabated with their plans until finally the conquest of Poland was too much. A point of inflection with Iran is nearing, I don't know when, but the consequencing will be staggering.
A step in the right direction...
Good news in an area I've griped about before: corporate anti-consumerism. Steven Soderbergh's new movie "Bubble" is being released simultaneously at theaters, on DVD, and on broadcast television (via Mark Cuban's HDNET). Big retailers like Wal-Mart and the studios have long been colluding to maintain their grasp on movie dollars by enforcing waiting periods between theatrical, DVD, and television release. This move towards simultaneous release gives consumers more choice, which is the direction we need to be headed. The technology is there for these paradigms to be busted.
Drop the Fruit Loops and come out with your hands up!
This story tells of a group in Massachussets that seeks to fine people $25 everytime someone buys cereal or other unhealthy foods that are marketed to children. Commentary here.
Who are these people? They're running a close second to religious-right types in the "Who do I want to party with the least?" category.
Who are these people? They're running a close second to religious-right types in the "Who do I want to party with the least?" category.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Hello Hobbit people!
I got sucked in to some politics so I haven't been living up to my pledge to convert this blog to a round-the-clock clearinghouse for Lord of the Rings minutiae. So a great way to begin is for everyone to go here and find out your Lord of the Rings name. My name is Valaraukar and I'm a Wizard! What's your Lord of the Rings name little Hobbit-person?
More War Stuff
It appears from some comments to this post that because I don't cotton to Scott McClellan's politically-induced math errors, I'm some sort of terrorist sympathizer. (This is not true. I believe terrorists should be killed cartoon-style with dynamite up their asses, gruesome electrocution, base-jumping sans parachute and other greatest hits from Itchy and Scratchy.) And true to the party-line, there's an immediate conflation of Al Qaeda with Iraq. This raises the question of equivalence again as I did a few months ago here.
It was suggested that the DOD errs on the side of caution when it gives enemy casualty numbers for Iraq. GregC said that although the administration said 30,000 had been killed, it was actually more like 50,000. Never mind that my original comment was on Al Qaeda, not the Iraq war from which those figures were clearly drawn. Even so, the clean intent in quoting these statistics is to show how many terrorists we've rounded up or killed. That's not true.
I don't know how many of that 50,000 were true head-chopper-offers and how many were just a bunch of Iraqi army guys that didn't want to get invaded and went Red Dawn on us. Even the president stated that by far the majority of the insurgency were not terrorists. Yet since, when the administration speaks of the problems in Iraq he always says terrorists because it's good politics at home. He's still trading on 9/11 for a semblance of respect.
A person that targets military or cops is not a terrorist, they are insurgents. Some people don't like other people telling them what to do, regardless of how well intentioned the first party is. This is not always a bad thing...witness the Revolutionary War.
It was suggested that the DOD errs on the side of caution when it gives enemy casualty numbers for Iraq. GregC said that although the administration said 30,000 had been killed, it was actually more like 50,000. Never mind that my original comment was on Al Qaeda, not the Iraq war from which those figures were clearly drawn. Even so, the clean intent in quoting these statistics is to show how many terrorists we've rounded up or killed. That's not true.
I don't know how many of that 50,000 were true head-chopper-offers and how many were just a bunch of Iraqi army guys that didn't want to get invaded and went Red Dawn on us. Even the president stated that by far the majority of the insurgency were not terrorists. Yet since, when the administration speaks of the problems in Iraq he always says terrorists because it's good politics at home. He's still trading on 9/11 for a semblance of respect.
A person that targets military or cops is not a terrorist, they are insurgents. Some people don't like other people telling them what to do, regardless of how well intentioned the first party is. This is not always a bad thing...witness the Revolutionary War.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Style Over Substance Watch
The Powerpoint President has done some rebranding with his civil-liberties infringing domestic spying program...which he's now dubbed the "terrorist surveillance program." How many votes will that get the GOP congress? How many GOP'ers will compromise their beliefs in personal freedom (except for gun-freedom) and hop on board the national security express? Karl Rove's marketing machine appears to be in full swing for an election year.
Comments on Art Rock
As I mentioned in a comment to JimL in a previous post, politics is whipping my ass so I'm changing the theme of this blog to 24/7 Lord of the Rings discussion (bonus points for posting in Elvish).
As many readers know, I'm a big fan of satellite radio. The range of music offered is amazing, especially to those of you that tune in to the Mansion of Fun featuring David Johannsen. The other day I was heading out to get a sandwich for lunch and landed upon "The Vault" on Sirius. This station specializes in "deep cuts" from classic rock era artists. As I was meandering down the road, Jethro Tull's Thick as a Brick came on. I know the song well, going back to my youth listening to KZPS. However, this was Thick as a Brick (parts 1 & 2). I left the song and went inside to get my sandwich. I emerged roughly a half hour later to find the SAME SONG still playing. Upon running across the same tune tonight, I felt obliged to indulge you with a comment or two upon that most self-indulgent musical relic from the seventies - art rock/theme albums.
I confess I was once held in the sway of this musical genre, most notably by art-rock placard-carrier Rush. Other mainstays like Yes, ELP, and Pink Floyd were proponents of this style. It strikes me now how incredibly dated and banal this entire bunch of music seems. While the riffs of Rush's 2112 still kick, the blatant ripoff of Ayn Rand and various biblical themes serve to underscore the pseudo-intellectual vacuity of these bands. I can't see myself as an adult jamming down to the tale of By-Tor and the Snowdog regardless of how live Neil Peart's drumming might be. I'd much rather hear everyday truths about relationships and sex artfully conveyed by, say, the Rolling Stones, AC/DC, or, for that matter, Humble Pie, than listen to retreaded classical tales interpreted by the doltish gang above or someone even more ham-fisted like Thin Lizzy.
But this music is, to my mind, the soundtrack to Lord of the Rings and its ilk. Which makes me wonder if we shouldn't be expecting a comeback. What could accompany an evening of male-only video gaming and pot smoking than a few hours of Geddy Lee singing about Cygnus X-1? It seems that the true benefactor/scion of art rock has been the jam band. They share the self-indulgence, but seem to differ in the importance of the spaceman ethos. So, I predict the advent of the spaceman/medieval knight jam-band. It's a hell of an opportunity for you musicians out there.
As many readers know, I'm a big fan of satellite radio. The range of music offered is amazing, especially to those of you that tune in to the Mansion of Fun featuring David Johannsen. The other day I was heading out to get a sandwich for lunch and landed upon "The Vault" on Sirius. This station specializes in "deep cuts" from classic rock era artists. As I was meandering down the road, Jethro Tull's Thick as a Brick came on. I know the song well, going back to my youth listening to KZPS. However, this was Thick as a Brick (parts 1 & 2). I left the song and went inside to get my sandwich. I emerged roughly a half hour later to find the SAME SONG still playing. Upon running across the same tune tonight, I felt obliged to indulge you with a comment or two upon that most self-indulgent musical relic from the seventies - art rock/theme albums.
I confess I was once held in the sway of this musical genre, most notably by art-rock placard-carrier Rush. Other mainstays like Yes, ELP, and Pink Floyd were proponents of this style. It strikes me now how incredibly dated and banal this entire bunch of music seems. While the riffs of Rush's 2112 still kick, the blatant ripoff of Ayn Rand and various biblical themes serve to underscore the pseudo-intellectual vacuity of these bands. I can't see myself as an adult jamming down to the tale of By-Tor and the Snowdog regardless of how live Neil Peart's drumming might be. I'd much rather hear everyday truths about relationships and sex artfully conveyed by, say, the Rolling Stones, AC/DC, or, for that matter, Humble Pie, than listen to retreaded classical tales interpreted by the doltish gang above or someone even more ham-fisted like Thin Lizzy.
But this music is, to my mind, the soundtrack to Lord of the Rings and its ilk. Which makes me wonder if we shouldn't be expecting a comeback. What could accompany an evening of male-only video gaming and pot smoking than a few hours of Geddy Lee singing about Cygnus X-1? It seems that the true benefactor/scion of art rock has been the jam band. They share the self-indulgence, but seem to differ in the importance of the spaceman ethos. So, I predict the advent of the spaceman/medieval knight jam-band. It's a hell of an opportunity for you musicians out there.
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Texas de Brazil
I may be stealing my wife's thunder with respect to restaurant reviews, but I went to Texas de Brazil the other night on a vendor's tab and wasn't impressed. The novelty has worn off and with a few exceptions, you're just eating overcooked meat. I asked for some rare lamb and received a chunk of meat that was better suited for a fat sandwich. Additionally, I don't necessarily like the meat-carriers descending on me like a pack of wolves as soon as I go "green". I still managed to get shitfaced on a couple of bottles of wine and about four after-dinner scotches (should have been two after-dinner scotches, but the bartender was a chintzy fucker.) I think this place is a one trick pony useful for out-of-town guests that like gimmckry.
Friday, January 20, 2006
He did it again
Presidential spokesperson Scott McLellan is at it again misleading people by playing fast and loose with the numbers. From yesterday's press briefing:
MR. McCLELLAN: ...[T]he leaders of al Qaeda and others are on the run. We've already brought to justice some three-quarters of the al Qaeda leadership. And we are not going to let up. We are taking the fight to the enemy. We are continuing to pursue them, wherever they are. And we will bring them to justice, and we will win in this war on terrorism.
So we'll just snatch up the last 25% of al Qaeda leadership and there'll be no more terrorists, right? I guess terrorists, unlike every other organization in the world, do not fill open positions.
And isn't he sounding more Orwellian than usual?
MR. McCLELLAN: ...[T]he leaders of al Qaeda and others are on the run. We've already brought to justice some three-quarters of the al Qaeda leadership. And we are not going to let up. We are taking the fight to the enemy. We are continuing to pursue them, wherever they are. And we will bring them to justice, and we will win in this war on terrorism.
So we'll just snatch up the last 25% of al Qaeda leadership and there'll be no more terrorists, right? I guess terrorists, unlike every other organization in the world, do not fill open positions.
And isn't he sounding more Orwellian than usual?
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
The Evocative Singer
Tonight on Fresh Air, Terry Gross was interviewing Joe Henry, an artist with which I have a little familiarity from my days as an alt-country maven. In recent years, Joe has branched out and begun a second life as a sought-after producer. He was on the show pimping his new album, I Believe to My Soul, in which he presents great soul singers from the past with interesting new arrangements. I really liked what I heard and will be buying the album.
In the interview, he hit upon a subject that I had mused about in the past. He mentioned that he cared as little about the vocal gymnastics frequently associated with soul singers as he cares about self-indulgent guitar picking (I immediately thought Joe Satriani). Instead, he sought singers that could be evocative. In some of the cuts they played on the show, it was clear what he meant. However, his subjects were both evocative and immensely talented singers.
When I think evocative, the first person that comes to mind is Townes Van Zandt, who by just about any estimation is not an immensely talented singers. Consider Townes's original version of Pancho and Lefty side-by-side with the version made popular by Wille Nelson and Waylon Jennings (both talented singers). After hearing the Townes version, I can't really listen to the Nelson version. Sure, part of this is the silly 70's over-production, but most of it is Townes evocative voice. It's this voice that imbues his songs with so much meaning and emotion that I'm willing to overlook his obvious shortcomings as a singer. Warren Zevon comes to mind as well as an artist whose evocation trumps talent. Consider his version of Poor Poor Pitiful Me up against the many remakes.
I'm keenly aware that others would rather listen to fingernails on a chalkboard than hear Townes's voice, but this was a small epiphany for me as to why I like the music I like.
In the interview, he hit upon a subject that I had mused about in the past. He mentioned that he cared as little about the vocal gymnastics frequently associated with soul singers as he cares about self-indulgent guitar picking (I immediately thought Joe Satriani). Instead, he sought singers that could be evocative. In some of the cuts they played on the show, it was clear what he meant. However, his subjects were both evocative and immensely talented singers.
When I think evocative, the first person that comes to mind is Townes Van Zandt, who by just about any estimation is not an immensely talented singers. Consider Townes's original version of Pancho and Lefty side-by-side with the version made popular by Wille Nelson and Waylon Jennings (both talented singers). After hearing the Townes version, I can't really listen to the Nelson version. Sure, part of this is the silly 70's over-production, but most of it is Townes evocative voice. It's this voice that imbues his songs with so much meaning and emotion that I'm willing to overlook his obvious shortcomings as a singer. Warren Zevon comes to mind as well as an artist whose evocation trumps talent. Consider his version of Poor Poor Pitiful Me up against the many remakes.
I'm keenly aware that others would rather listen to fingernails on a chalkboard than hear Townes's voice, but this was a small epiphany for me as to why I like the music I like.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Hitch strikes again...
A recent Christopher Hitchens post was copied here recently by JimL to bolster his position on the Iraq war. (I would ask that next time JimL has articles we should read, he simply provides the link.) As is frequently the case with Hitch, he's quite the ideological chameleon. Today, he comes to my rescue on NSA spying and sheer dumbness of the Bush administration (he's rumored to have been a target of domestic spying). I guess to keep JimL happy, he takes a swipe at the CIA as well. Money quote here:
We are, in essence, being asked to trust the state to know best. What reason do we have for such confidence? The agencies entrusted with our protection have repeatedly been shown, before and after the fall of 2001, to be conspicuous for their incompetence and venality. No serious reform of these institutions has been undertaken or even proposed: Mr George Tenet ...was awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom.
The better the ostensible justification for an infringement upon domestic liberty, the more suspicious one ought to be of it. We are hardly likely to be told that the government would feel less encumbered if it could dispense with the Bill of Rights. But a power or a right, once relinquished to one administration for one reason, will unfailingly be exploited by successor administrations, for quite other reasons.
We are, in essence, being asked to trust the state to know best. What reason do we have for such confidence? The agencies entrusted with our protection have repeatedly been shown, before and after the fall of 2001, to be conspicuous for their incompetence and venality. No serious reform of these institutions has been undertaken or even proposed: Mr George Tenet ...was awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom.
The better the ostensible justification for an infringement upon domestic liberty, the more suspicious one ought to be of it. We are hardly likely to be told that the government would feel less encumbered if it could dispense with the Bill of Rights. But a power or a right, once relinquished to one administration for one reason, will unfailingly be exploited by successor administrations, for quite other reasons.
I don't know what to say about this...
Laura Bush, on her taste in music vis-a-vis the President:
"He likes country music a little bit more than I do, although I actually really am very fond of country music, as well," she said. "One of the songs on my IPod that I love is Dolly Parton singing 'Stairway to Heaven.' So that's sort of a combination, country and pop."
I understand the first quote: Laura making sure she doesn't alienate any cookie-baking southern women who enjoy Toby singing "We'll put a boot in your ass."
But that bit about Dolly Parton singing Stairway and the result being a combination of country and pop? I need some help. Someone please explain this to me...
"He likes country music a little bit more than I do, although I actually really am very fond of country music, as well," she said. "One of the songs on my IPod that I love is Dolly Parton singing 'Stairway to Heaven.' So that's sort of a combination, country and pop."
I understand the first quote: Laura making sure she doesn't alienate any cookie-baking southern women who enjoy Toby singing "We'll put a boot in your ass."
But that bit about Dolly Parton singing Stairway and the result being a combination of country and pop? I need some help. Someone please explain this to me...
How do you really feel?
In response to the attempts by the GOP to swiftboat Jack Murtha for speaking out against the war, including the similar refrain of dragging in some old fossils to say he doesn't deserve his medals, Arianna has the following to say:
They are the lowest form of character assassination -- cranked out by the GOP attack machine with ruthless efficiency (and almost comical predictability). A belly flop into the Beltway sewer that degrades a political culture already so befouled it might seem beyond further degradation. But then we get this effluvium -- and the stench hanging over our democracy becomes unbearable.
I agree with what she says, but I really like the way she says it.
They are the lowest form of character assassination -- cranked out by the GOP attack machine with ruthless efficiency (and almost comical predictability). A belly flop into the Beltway sewer that degrades a political culture already so befouled it might seem beyond further degradation. But then we get this effluvium -- and the stench hanging over our democracy becomes unbearable.
I agree with what she says, but I really like the way she says it.
Monday, January 16, 2006
Sam and Harry's NEVER AGAIN
Picture this, ten people going out to dinner, a lot of money is going to be spent, nobody cares about prices or limiting what they should or shouldn’t have. It is the holidays - eat and drink what you want. Isn’t that how you want your office holiday dinner to be? However restaurants are my nemesis. I love nice dinners and great service ; I don’t mind paying for them either. On the other hand, I hate average food and rotten service , which is an apt description of Sam & Harry’s, Fort Worth’s latest venture in to the apparently unknown territory of the steak house.
Upon arrival I immediately notice a sign for valet yet there is no valet to be found. We waited (remember 10 people 5 cars) 5 min for someone to arrive to tackle this crazy notion of car parking. – Bad Start-
Once inside the east side of the Worthington hotel it is obvious that they do not have our reservations. This is a sore spot with me considering I made the reservations and called to double -check them. We wait while they set up a table. I find myself thinking this is a bad sign. It is the Saturday before Christmas and they have a table for 10 open at 7:30pm.
We get our menus , which I believe are a fairly standard thing for most restaurants. If places don’t have menus they usually have a chalkboard. We weren’t at a chalkboard kinda place. I bring up the menus because mine offered no entrees. I did have two sides of identical appetizers and salads. The husband’s menu offered last week’s specials and this week’s specials. He, of course, had no appetizer selections. You can imagine the hijinks that ensued when we both had to order from two different menus. The phrase “can I get another cocktail” is ringing in my ears.
Speaking of cocktails. It seems that at S&H you must wait 25 minutes for your first cocktail. This is an extremely bad way to start out any party. It is a horrible way to start out an office gathering.
Angry quick hits :
· The husband was away from the table and they didn’t ask me if he wanted anything to drink. I feel as though I have known him long enough to make and educated guess on what he would like to drink.
· I ask for a straw. I believe this is a common bar staple. The straw they brought for my Grey Goose and soda would have been more appropriate for a Super Big Gulp. There is something foolish about a 4 in glass and a 15 in straw.
· They ran out of Crown Royal. At a steak house.
· They didn’t have any Skyy Vodka.
· Someone ordered a mojito and instead of saying “Hey we don’t do that here, we are a steak house” they make this person wait 45 min to get them a drink (apparently mint is something hard to find in a major downtown hotel) the only good part of this is that it wasn’t me.
· The wine list was its own course. It didn’t come with the menus. It arrived after we were on our second round of drinks. Perhaps they only have one and they have to share.
The food was completely unremarkable . Boring expensive steaks, Boring veggies. Note to S & H: Yo, I make good mashed potatoes...if you would like the recipe give me a ring.
The main sentiment I left with was: eat at Del Frisco's, eat a melt-in -your-mouth buffalo steak at Bella Italia, or eat at Silver Fox. Please, just eat somewhere else.
Restrooms – Oh, sure I just love to take and elevator up two flights to go to the ladies room.
Highlight of the night was a guest visit from Robin and Sarah, friends from New Braunfes.
I have a new irritation. While adding links to this post I was bombarded with music, loud office disturbing music, on the S & H site. I believe web sites should be like children, seen and not heard.
Upon arrival I immediately notice a sign for valet yet there is no valet to be found. We waited (remember 10 people 5 cars) 5 min for someone to arrive to tackle this crazy notion of car parking. – Bad Start-
Once inside the east side of the Worthington hotel it is obvious that they do not have our reservations. This is a sore spot with me considering I made the reservations and called to double -check them. We wait while they set up a table. I find myself thinking this is a bad sign. It is the Saturday before Christmas and they have a table for 10 open at 7:30pm.
We get our menus , which I believe are a fairly standard thing for most restaurants. If places don’t have menus they usually have a chalkboard. We weren’t at a chalkboard kinda place. I bring up the menus because mine offered no entrees. I did have two sides of identical appetizers and salads. The husband’s menu offered last week’s specials and this week’s specials. He, of course, had no appetizer selections. You can imagine the hijinks that ensued when we both had to order from two different menus. The phrase “can I get another cocktail” is ringing in my ears.
Speaking of cocktails. It seems that at S&H you must wait 25 minutes for your first cocktail. This is an extremely bad way to start out any party. It is a horrible way to start out an office gathering.
Angry quick hits :
· The husband was away from the table and they didn’t ask me if he wanted anything to drink. I feel as though I have known him long enough to make and educated guess on what he would like to drink.
· I ask for a straw. I believe this is a common bar staple. The straw they brought for my Grey Goose and soda would have been more appropriate for a Super Big Gulp. There is something foolish about a 4 in glass and a 15 in straw.
· They ran out of Crown Royal. At a steak house.
· They didn’t have any Skyy Vodka.
· Someone ordered a mojito and instead of saying “Hey we don’t do that here, we are a steak house” they make this person wait 45 min to get them a drink (apparently mint is something hard to find in a major downtown hotel) the only good part of this is that it wasn’t me.
· The wine list was its own course. It didn’t come with the menus. It arrived after we were on our second round of drinks. Perhaps they only have one and they have to share.
The food was completely unremarkable . Boring expensive steaks, Boring veggies. Note to S & H: Yo, I make good mashed potatoes...if you would like the recipe give me a ring.
The main sentiment I left with was: eat at Del Frisco's, eat a melt-in -your-mouth buffalo steak at Bella Italia, or eat at Silver Fox. Please, just eat somewhere else.
Restrooms – Oh, sure I just love to take and elevator up two flights to go to the ladies room.
Highlight of the night was a guest visit from Robin and Sarah, friends from New Braunfes.
I have a new irritation. While adding links to this post I was bombarded with music, loud office disturbing music, on the S & H site. I believe web sites should be like children, seen and not heard.
Orwellian?
Here's an applicable, shocking, and prescient quote from George Orwell that adapts well to our current situation in Iraq, "We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against a solid reality, usually on a battlefield."
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Vocal Celebrities
In a comment to this post, JimL said, "Harry Belafonte and Sean Penn should be embarassed for their uneducated, self-important selves." I thought this would be a good time to post my response on the vocal celebrity.
While I agree that the celebrities he mentions often seem to have a rather limited worldview, I staunchly defend their right to speak out. Their rhetoric is aimed at the uninformed lowest common denominator that reacts emotionally to their bleating. Who does that remind me of? Bush...in spades. His trip to the VFW riling them up about treasonous liberals for criticizing the war is far more reprehensible than anything Sean Penn ever did because he has the bully pulpit (and his redneck base is better armed).
If JimL were a TV star or musician (both of which I guess he is in a way) who had a faithful audience (I don't know about this), and he felt passionately about something, why not speak out? Bono obviously feels very strongly about African hunger (or some such), so he uses his position to try to help. I'm sure his zealous advocacy has turned off some of his fans. If I were famous enough to have a large fan base that I could utilize in the benefit of my passion, then I would be derelict not to do it. Arnold certainly thought this way (as that supposed Jesus fellow did too.) Shit, if I cared about anything that deeply, I'd be trying to sway my devoted following of a dozen blog-readers to my point of view. But, alas, I don't...except maybe the gurgling vitriol I harbor for religious fanatics.
Now I don't care what Sean Penn says and it won't affect whether or not I'll go see his movies. But I certainly will hesitate before I give any more money to Mel Gibson. We all have the freedom to vote with our feet or our wallets.
While I agree that the celebrities he mentions often seem to have a rather limited worldview, I staunchly defend their right to speak out. Their rhetoric is aimed at the uninformed lowest common denominator that reacts emotionally to their bleating. Who does that remind me of? Bush...in spades. His trip to the VFW riling them up about treasonous liberals for criticizing the war is far more reprehensible than anything Sean Penn ever did because he has the bully pulpit (and his redneck base is better armed).
If JimL were a TV star or musician (both of which I guess he is in a way) who had a faithful audience (I don't know about this), and he felt passionately about something, why not speak out? Bono obviously feels very strongly about African hunger (or some such), so he uses his position to try to help. I'm sure his zealous advocacy has turned off some of his fans. If I were famous enough to have a large fan base that I could utilize in the benefit of my passion, then I would be derelict not to do it. Arnold certainly thought this way (as that supposed Jesus fellow did too.) Shit, if I cared about anything that deeply, I'd be trying to sway my devoted following of a dozen blog-readers to my point of view. But, alas, I don't...except maybe the gurgling vitriol I harbor for religious fanatics.
Now I don't care what Sean Penn says and it won't affect whether or not I'll go see his movies. But I certainly will hesitate before I give any more money to Mel Gibson. We all have the freedom to vote with our feet or our wallets.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Going to the Mattresses
I don't think I'll get too much argument if I say that what politicians in power want more than anything else is to remain in power. When they come under fire, they "go to the mattresses" to defend that power. When the Clinton administration was in the throes of Blow-gate, they obviously were trying desperately to maintain power and therefore weren't focused on their obligation to what's best for our country. They did some dumb things that caused harm to the country...especially with respect to neglecting terrorism. We didn't know about this until years after it mattered.
Now we are facing what is likely to be the most scandal-plagued year in decades. It's also an election year with polls not looking good for those in power. The "ins," in my opinion, will do anything to maintain power even if it does harm to the country. For instance, I think the administration will prematurely withdraw troops regardless of progress in Iraq to drum up electoral support and boost polling.
What other dumb shit will be done in the next twelve months to try and hold on to power? If past is precis, we can count on utter stupidy the likes of which boggles the mind. This is an administration with robust record of doing stupid things for the sake of political power.
It's even more problematic because there are scandals in the White House, Senate, and House. This will be a grotesquely partisan ugly year. My hope is always that centrist candidates will strike a chord, but these scandals will likely ignite the freakish bases of both parties and drown out any pragmatism. What wedge issues will be drummed up to distract the electorate from what really matters?
Now we are facing what is likely to be the most scandal-plagued year in decades. It's also an election year with polls not looking good for those in power. The "ins," in my opinion, will do anything to maintain power even if it does harm to the country. For instance, I think the administration will prematurely withdraw troops regardless of progress in Iraq to drum up electoral support and boost polling.
What other dumb shit will be done in the next twelve months to try and hold on to power? If past is precis, we can count on utter stupidy the likes of which boggles the mind. This is an administration with robust record of doing stupid things for the sake of political power.
It's even more problematic because there are scandals in the White House, Senate, and House. This will be a grotesquely partisan ugly year. My hope is always that centrist candidates will strike a chord, but these scandals will likely ignite the freakish bases of both parties and drown out any pragmatism. What wedge issues will be drummed up to distract the electorate from what really matters?
My Scandal du Jour
These days there's pretty much a scandal for everyone. Between Abramoff, Plame, Delay, Duke Cunningham, Katrina response, Cronyism, PreWar Intel, Torture, Domestic Spying, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Ahmad Chalabi, Judith Miller, etc. there's pretty much something available for everyone. There's so many, it's impossible to be an expert on all of them. I know...I've tried. I really tried to be an expert on the potential connection of the Italian Secret Service in the Yellowcake Scandal. It was too deep and I had to cut bait.
Now, I think it's an unreported scandal that we're making the poor pay for Katrina relief through health-care cuts, student loan cuts, food stamp cuts etc. rather than the Marshall Plan we were promised. But I think I've found a bigger scandal that everyone can agree on. What's a scandal is how severely the administration underestimated the cost of the war and the legacy this underestimation will leave. Recent reports conservatively estimate the long term cost of the war at TWO TRILLION DOLLARS...compared with what we were hearing from Bush's economic team before the war:
Before the invasion, then-White House budget director Mitch Daniels predicted Iraq would be "an affordable endeavor" and rejected an estimate by then-White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey of total Iraq war costs at $100 billion to $200 billion as "very, very high."
So if $100 billion is "very high," what were they expecting? $50 million? Meaning that they could have underestimated by a factor of 40? That's got to be the scandal of the century. As a project manager, what if I took a million dollar project and brought it in for $40 million? Was the Big Dig even that bad a failure?
These are, of course, costs one can calculate..."hard costs" if you will. I'd like to see the price of lost respect in the world due to the hubristic bullying, lying, and manipulation. How much "goodwill" came off our balance sheet after no WMD, Abu Ghraib, and Gitmo.
Now I think Colin Powell was right with his "Pottery Barn" rule that if you break it, you own it (although I think it proves Powell doesn't know what the hell they sell at Pottery Barn). Bush screwed it up, but now our entire country has to fix it. The false choice of "stay the course" versus "cut and run" is rhetorically fallacious in the highest. We can't have an immediate withdrawal as we must pay Bush's butcher's bill and hopefully leave the place somewhat functional.
Now, I think it's an unreported scandal that we're making the poor pay for Katrina relief through health-care cuts, student loan cuts, food stamp cuts etc. rather than the Marshall Plan we were promised. But I think I've found a bigger scandal that everyone can agree on. What's a scandal is how severely the administration underestimated the cost of the war and the legacy this underestimation will leave. Recent reports conservatively estimate the long term cost of the war at TWO TRILLION DOLLARS...compared with what we were hearing from Bush's economic team before the war:
Before the invasion, then-White House budget director Mitch Daniels predicted Iraq would be "an affordable endeavor" and rejected an estimate by then-White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey of total Iraq war costs at $100 billion to $200 billion as "very, very high."
So if $100 billion is "very high," what were they expecting? $50 million? Meaning that they could have underestimated by a factor of 40? That's got to be the scandal of the century. As a project manager, what if I took a million dollar project and brought it in for $40 million? Was the Big Dig even that bad a failure?
These are, of course, costs one can calculate..."hard costs" if you will. I'd like to see the price of lost respect in the world due to the hubristic bullying, lying, and manipulation. How much "goodwill" came off our balance sheet after no WMD, Abu Ghraib, and Gitmo.
Now I think Colin Powell was right with his "Pottery Barn" rule that if you break it, you own it (although I think it proves Powell doesn't know what the hell they sell at Pottery Barn). Bush screwed it up, but now our entire country has to fix it. The false choice of "stay the course" versus "cut and run" is rhetorically fallacious in the highest. We can't have an immediate withdrawal as we must pay Bush's butcher's bill and hopefully leave the place somewhat functional.
Monday, January 09, 2006
Greek Life
While I don't argue with the rights of fraternities and sororities to exist, I must admit I've always had some heartburn about them. To me, they are fundamentally worsening the cultural and social stratification of society by helping the people that need help least.
These organizations simplify socialization of the already socially well-adapted. It's no secret what these groups are looking for in their recruits...people that have a combination of these traits: good looking, social, confident, rich and smart. If you possess any of these, you're automatically socialized.
This pattern will perpetuate itself forever. I'm not suggesting Greek affirmative action, I'm not suggesting anything other than we see things for what they are.
(Note: folks that lack any of the qualities above...i.e. an ugly unconfident poor dumb loner is just a loser and not somebody I want to ever hang out with.)
(Full disclosure: I was not in a fraternity)
These organizations simplify socialization of the already socially well-adapted. It's no secret what these groups are looking for in their recruits...people that have a combination of these traits: good looking, social, confident, rich and smart. If you possess any of these, you're automatically socialized.
This pattern will perpetuate itself forever. I'm not suggesting Greek affirmative action, I'm not suggesting anything other than we see things for what they are.
(Note: folks that lack any of the qualities above...i.e. an ugly unconfident poor dumb loner is just a loser and not somebody I want to ever hang out with.)
(Full disclosure: I was not in a fraternity)
Friday, January 06, 2006
Shooting Fish in a Barrel
My favorite targets are generally religious zealots. Given that, I know there can't be an easier target in America than Pat Robertson. So it's hardly fair that I pants him here on the blog. However, his recent statements about Israeli PM Ariel Sharon's stroke being punishment for pulling Israeli troops out of the Gaza Strip prompted me to let him hang himself. Forthwith, I begin a Greatest Hits of Robertsonian Comic Genius. Feel free to contribute your own if you know of some good 'uns. On with the show:
Robertson said that God told him: "I will remove judges from the Supreme Court quickly, and their successors will refuse to sanction the attacks on religious faith." Robertson also said that he "heard it from the Lord" that President Bush will have Social Security and tax reform passed and that Muslims will turn to Jesus Christ.
"...one of the fundamental principles we have in America is that the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces and attempts to undermine the commander in chief during time of war amounts to treason."
"But look at Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The stuff that she believed in was absolutely outlandish, you know, polygamy, legalized prostitution, legalized -- the age of consent dropped to 12."
STEPHANOPOULOS: You said...that the out-of-control judiciary -- and this was in your last book, Courting Disaster -- is the most serious threat America has faced in nearly 400 years of history, more serious than Al Qaeda, more serious than Nazi Germany and Japan, more serious than the Civil War?
ROBERTSON: George, I really believe that.
After Orlando, Florida, city officials voted in 1998 to fly rainbow flags from city lampposts during the annual Gay Days event at Disney World, Robertson issued the city a warning: "I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you. ... [A] condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It'll bring about terrorist bombs, it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor."
COLMES: When you say he's got the favor of heaven, are you implying that that -- he is God's choice and that God preferred him over John Kerry?
ROBERTSON: Obviously, if you think the Lord rules in the affairs of men, he did because he sure won. He had 3.5 million more votes.
COLMES: -- Doesn't that mean that at one time, Pat, Bill Clinton was God's choice for president?
HANNITY: No, he just allowed -- allowed that to happen.
COLMES: Let me ask Pat.
HANNITY: We're out of time.
ROBERTSON: I think -- I think He [God] wanted to bring America to its knees so we'd start praying harder.
Robertson said that God told him: "I will remove judges from the Supreme Court quickly, and their successors will refuse to sanction the attacks on religious faith." Robertson also said that he "heard it from the Lord" that President Bush will have Social Security and tax reform passed and that Muslims will turn to Jesus Christ.
"...one of the fundamental principles we have in America is that the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces and attempts to undermine the commander in chief during time of war amounts to treason."
"But look at Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The stuff that she believed in was absolutely outlandish, you know, polygamy, legalized prostitution, legalized -- the age of consent dropped to 12."
STEPHANOPOULOS: You said...that the out-of-control judiciary -- and this was in your last book, Courting Disaster -- is the most serious threat America has faced in nearly 400 years of history, more serious than Al Qaeda, more serious than Nazi Germany and Japan, more serious than the Civil War?
ROBERTSON: George, I really believe that.
After Orlando, Florida, city officials voted in 1998 to fly rainbow flags from city lampposts during the annual Gay Days event at Disney World, Robertson issued the city a warning: "I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you. ... [A] condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It'll bring about terrorist bombs, it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor."
COLMES: When you say he's got the favor of heaven, are you implying that that -- he is God's choice and that God preferred him over John Kerry?
ROBERTSON: Obviously, if you think the Lord rules in the affairs of men, he did because he sure won. He had 3.5 million more votes.
COLMES: -- Doesn't that mean that at one time, Pat, Bill Clinton was God's choice for president?
HANNITY: No, he just allowed -- allowed that to happen.
COLMES: Let me ask Pat.
HANNITY: We're out of time.
ROBERTSON: I think -- I think He [God] wanted to bring America to its knees so we'd start praying harder.
Horses in Front of Greenwood
At the entrance to Greenwood Cemetery in Fort Worth is a large statue of four horses charging out of the cemetery gates. As I'm entering the cemetery for a funeral, I started wondering about the significance of these horses. The most obvious connection seems to be the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse. But why would a "place of rest" metaphorically advertise itself as a haven for war, famine, pestilence, and death? Appropriate...yes. Subtle...no. Maybe they just thought horses would be some cool shit to have out in front of a cemetery...I wonder.
Update: Well, you do a little research and you find the answers. The horses at Greenwood are a quadriga. A quadriga is a " four-horse chariot, raced in the Olympic Games and other sacred games, and represented in profile as the usual chariot of gods and heroes on Greek vases and bas-reliefs. The quadriga was adopted in ancient Roman chariot racing. Quadrigas became a natural emblem of triumph, victory or fame, often depicted as a triumphant woman guiding a quadriga. In classical mythology, quadrigas were the vehicles of the gods; Apollo was often depicted as driving his quadriga across the heavens, bringing daylight with him and dispersing the darkness of night."
Well, okay then. I guess that's more in line with the usual advertising modus of cemeteries. I think it would have been cooler with the chariot, though.
Update: Well, you do a little research and you find the answers. The horses at Greenwood are a quadriga. A quadriga is a " four-horse chariot, raced in the Olympic Games and other sacred games, and represented in profile as the usual chariot of gods and heroes on Greek vases and bas-reliefs. The quadriga was adopted in ancient Roman chariot racing. Quadrigas became a natural emblem of triumph, victory or fame, often depicted as a triumphant woman guiding a quadriga. In classical mythology, quadrigas were the vehicles of the gods; Apollo was often depicted as driving his quadriga across the heavens, bringing daylight with him and dispersing the darkness of night."
Well, okay then. I guess that's more in line with the usual advertising modus of cemeteries. I think it would have been cooler with the chariot, though.
Hooked 'Em
I think Samuel L. Jackson needs to send Vince Young his "Bad Motherfucker" wallet. Vince is a total badass who has a storied history of rising to the occasion and did so in spades Wednesday night.
Maybe it was just the epic struggle he had just been through, but I thought Matt Leinart was a bit of a sourpuss in post-game interviews. He kept referring to Vince Young as a "freak of nature" and declaring that they were a better team that "lost" rather than Texas "winning." I think I was watching a different game. If I've ever seen any team snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, it was Texas on Wednesday night.
Now, as an A&M alum I've had to progress through a slew of rationalizations to end up as a fever pitch Texas supporter. I think what finally put me over the edge was the simple fact that the state of Texas produces so much talent, it's bullshit that we haven't had a national champ in 35 years. If it's Texas, so be it. However, given that I had a little bet on the game, I still considered it a win-win situation. If Texas lost, I could revert to being a snarky Aggie gigging the Longhorns about Mack Brown not being able to win the big one. That would have been worth the price of the bet.
Maybe it was just the epic struggle he had just been through, but I thought Matt Leinart was a bit of a sourpuss in post-game interviews. He kept referring to Vince Young as a "freak of nature" and declaring that they were a better team that "lost" rather than Texas "winning." I think I was watching a different game. If I've ever seen any team snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, it was Texas on Wednesday night.
Now, as an A&M alum I've had to progress through a slew of rationalizations to end up as a fever pitch Texas supporter. I think what finally put me over the edge was the simple fact that the state of Texas produces so much talent, it's bullshit that we haven't had a national champ in 35 years. If it's Texas, so be it. However, given that I had a little bet on the game, I still considered it a win-win situation. If Texas lost, I could revert to being a snarky Aggie gigging the Longhorns about Mack Brown not being able to win the big one. That would have been worth the price of the bet.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Wasting Time
Those of you who haven't killed time on Internet Movie DataBase are missing out. Did you know...
Corbin Bernsen (of Major League and L.A. Law fame) has one of the world largest collections of snow globes...over 6000!
Here's a user comment I found on the "Dog the Bounty Hunter" forum...
Some of you comment on the way they are dressed and what they did when they where younger I have been a bail agent for 21 years now and believe me they put their lives on the line everyday with that in mind does it really matter what they are wearing and as far as what they did they paid their dues they did their time and for Dog to go out and change after that well I don't know I guess you are perfect and have never sinned or felt deep remorse for those sins. He made his life better he now has morals how many people now can say that. As far as I can see no one cares about anyone anymore it is a rare thing to see another human being actually take the time to help someone else and you are going to mock that everything must be perfect in your world how about joining the real world
Now, I'm no grammarian (a fun game: find the double negative in this post) but those are the longest sentences I've seen since I gave up on Faulkner. I get the feeling that the writer was just too fucking pissed about some asshole besmirching Dog's good name to take time to punctuate. I feel sorry for the writer's spouse, who undoubtedly had to endure a none-too trenchant pantsing of modern society as interpreted by this 21 year veteran of the bail-bond trade.
But the ultimate timewaster has to be Stuffonmycat.com. Here's what's happening over there. While their lazy-ass cats are sleeping, people cover them with shit - all kinds of shit like candy, cd's, post-it notes, whatever - then take photos and submit them to the site. Any photo qualifies as long as there's a cat with something on it. Like dogs, musical instruments, bananas, spare change....
Corbin Bernsen (of Major League and L.A. Law fame) has one of the world largest collections of snow globes...over 6000!
Here's a user comment I found on the "Dog the Bounty Hunter" forum...
Some of you comment on the way they are dressed and what they did when they where younger I have been a bail agent for 21 years now and believe me they put their lives on the line everyday with that in mind does it really matter what they are wearing and as far as what they did they paid their dues they did their time and for Dog to go out and change after that well I don't know I guess you are perfect and have never sinned or felt deep remorse for those sins. He made his life better he now has morals how many people now can say that. As far as I can see no one cares about anyone anymore it is a rare thing to see another human being actually take the time to help someone else and you are going to mock that everything must be perfect in your world how about joining the real world
Now, I'm no grammarian (a fun game: find the double negative in this post) but those are the longest sentences I've seen since I gave up on Faulkner. I get the feeling that the writer was just too fucking pissed about some asshole besmirching Dog's good name to take time to punctuate. I feel sorry for the writer's spouse, who undoubtedly had to endure a none-too trenchant pantsing of modern society as interpreted by this 21 year veteran of the bail-bond trade.
But the ultimate timewaster has to be Stuffonmycat.com. Here's what's happening over there. While their lazy-ass cats are sleeping, people cover them with shit - all kinds of shit like candy, cd's, post-it notes, whatever - then take photos and submit them to the site. Any photo qualifies as long as there's a cat with something on it. Like dogs, musical instruments, bananas, spare change....
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
Blarnia II
Just in case my viewpoint wasn't clear on the previous post, I view Aslan the big fluffy friendly lion in the Narnia series a little bit like I view Joe Camel. Gandalf in Lord of the Rings is also culpable.
Which is not to say I don't support the rights of both C.S. Lewis and Camel cigarettes to advertise their products how they see fit. We have to live with these fraudulent portrayals...caveat emptor.
Update: I don't have a problem with kids enjoying a fantasy kiddie story with a big fluffy lion. I do have a problem with the way the hordes of evangelical Christians, unaware of my "apathetic atheism," give me the ol' wink-wink "my family saw Narnia this weekend...did you." These are the same people that continually drop the name of their church to try and elicit a response from me to see if I'm one of the gang. Let your kids enjoy the movie, buy the stuffed animal at Burger King, and leave me alone about it...lest I endorse the Mouseketeers as sponsors of Marlboro.
Which is not to say I don't support the rights of both C.S. Lewis and Camel cigarettes to advertise their products how they see fit. We have to live with these fraudulent portrayals...caveat emptor.
Update: I don't have a problem with kids enjoying a fantasy kiddie story with a big fluffy lion. I do have a problem with the way the hordes of evangelical Christians, unaware of my "apathetic atheism," give me the ol' wink-wink "my family saw Narnia this weekend...did you." These are the same people that continually drop the name of their church to try and elicit a response from me to see if I'm one of the gang. Let your kids enjoy the movie, buy the stuffed animal at Burger King, and leave me alone about it...lest I endorse the Mouseketeers as sponsors of Marlboro.
Alternative to Blarnia
Like any good name-calling elitist, I was musing over the latest issue of the New Yorker recently trying to project some blue-state ethos onto my red state existence. I ran across an article about the celebrated children's author Philip Pullman. Pullman writes children's fantasy novels that have been regaled as masterpieces in his native Britain. It's worth noting that Pullman's characters are differentiated from the standard Magic-and-Monster goulash in that there is a pronounced dedication to science.
The article is an interesting juxtaposition of Pullman, an avowed atheist, and C.S. Lewis, the evangelist. In the wake of the movie Narnia, Lewis has been receiving much acclaim from our vocal theocratic wing and a fair amount of criticism for his rather transparent Biblical allegory from egg-headed literary coastal types. For my part (and I identify myself with the egg-headed literary coastal types), I lapped up those books at a very young age like a kitten with a bowl of milk without even sniffing the religion being foisted upon me. I will attribute this to my secular upbringing, my uncritical nine-year-old brain, and the great names of the books, especially "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader."
The article describes Pullman as being more critical of the Narnia series than the Lord of the Rings, that other mainstay of Christian allegory by Lewis' converter Tolkien:
When it comes to “The Chronicles of Narnia,” by C. S. Lewis, Pullman’s antipathy is even more pronounced [than for Lord of the Rings]. [He] considers the fantasy series “morally loathsome.” In a 1998 essay for the Guardian, entitled “The Dark Side of Narnia,” he condemned “the misogyny, the racism, the sado-masochistic relish for violence that permeates the whole cycle.” He reviled Lewis for depicting the character Susan Pevensie’s sexual coming of age—suggested by her interest in “nylons and lipstick and invitations”—as grounds for exclusion from paradise. In Pullman’s view, the “Chronicles,” which end with the rest of the family’s ascension to a neo-Platonic version of Narnia after they die in a railway accident, teach that “death is better than life; boys are better than girls . . . and so on. There is no shortage of such nauseating drivel in Narnia, if you can face it.”
Touche. Much of the criticism of Narnia has to do with the inherent sexism that sounds to me to be earned. On the contrary, many young girls identify with the youngest sister who is the first to be brainwashed...er...believe in Narnia. One thing I like about the Lion episode is that Santa gives everyone tools.
The Pullman series is called "His Dark Materials" (a line from Paradise Lost) and is available here.
Pullman's series is described as being similar to the Harry Potter series in that it attracts many adult readers as well. I've ordered up the series of three and am looking forward to the read. Stay tuned for a review (in about six months).
The article is an interesting juxtaposition of Pullman, an avowed atheist, and C.S. Lewis, the evangelist. In the wake of the movie Narnia, Lewis has been receiving much acclaim from our vocal theocratic wing and a fair amount of criticism for his rather transparent Biblical allegory from egg-headed literary coastal types. For my part (and I identify myself with the egg-headed literary coastal types), I lapped up those books at a very young age like a kitten with a bowl of milk without even sniffing the religion being foisted upon me. I will attribute this to my secular upbringing, my uncritical nine-year-old brain, and the great names of the books, especially "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader."
The article describes Pullman as being more critical of the Narnia series than the Lord of the Rings, that other mainstay of Christian allegory by Lewis' converter Tolkien:
When it comes to “The Chronicles of Narnia,” by C. S. Lewis, Pullman’s antipathy is even more pronounced [than for Lord of the Rings]. [He] considers the fantasy series “morally loathsome.” In a 1998 essay for the Guardian, entitled “The Dark Side of Narnia,” he condemned “the misogyny, the racism, the sado-masochistic relish for violence that permeates the whole cycle.” He reviled Lewis for depicting the character Susan Pevensie’s sexual coming of age—suggested by her interest in “nylons and lipstick and invitations”—as grounds for exclusion from paradise. In Pullman’s view, the “Chronicles,” which end with the rest of the family’s ascension to a neo-Platonic version of Narnia after they die in a railway accident, teach that “death is better than life; boys are better than girls . . . and so on. There is no shortage of such nauseating drivel in Narnia, if you can face it.”
Touche. Much of the criticism of Narnia has to do with the inherent sexism that sounds to me to be earned. On the contrary, many young girls identify with the youngest sister who is the first to be brainwashed...er...believe in Narnia. One thing I like about the Lion episode is that Santa gives everyone tools.
The Pullman series is called "His Dark Materials" (a line from Paradise Lost) and is available here.
Pullman's series is described as being similar to the Harry Potter series in that it attracts many adult readers as well. I've ordered up the series of three and am looking forward to the read. Stay tuned for a review (in about six months).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)