Wag the Slate

New Best of the Fray

2010-03-26T14:53:00.000-07:00

... Best of the Fray.

Archive Maintenance

2008-05-21T09:15:00.000-07:00

Upgraded template to new blogger. While this blog may be retired, its contributors are not. See Linklist.

Last Post

2006-11-13T10:20:00.000-08:00

Wag the Slate has moved to WikiFray.

I want to thank:

JohnMcG MsZilla PatternsInTheFootage Elbo Ruum Sandy weldon berger Dawn Coyote Mel chango topazz rundeep TheQuietMan switters alexa-blue TheBrewmaster Jen august bright TenaciousK Persephone keifus and -sydbristow

It was thanks to you that Wag the Slate outgrew its name.

Stragglers: Please see the Temp. FAQ.

Eulogist Wanted

2006-11-10T18:57:00.000-08:00

My beta.confidence is building. We’ll make the move next week. Once it’s official, I plan on removing all team members from wagtheslate. That means you won’t be able to post here anymore. I’ll also add links to WikiFray (we’ve moved) to the header and the sidebar.

That leaves a final post (Last Post) to serve as wagtheslate’s masthead for all eternity. I was thinking a concise history of this blog, something that’s both informative and honors the role wagtheslate has played in our evolution. I’d appreciate it if a better writer than I would volunteer to write that last post. Or it could be a group effort. Or a competition. Or a series of posts. Who’s up for it?

Speaking of Great Pictures...

2006-11-10T17:57:00.000-08:00

Mike the Barber

2006-11-10T16:09:00.000-08:00

I just broke off a five-year relationship. It wasn't a valued relationship, although services were provided and pleasantries exchanged, but as these things go, some measure of loyalty has accreted over time with familiar intertia.

When I first came to Massachusetts, I chose to patronize Mike for no other reason than his proximity to my place of employment. It wouldn't really be correct to call Mike a barber, recalling, as it does, gruff men with buzzing shears and worn-through formica, and newspapers and coffee. Mike is more of a stylist, and he ran his own place. I watched a couple of Mike's halfhearted business adventures come and go. He'd rearranged the place a couple of times, and tried to support a manicurist for a short time. He never really seemed into it.

Mike has a lisp and a Greek accent, middle aged with dark, full hair and the slouch of a healthy man who does nothing physical. He smells of hair product and the cigarette he smoked an hour ago in the back room. I'd have guessed he's a gay man (the lisp), and maybe he is, but he's got grown children and a brother-in-law with whom he's resigned enough to drop the business for a week and drive to wherever. I'd have said "happy enough", but Mike doesn't ever really look happy. He's amused on rare occasions, but most of the time he trudges around just a hair cowed, just a hair desultory. "How's the family?" he'd drawl without enthusiasm, remembering, without details, that I have young children. "How's work?"

I usually came in during lunch--what I'd think would be peak hours--but I never saw very many patrons in Mike's shop. One time, a fat, loudmouthed woman bowled the man over about her trip to Greece, flirting with him, at which Mike looked profoundly uncomfortable. She left him a suggestive thank-you card, which he uncomfortably asked me to read for him as her car crunched away in the driveway. Maybe he can read Greek.

Mike always did a terrible job cutting my hair, but you can probably guess how much that bothers me. I came back every month, and left the poor bastard a tip, as I did the last time. "I've moved," Mike told me on the phone as I arranged my appointment. (He wasn't comfortable with a walk-in.) It wasn't really any further from work, but as I walked in, it was apparent Mike had a new partner as well. He must be the sort of guy that draws heavy obnoxious blondes, because he looked more broken than ever. I asked him about the move, and he glanced at the sow by the door before he answered that "the place was too big for just me." I asked if many clients had followed him here. "Not many," he softly replied, after looking at the scowling heifer by the register. Nervously, he handled my fourteen bucks plus tip. "I- I'm not so good at the new machine."

"Should I ask for you when I come back?"

"Okay...but only on Fridays and Saturdays now."

"I'll try to remember. Thanks."

"Okay," he mumbled.

I held out for about twice as long as usual, but couldn't bring myself to go back. Even if I could prop my eyes open to the shame, Mike made it damn inconvenient with the whole Friday-only thing.

So yesterday, I went to the commercial place. "We cater to men," the owner (yet another tubby and annoying blonde) bubbled at me. "TVs at every chair. We shampoo after we cut. A neck massage with every visit."

A massage, you say.

"I love cutting wavy hair," my young hairdresser told me.

"Really? What the hell do you do with it?"

"For you, just some gel."

I made the obligatory remarks about hairline recession here. It's not as bad as I whine about. "Do what you think works," I said.

I took off the coke bottles as she did her magic, but afterwards, I must say that I liked the shampoo. I'd forgotten how pleasant it is to have some nubile, delicate-fingered girl massage your scalp. And then the vibrator on my back. Yowza. I didn't want to go back to work.

She was right about the gel, too. I walked out with the best haircut I've had in a decade. When I got home, my wife noticed, and if that wasn't out of character enough, I think she was a little turned on.

I hope Mike does well, but I think the poor fella's on his way out. I can't help but feel somewhat responsible.

I Want A Katrina Cottage

2006-11-10T15:46:00.000-08:00

Makes perfect economic sense. It's an ideal size for an in-law apartment, I can buy it at Lowe's, and with almost an acre on my existing property I have the lot space to build it. I could use it for my parents, for my kids when they need a transition space after college, or even for myself if I want to get away from my kids.

How much you want to bet zoning won't allow me to build it? Fuckers.

hurts my eyes somewhere

2006-11-10T12:05:00.000-08:00

Playing straight man for swit.

The year is 1987. Five southbound teenagers are traveling north on I64 to William and Mary Hall, where R.E.M. are playing on their Document tour. The evening will be recorded in Rolling Stone as one of the worst concerts R.E.M. ever gave. They had recently become a fraternity favorite, and the drunken moshing of Sigma Nus screaming "Leonard Bernstein" at just the wrong moment would prompt Michael Stipe to flashlight a couple for security to escort from the building. The southbound teenagers would enjoy the concert, would avoid the hard, human crush, would speed back through Norfolk (where they had started their trip) and on to North Carolina, where they sleepily take the S.A.T.'s the next morning.

Each of the boys has told his parents a different story. August says he is going to North Carolina, spending the night with friends so he can be well-rested and prepared for "Clint Eastwood is to codfish as [blank] is to mackerel." Ben's parents believe he is spending the night with Phil. Phil informed his parents he is going to the beach with August. All but Allan edited out the part about R.E.M. Allan did tell his parents about R.E.M., but left out the S.A.T's. Fortunately for all concerned, the respective parents never wind their way through this spool of half-truths.

The point was that North Carolina gave the S.A.T's a month before Virginia. By slipping across the border, we could then get in two rounds before college applications were do, thus doubling our chances of a decent score. And if we then rewarded ourselves with a trip to the beach, did we not deserve a little time in the ocean? And when we discovered R.E.M. was playing in Williamsburg, well, why not?

Put it this way; I would never have risked my college education on U2. On the subject of incomprehensible lyric: what the hell is pride in the name of love?

Back to the five teenagers, one of whom was a me barely recognizable to me now. R.E.M. made sense to them. Not at the concert, where they felt beamed into a world we weren't ready for, but in the truck on the way from the S.A.T.'s (disaster!) to the beach the next day. They had a tapes of Murmur and Chronic Town, and the twangy harmonies seemed to spread through the grasses along the Alligator River (oh shit, Jefferson I think we're lost). They were so happy to be in motion: lower wolves. It was dark when they reached the beach, and they talked of all the people they thought they might be, but it didn't work out that way (gardening at night). They had passions they did not understand and could not articulate, loyalties to spaces they didn't realize were demarcated. They found twisted harmonies and dissonances; they drank heavily, slept it off, went home. They understood what was to come, but of course they had no idea.

WikiFray Prep [Email Me]

2006-11-10T12:02:00.000-08:00

I assume we’re all onboard for moving?

The sooner the better. I’m not done customizing WikiFray yet, but it is fully functional. In preparation for the move I’m going to send those of you who respond a gmail invite (if needed) and an invite to join WikiFray.

Although you don’t have to create a gmail account in order to register for a google account (for beta.blogger), I suggest you go the gmail route anyway. In the long run, it simplifies things. Nevertheless, it’s your option.

Handle these items at your own pace. I don’t want to guess when we’ll decide to shut down wagtheslate and move operations over to WikiFray, but it’s right around the corner, and maybe even as soon as next week. Obviously, it’s better if we’re all able to post on both blogs before we actually execute the transition.

With that understood, rather than send out a mass email to everyone listed as a contributor, I think it’s best I only send out invitations to people actively participating (for starters). So for those of you who are actually contributing, please send me an email me at wikifray@gmail.com.

What's up with Sorkin's Kansas?

2006-11-10T11:33:00.000-08:00

A running theme of Aaron Sorkin's Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip seems to be exploring what happens when "red" and "blue" collide, and whether people from differnt backgrounds can work together.

In The West Wing, in the beginning, conservatives were strawmen who might bicker with the lower level staffers, but would then stand slack-jawed as Barlett or some other senior staffer delivered an unanswerable speech. The first entry here is probably the canonical example. Conservatives were caricatures who would shove another child in front of a bus in order to go yell at a woman walking by an abortion clinic on the off-chance she might be getting an abortion.

Then, we got Ainsley Hayes, who was allowed to land a few punches before being put back into her place (in the boiling room) before she ran off to fire guns in Miami.

Now, on Studio 60, we have Harriet Hayes, who is the star of the show, kind to everyone, but happens to be an evangelical Christian. She seems to be the next evolutionary step from Ainsley Hayes.

So, I wonder where we're going.

As the episode including Tom's parents showed, Sorkin's not above trotting out stereotypes of red state folks to smash them down. I mean, they had never heard of Abbott and Costello?

We've also got the current cliffhanger of half the cast being stuck in a rural Nevada police station with a judge played by John Goodman who started off like he was on the same bus as Tom's parents, then showed otherwise, but then returned to what seemed like a caricature. And this whole sequence was kicked off when Harriett expressed her views on same sex marriage and was confronted by a gay couple who didn't approve of her disapproval.

Anyway -- what do you think Sorkin's trying to teach us about red state - blue state relationships? That as long as red state people are smart and tolerant (Harriet's OK with premarital sex) and look like one of the Hayes sisters, we can get along great?

Thoughts welcome...

[sikwoiu] WikiFray

2006-11-10T05:54:00.000-08:00

Hello All: An update imbedded in a test. Lots of experimentation and a little progress. If you visit WikiFray, you’ll see that I’m giving the comments feed a prominent place. I happen to think one of the things that makes us unique is the fact that we actually converse. Anyway, I’m also interested in widening our appeal. To that end, I’ve figured out a workaround to do one better than blogroll. Essentially (assuming this works), I’ve figured out a way for those of you with your own blogs to have your blog posts automatically (that means, after setup it’s hands free) have your posts appear in this comments feed. So, when you post on your blog, it gets face time on WikiFray.

I really like this idea, as I believe the future of WikiFray is as a hub for our community as it outgrows the fray. Anyway, if this works you’re reading this post which I posted on my sikwoiu blog.

Anyway, I believe WikiFray is beginning to take a discernable shape, so trash it now or forever hold your peace. This has been a test.

--
Posted By sikwoiu to sikwoiu at 11/08/2006 03:23:00 PM

Babies and bathwater

2006-11-09T22:45:00.000-08:00

Via MOJ, a Commonweal post by Cathleen Kaveny listing framing methods used by conservative Catholics and other religious people that she hopes will go by the wayside.

1. A Manichean world view: it’s Good v. Evil, the forces of light v. the forces of darkness. And by the way, WE are GOOD.

Fair enough -- we could do with more self-examination.

2. A delight in demonizing the opposition: who could see anything good in the forces of darkness? How could the forces of darkness have any point worth considering whatsoever?

Also fair enough -- those who differ with us do so for what are good reasons that are typically rooted in compassion. We thing it's misguided compassion, but it will not be guided in the correct direction by us yelling about how evil they are, and by engaging them, we can make policies that work for all involved.

3. An inability to recognize hard questions, and to acknowledge good faith disagreement about difficult moral and political issues. To Catholic culture warriors, the question of stem-cell research, or the Terri Schiavo case, weren’t even hard questions. The very suggestion that they are hard questions proved your moral turpitude.

Eh, not so fast. Some questions aren't hard. It shouldn't be hard to know that theft is wrong. Or rape. Or, yes, wars of aggression and torture. For someone to suggest that these are hard questions suggests that some self-deception is going on.

And yes, it is hard for me to see how one can fail to recognize that destroyin one human life for another's benefit is wrong and something we shouldn't do. And that if all someone needs to continue to live is to be fed, we should continue to feed her. We were reminded in last week's Gospel how simple morality really is. Difficult, but simple. Pretending that it's complicated yes, is usually a sign of moral turpitude. Perhaps pointing this out isn't the best choice for an initial approach in engaging these people, but we shouldn't pretend it's not the case.

4. An ends-justifies-the-political-means mentality. If what it takes to rid the world of Saddam is prevarication on WMDs, so be it. If what it takes to save Terri Schiavo is to violate settled principles of federalism, so be it.

And now I'm officially off the bus.

End-means justification is perfectly fine so long as the means are not intrinsically immoral. I wouldn't normally rip off another person's sweater, but I might to administer life-saving CPR.

I can accept that lying or embellishing evidence of WMD's was and is immoral. Bearing false witness and all.

But "violat[ing] settled principles of federalism" is not intrinsically immoral. And it seems especially odd to see this implied in an article arguing for nuance. If adhering to settled principles of federalism means sitting on our hands while a woman is starving, screw federalism. If adhering to settled principles of federalism means botching a post-hurricane relief effort because things like that are really the states' responsibility, screw federalism!

Yes, I know -- federalism was more of a post-hoc excuse for the pathetic effort thatn a guiding principle for the governement's (non)-actions. But still, we all recognize that getting people out of a flooded city is a higher moral principle than federalism

5. An inability to see nuance, or to take into account anything but one moral principle at a time. Abortion is the taking of innocent human life. Nothing else needs to be said. Therefore it should always be illegal, even in cases of rape or incest. If you think the question of the woman’s consent to sex is at all relevant to the legal status of abortion, you’re the enemy.

In the paragraph above, Kaveny was suggesting that we sacrifice Terry Schiavo on the altar of federalism; now she's criticizing others for letting one moral principle wiegh to heavily?

Also, if I'm not mistaken, our own President Bush holds the position that Kaveny describes as that of the "enemy." And I thought he was the guy we were too attached to.

And what, exactly, is the moral principle that says that fetuses conceived by rape do not have a right to life?

6. A preference for the stick rather than the carrot – after all, you can’t fight a war with a carrot. Support marriage by banning gay marriage; don’t provide married couples with the social support and other resources they need to make their commitment stick. Be pro-life by banning abortion, not by voting for social services that will prevent unwanted pregnancies or help mothers and fathers make a long-term commitment to raise children.

Listen, I like things like the 95-10 initative. And banning abortion does not discharge our duty to babies conceived in difficult circumstances. But it is the necessary first step. Yes, first.

I know I'm displaying the characterisic lack of tolerance and recognition of nuance by even drawing this parallel, but if someone in the 1850's said that the best way to address the injustice of slavery is not to ban it, but to offer incentives and support to southern plantation owners so they could compete wihout access to slave labor, how seriously would you take his opposition to slavery. If you were a slave and had the ability to vote, would you vote for the candidate who proposed this solution (along with a commitment to never criminalize slavery), or the candidate who wanted to criminalize slavery?

Yes, there I go again, seeing things from only one side. But there is an injustice being done. And a prerequisite for effectively addressing it is legally recognizing it as an injustice.

I agree we could all do with a healthy dose of humility and compassion when we enter into debates. We should recognize that our adversaries are not neccesarily our enemies. But we shouldn't pretend not know what we know.

Dear Chicken of the Sea

2006-11-09T16:29:00.000-08:00

Hello. I have a complaint. But before I explain to you the particulars of my complaint, I want to establish a few facts:

1. I know that your product is not chicken. I’d like to think I know this because of all many foodstuffs that do taste like chicken, yours is not one of them. It’s likely that simple. Nevertheless, I do not discount the possibility that my firsthand experience with your product in conjunction with my basic understanding of the English language is what accounts for my possession of this knowledge. Although I do not recall the specifics surrounding my recognition of the true nature of your product, the above are the most likely. However, there is one last remote possibility. It’s possible that I know Chicken of the Sea is not chicken simply by virtue of the following facts: I do not intend to, nor have I ever applied to be a Mouseketeer; I am not blond (real or fake); and I can’t sing.

2. I’m a Bumble Bee man. For whatever reason (their tuna is more expensive and their packaging is more appealing on a subconscious level), I’ve always felt Bumble Bee tuna was of a better quality than StarKist. If it were up to me, I’d always choose Bumble Bee. Fortunately, it’s not up to me. I’ve surrendered the responsibility for grocery shopping to my wife. That’s not to say that I don’t accompany her to the grocery store. It is to say that with the exception of pushing the cart and picking out some Haagen-Dazs, it’s not my job to worry about keeping the kitchen stocked. So you’ll forgive me if I’ve chosen to tolerate substandard tune rather than have the conversation with my wife--who chooses your tuna because it’s cheap--where I attempt to explain to her why Bumble Bee is better.

3. You, dear addressee, are not a chicken (of the sea), a cartoon tuna, or even Mr. StarKist. You are, most likely, a “Customer Service Representative”. This means: (a) I’m not so insane that I think I’m writing to a fowl, rendering, or someone with the power to cure my complaint; (b) I am, however, still insane enough to waste my time writing; and (c) you are stuck in a dead-end job.

Now that we know a little bit about me, and a little bit about you, I feel more comfortable about telling you why I’m writing to complain. Perhaps the following behavior is strange, or weird, but it is how I was raised (read: I have an excuse). I was taught that the first two steps of preparing to prepare tuna are: 1. open the can with a can opener; and 2. squeeze the water out of the can. It is the second step that left me flustered the other night. Note: I said “squeeze” the water out, and not strain or drain the water out. To squeeze the water out of a can of tuna you hold the can with both hands over the sink with the cut lid still on. You then invert the can, and using your thumbs, you press down on the lid (now pressing upwards since the can is upside-down), the water is gradually squeezed out of the can and into the sink. This method works like a charm, and the determined squeezer (I am one) can squeeze nearly all the water out of a can of tuna in this way.

This is how I prepare to prepare tuna. This is how I’ve always prepared to prepare tuna. Absent either of these first two steps, I find I am unable to prepare to prepare tuna. So you can imagine my chagrin when after completing step 1 and commencing with step 2, the cut metal lid bent under the slight initial pressure I was applying to it and Chicken of the Sea squirted all over the sink. Flummoxed, I went to a second can, and sure enough, the lid of the second can again bent despite the insignificant pressure I was applying to it. When the lids of all 6 cans of tuna I’d opened proved inadequate I was beside myself.

Naturally, you might question my method. I would if I were in your shoes. But I can assure you that over the years I’ve become something of an expert at squeezing the water out of tuna cans. By using the full breadth of both thumbs, shifting points of pressure and a little patience, I’m actually quite impressive.

Therefore, it is my expert opinion that given all 6 lids failed to withstand my most meticulous attempts that the problem is not with me, but with you. The problem, it appears, is this that through some misguided effort to conserve resources or cut costs, you’ve changed the composition of your cans, and inadvertently made the lids too thin to perform their secondary task—that of squeezer. In other words, I can no longer satisfactorily squeeze the water out of your cans of tuna. That’s not to say I didn’t improvise. Surely I retrieved a cup from the cupboard whose base was relative to the side of the tuna can and used it to help squeeze the water out. But it was a stopgap measure that didn’t work as well as my thumb over sink method.

In conclusion, the next time I’m pushing a cart through the grocery store, I will break from my daydreaming long enough to explain to my wife why Bumble Bee is better. It won’t be because it’s more expensive or subliminally appealing. You see, she was witness to the fiasco, and so all I need say is maybe Bumble Bee’s cans are up to the task and that we should try them. We’ll buy them, and they’ll squeeze just fine (I’ll make sure of that [wink]), and from then on forward, my good wife will remember why we prefer Bumble Bee over StarKist. Goodbye.

Don't Make Decisions By the "Ick Factor"

2006-11-09T14:15:00.000-08:00

In response to this Slate article.

Now that the Supreme Court is talking a great deal about topics it knows very little about again, all the yahoos are coming back out to play. I know they have a degree that says "doctor" in it, but that's not for being a medical doctor. I'm not for late-term abortions outside of medical necessity. On the other hand, I have some grave concerns for a law that doesn't take medical necessity into account, and requires deciding input from someone who isn't a doctor. But I'm not talking about this law.

I'm talking about an argument tactic that some people use. I see it time and time again - the squicked out reader hits that paragraph that describes the process of a late-term abortion and just freaks out. They start calling anyone who could do this a monster, etc.

Banning this because you think the procedure is gross is NOT acceptable. Laws are made with the head.

I hate to break it to you squeamish types, but being a doctor is full of things like that. People require some amazing ends to keep them alive. Medicine is full of things I wish to God never had to happen to even my worst enemy.

I remember talking to an acquaintance of mine who is an opthamologist about a particularly intense scleral buckle she had installed. Or how about debriding a major burn?

Note the tone of the instructions. They're the same. I could have come up with some really cool ones, like mitigating obstetrical fistulas or a cauterizing vasectomy, but I didn't want to have the entire audience under the table.

I'm not unsympathetic to those feelings. I found a release form for doing that debriding thing to children who had 3rd degree burns and just thinking about that made me shiver. But I don't make my decisions based on that.

Think about it. Do we start banning open heart surgery because just the sound of cracking a chest will give you nightmares and describing the rest of the process makes some people feel icky? No. That would be ridiculous.

So why do you think in cases where there is real danger to the mother, banning this procedure is okay? The only reason I've seen you give is because you don't approve of the required steps and they gross you out. And because of that you think that it should never ever be able to happen even when there's risk to the mother? Or that someone who's not even a doctor and works banker's hours is supposedly going to make that choice fast enough in the emergency circumstances where this might be appropriate? It can't be because of risk - open heart surgery is just as much a life and death situation.

That's what this law requires. That's what you are suggesting that the Supreme court use as it's criteria. I have some concerns they're going to make a good decision here even with all this advice they've been getting and all that education they have. I have no faith at all in your tossing tummy as a rubric.

I don't know what those lawmakers were thinking. They have a blueprint to write this law in a legal fashion, but they chose not to. I don't know why. Maybe the lawmakers were too grossed out by that description, too, and followed their heaving bellies instead of legal reality.

We have a real problem here people, and if you're too faint-hearted to face it with your brain instead of your stomach, then shut up and faint quietly in the corner. Real life and real people have some gross parts, and we have real work to do getting this situation dealt with.

[sikwoiu] Another test post from sikwoiu.

2006-11-09T08:24:00.000-08:00

The short version of how it should work: sikwoiu to sikwoiu feed. sikwoiu feed emails to 3936 auto publish. 3936 to 3936 feed. 3936 feed to comment sidebar.

--
Posted By sikwoiu to sikwoiu at 11/09/2006 08:14:00 AM

Expanding the Circle

2006-11-09T07:46:00.000-08:00

Looks like we got a good number of hits yesterday from WaPo's Techonorati links. Nice work, august!

The Teaching Canard

2006-11-09T06:41:00.000-08:00

Some of you may remember Tom Moore, the teacher in the Bronx who wrote a series of dispatches for Slate in 2002. Tom has a blog. He hasn't been keeping up with it as much as one might like, but the archives are full of great anecdotes about teaching, and also persuasivey argued essays on teaching policy. All that, and cool pictures, too!

In posts here and here, Tom explains why the problem isn't about old teachers, and it isn't really about new teachers. New York has spent a ton of money on programs to get people to teach. The problem? Holding on to people. Because while the city will hire you without a teaching degree, they won't actually give you time off to complete your education. And without additional support, teachers either leave or get fired.

I'm not sure how Tom feels about teacher's unions. My sense is he doesn't feel they represent his needs. But I thought of Tom's writing while listening to Kaus on bloggingheads. Kaus briefly pulls out an old carnard -- the Democrats are in bed with unions. With American industry tanking, what unions is is talking about? Not UAW. Not the Teamsters. The teachers.

Yes, folks, Johnny can't read because the teachers' unions back seniority and refuse to endorse any kind of school choice ("even" Mickey exclaims, "charter schools!"). Nevermind that in Jersey, charter schools as often as not benefit wealthy kids whose parents know enough to send their kids there. In fact, the problem with most failing schools isn't seniority, it is recruitment and retention. The media stereotype of the jaded 30 year veteran just doesn't address the reality of the situation.

And that's generally the problem with public policy. Decision-making by anecdote, where the anecdotes are based more on literary convention than on on-the-ground realities. My kid is doing well in private school -- send everybody to private school! High standards are good! All of which may or may not be true. But to have a sense, we need to rely on more than our vague memories of our favorite teacher or where our own kids happened to succeed. All that might not be so helpful in the Bronx...

Frayge6:TheOuterSanctum-Special BotF Edition

2006-11-08T14:53:00.000-08:00

Posters Sizzle As The Mid-Term Election Results Heat Up The Best of the Fray's Otherwise Threadbare Kitchen
Compiled by switters
Updated Wednesday, November 8, 2006 at 12 PM CST

In a week that culminated in the midterm elections, the political boards lit up to a slow boil, climaxing at nearly the same time as Frayers stepped up to the Slate and hit 3-pointer after 3-pointer right down the center of the goalie posts. Here are some of the highlights.

9/11 Defines Political Character Of The Y Generation Again
-By fizzlizzard

On Laura Bush's Concession Speech To Hillary Clinton (With Transcript Exegesis)
-By pardon_my_French

Is Cheney's Impeachment Imminent Or Eminent?
-By ThymeFlies

How Alexander Hamilton Would've Voted
-By Lou_Rawls_Frozen_Brain

A Grateful Nation Lets Out A Collective Dry Heave
-By AAMeeding

Is Donald Rumsfeld's Resignation Implied Or Inferred?
-By OICUP

A Katie Couric CBS News Career Retrospective And Cooking Demonstration
-By cOoLaDe

Diebold Voting Machine Writes Itself In On Paperless Ballot In Ohio Gubernatorial Race
-By Fraytard

Say It Ain't So, Britterline Kevispear!
-By Loose_Tool

Network Teleprompter Operator Calls Florida Too Early, Idaho Secretly Annexed By Canada
-By aMEALyur8

Alabama And The Red State Blues
-By BubbaGotGame

Armless Montanan Votes With Feet, Votes With Feet
-Pair'oPleejack

Nancy Pelosi Head Butts Bill Frist, 9 Hurt
-By tribblemaker

Black Voters (I.e., Felons) Turned Away At Mississippi Polling Station & Casino
-By NASCARmom

Newly Elected Congressman Vows First Act As Congressman Will Be To Run For Reelection
-By MrSnit

Nancy Grace Swallows Own Face Live On Air
-By That_Quaker_Oats_Dude

Arizona Confused About New Ballot Initiative, Accidentally Secedes From Nation
-By fickledick

Newly Elected Senator Vows First Act As Senator Will Be To Sodomize Hooker In Vegas While On Fact Finding Mission In His Pants
-By NotOnMyWatch

Gay Mayor-Elect Makes Good On Man Date
-By PlanetFabUlust

Campaign Promises Begin To Spoil On Shelves All Across America Due To Lack Of Preservatives, Integrity, Honesty, Reliability, Testicles
-By SoapScumPirate

Krazy Karl Kreates Kreepy Kalifornia Konundrum
-By KKK

Hang This Chad
-By squint

Post Election Poll Results: 1% Of Country's Population Controls 99% Of Its Health
-By BuNkRuBbEr

Monkey Votes In Topeka: Kansas Evolves
-in2it

Jesus Wept
-By _cue_pile_on_here_

Got an opinion? Come on in to Best of the Fray. The water's just fine.

"Ya shoulda hung out, man… Ten minutes after you left…"

It's always ten minutes after you leave, like The Fun Mobile is ten minutes behind you at all times… Filled with strippers and midgets and balloons…

"Ten minutes after you left, the Dixie Chicks broke in and fucked everybody… Even the fat kid with asthma wearing the 'Babylon 5' t-shirt got a hand job… And it's never gonna happen again…"
-Dave Attell

Analysis of Virginia Returns

2006-11-08T08:29:00.000-08:00

How to read this map. I think it tells us a number of things even before we get to the dreaded recount.

As I write this (Wednesday am), Webb is ahead and the odds-on favorite, but his victory is by no means assured. Nevertheless, the vote totals allow some preliminary conclusions about voting patterns in Virginia. I favor the Democrats, and thus will concentrate on what the election means for them.

History

To make sense of Virginia, you have to understand the Byrd machine (named after a prominent Virginia family – I'm pretty sure they are relatives of the West Virginian of the same name). This was the Dixiecrat device by which rural areas of the western part of the state were favored over cities in the eastern part. The system worked mainly in the statehouse – it suppressed the black vote and prevented the cities of Norfolk and Richmond from gaining too much clout. It also, of course, delivered a reliably conservative delegation to Congress.

Two things worked to undo the Byrd machine. The first – civil rights – broke later in Virginia than in the deep south, and with no particularly spectacular effect on the overall voting pattern. When Virginia was ordered to integrate public schools, the state simply shut them down – a campaign known as "massive resistance." It's proponents to this day claim that this act helped prevent "unrest," by which they can quietly conjure images of black people running amuck without actually saying so. But Virginia did integrate, and the racial makeup of the state had some effect on voting. However, the legacies of the Byrd machine continued to work: the black vote was heavily concentrated in cities or swallowed up in rural districts.

Civil rights also undid the Dixiecrats, of course. Increasingly, the voice of rural white Virginia became Republican. Despite this seminal shift, the dynamics of the Byrd machine remained, they just worked to favor Republicans instead of Democrats.

The bigger undoing of Byrd politics was the rise of the Northern Virginia suburbs. These folks, mind you, are not for the most part screaming liberals. But it is a diverse community (VA natives still talk about it as a separate state), and less prone to vote according to party loyalty. They grew very, very quickly. In the eighties, conservative Democrats like Chuck Robb discovered that if they could combine enough remnant party loyalty throughout the state, the black vote, and the Northern Virginia vote, they could win elections.

The Republican response to this is well known. They used religion and culture to argue that Robb type Democrats were posers – that they were culturally alien to most of the state. Robb of course did not help matters by hanging out at parties in Virginia Beach were the cocaine drifted like snow. The state's first black governor, Douglas Wilder, had a similar tale of woe. And then the combination of the Reagan Revolution and the boy genius let the Republicans make huge gains in suburbs – huge swaths of development around the cities that largely cancelled out the urban vote. It was Byrd Politics 2.0 – encircle the enemy.

There was an implicit cultural argument in this maneuver. You, suburban residents, have values more similar to the rural parts of the state than to the godless, carpetbagger, crime-ridden cities. The challenge for Webb was to either get suburbanites to think like urbanites, or for suburbanites to think of him as real and his opponent as fake. The key would be the suburbs of Norfolk and Richmond, where the vote wound up pretty evenly split. If you want to know why the race is deadlocked, look at the returns in Suffolk and Chesapeake (semi-rural but developing areas around Norfolk). Even-steven.

Webb and the Gaffer

Cultural factors explain the power of the word "Macaca." The Democrats never had a prayer in this election until Macaca broke. The word had such effect because a healthy chunk of Northern Virginia's population growth is among immigrant communities. I was shocked a few years ago to find Korean neighborhoods (in 1988, there were two Asian kids in my high school of 2000). Those are the folks who would have taken Macaca seriously. They and their neighbors must have seen Allen's fumbling about identity as a sign of a lot of things they'd been noticing.

The investigation into Allen's background also revealed that he only came to Virginia in college. This fact would not of course bother immigrants, but it made it harder for him to employ the old line of painting Dems as outsiders and liberal snobs.

Webb made it particularly hard. He has a son in Iraq. His policies are modeled on the old Southern Democrats. If it were simply a matter of policy, progressives would bury this guy – he's pro-choice, anti-immigration (although he's softened this line for obvious reasons), and he talks like a native. Most importantly, he seems genuine. The defense used against Robb and Wilder – that they are ultimately eastern elites – just doesn't stick.

So Webb follows an old model of how to win an election. You poll very well in Northern Virginia. You mobilize black and urban voters. And – and this will be crucial to the outcome – you pick up enough votes elsewhere that it's harder for Republicans to count on their base. There was an anti-gay-marriage initiative on the ballot. Something like a third of the folks voting for it voted for Webb. It's not a ton, but it may turn out to have been enough to supplement Webb's natural strengths.

Democrats and the War

Of course, in heavily military Virginia, the war is a big deal. But here's the thing. Only part of the Webb vote was an anti-war vote. Another significant chunk consisted of people who wanted the war run by people who know something about war. It's no so much anti-war as anti-Rumsfeld. If Webb pulls this thing out, he won't really have a mandate for pullout.

I thought Webb had to win Virginia Beach to win the election. The Beach is full of suburbs and megachurches, but it also has a sizable military population. I thought it would be a bellweather of how well he convinced people who had come to see themselves as culturally (not just politically) Republican to vote for him. He lost. If he hadn't, his victory would have been much, much clearer.

Webb specifically ran because he wants to change the Democratic Party. Progressives will be justifiably nervous about those changes. But for the party to maintain power, for it to hold on in states like Virginia, it has to find ways to show people that there are a lot of ways to be a Democrat. I still think Virginia Beach is a key measure. Lots of people there think of themselves as conservatives, and simply as a matter of identity refuse to vote for Democrats. The Democratic Party is fighting a story that people tell themselves about their culture. To capture those votes, it needs to tell a different story about itself, and it needs spokesmen like Webb. And then, of course, it needs to find a way for the Webbs of the world to work with the Kennedys. The Virginia election results suggest that the answer is populist rather than progressive politics. I feel ambivalent about that (especially as it means that a Democratic congress will not really be very different from a Republican one), but I am so fed up with the alternative, I can live with it.

UPDATE: Webb claims victory! As Suffolk goes, so goes the Commonwealth...Race called for Webb. Really, I don't see what Allen can hope for at this point. But I've been wrong before.

AH WHAT THE HELL

might as well whore for traffic:

Richmond War Room will not be seduced by flashy campaigns... Really, they're serious.

Virtual Conservative debriefs the Republicans. Republicans lost because "they allowed themselves to run against themselves." It's Faulty Towers over there -- just don't mention the war!

Bacon's Rebellion is my favorite of the conservative bloggers (conservative in VA being very conservative by Fray standards). Great historical reference, guys. Spirit of 1676!

Virginia Progressive gives insight into Dem voter turnout: "I ain't no macaca!"

My family is from Lynchburg, so I'm not as suprised as I should be that these folks are blaming Dem. corruption. I'm sure there were problems, but it seems like a stretch to me.

Hampton Roads Politics comes closest to my own feeling: it's the war, stupid.

I'm very fond of Virginia -- these people speak my language. Let's hope they are coming together around some kind of moderate core and not splintering into a "culture war" that is more spin than substance.

That's enough politics for me. Still waiting to hear the scoop on a. Gilmore Girls b. Miss Spears c. Legally Blonde. Little help here please!

FINALLY: looks like Allen will concede, in part under pressure from party bigwigs. Death with dignity.

He's gone. Here's WaPo on the changes in Northern Virginia. All true, but I still think Bacon's Rebellion and Hampton Roads Politics are closer to the mark. Dems can win in Virginia only if they can shave Republican majorities in conservative areas. Even then, Webb would surely have lost if Rummy resigned two weeks ago.

Midterm Reactions

2006-11-08T07:45:00.000-08:00

Amendment 2 Approved

I was somewhat giddy(see 8:12 comment) at the thought this would fail, but it appears to have passed.

So, the pro-ESCR crowd managed to buy their amendment. I hope they're happy with themselves. I found this especially rich:

Donn Rubin, of the Coalition for Lifesaving Cures, said, “We've known for a long time that a large majority of Missourians support stem cell research. Unfortunately, the issue was clouded to a great extent in the last few weeks ... I think that's why the margin of victory was as narrow as it was.”

Ah, yes, pity the poort Amendment 2 advocates, with their 30 to 1 money advantage and array of star power, who nevertheless had the issue clouded. Perhaps if they had built their case honestly, instead of hyped promises, they wouldn't have been open to such "clouding." I mean really, how can a campaign that ran ads in pretty much every commercial break for the last month dare to complaing about their issue being "clouded?"

Oh, well..

McCaskill defeats Talent

I think Jim Talent is a decent guy who got caught up in the anti-GOP current, and lost because of it. And I am not expecting anything special from McCaskill in the Senate.

This may seem like sour grapes, but it looked to me over the past week that Talent's heart wasn't in it. I think he was tired of trying to bridge the tension between running for himself and running from the party's unpopularity. When I saw him give his concession speech last night, he seemed relieved, glad he doesn't have to play this game anymore.

He's still a young man, hopefully he'll do some more good things.

Dems take House

No skin off my nose. I think Washington needs a shake-up.

The big issue this would seem to have an impact on is immigration, which I'm not too firmly on one side or the other.

I saw Dan Murtha interviewed on NBC last night, and if he takes on a leadership position, I think his reputation is going to suffer. He looked to me like he has one gear -- angry. He couldn't take "yes" for an answer.

Yes, Dan, your anger about the Iraq war is understandable. But you just won the election, and now you have to govern. And blind rage isn't going to do it.

If he becomes House majority leader, I expect he'll become a punch line for a lot of Letterman and Stewart jokes.

Dems appear to take Senate

This is a bit more troublesome for me, because of the judiciary. Bush has already demonstrated that judicial nominations is one area where he'll give a little bit. If there is another vacancy on the Supreme Court, I don't know that Bush has either the capital or the will to back a conservative nominee against a Democratic Senate.

This will be especially true if, as expected, Christian conservatives emerge as the scapegoats for the rout. Especially with Santorum going down. (Even though he went down to a socially conservative Democrat, and his defeat probably has more to do with his stubborn defense of the Iraq policy than his social positions). I mean, do we even need to read Andrew Sullivan today to know that he's saying that today's election results should serve as a wakeup call to the GOP that to remain relevant they need to break the chains with the "Christianists?" Let me check... Here it is! I suspect more will follow.

It'll be an easy bone for Bush to throw to nominate a "moderate," and distance himself from the now discredited Christian Right.

Miscellany

MO Cigarrette tax defeates -- Somewhat surprising to me. It's interesting to me that we'll gamble on embryonic research, which may or may not cure diseases, but we won't take serious measures to curtail smoking, which has more certain health benefits.

Probably demonstrates that any initiative that has the word "tax" in it faces an uphill battles.
Minimum wage increase approved by wide margin -- It will be interesting to see how regions with higher minumum wages fare compared to those who have the federal one.
Tom Brokaw's "perspective" -- I suspect a high correlation between Tom Brokaw's "perspective" on what "America was saying" and Tom Brokaw's personal beliefs.
The New Divide Kaus says the red-blue divide may go away, and that may be true. I don't think either party can count on taking whole sections of the map anymore, especially the GOP in the central plains. In order to have power, the GOP will need to find a way to appeal to what were "blue states." They can't just write them off and count on winning the South and West. That's a good thing.

But I think the red-blue state divide may be replaced by a lower scale urban-rural divide. Every state may be up for grabs (or at least open to Democrats), but regions remain solidly in one camp or another, especially with gerrymandering.

This was driven home watching the results in Missouri come in last night. Amendment 2 was and McCaskill were trailing by 5-6 points most of the night. Then the results from the St. Louis and Kansas City cam in, and McCaskill and Amendment 2 surged ahead.

How To Ruin An Otherwise Perfectly Good Song, Volume I

2006-11-07T13:24:00.000-08:00

But maybe it's that one imperfection that makes it art.

Nope. It's that one imperfection that makes it imperfect, doofus.

Here (hear), let's take a closer look.

America, Paul Simon (and that Garfunkel person)

Put in a soprano sax solo during the bridge

I mean, really. This song starts off so perfect, with the a cappella, then the guitars come in. "Let us be lovers and marry our fortunes together…" It's awesome. Then Kenny Fuckin' G comes in during the whole "laughing at the spy in the gabardine suit with a camera in his bowtie on the bus" bit. Jesus Christ, Paul. Don't do everything some lame-ass producer says to. I bet it was the same retard who told you to put in a trumpet solo for one of the verses of "The Boxer", wasn't it? No wonder Art left you. You've got no artistic backbone, dude. And you haven't written anything halfway decent in 33 years. Asshole.

Stairway to Heaven, Led Zeppelin

Perform it live

A lot. Over and over and over. Mutilate the open by doing it on a double-necked electric and have your bass player play the bass lines on a Fender Rhodes. Then take a 35-minute guitar solo that goes nowhere and finishes before it even started while the drummer rushes the tempo from the moment he comes in because he's in the middle of finishing off a 5th of Jack that he keeps on his floor tom, and we're not even to the intermission yet. Yeah. Do that.

Candle in the Wind, Elton John/ Bernie Taupin

Change the words so it applies to the Princess of Wales who's just had 2 tons of twisted steel plow into her abdomen

What a fucking sellout that was. It made me sick. I'm surprised the little queen didn't do a 9/11 version.

Goodbye gleaming towers
Though I never knew you at all
You had the grace to hold yourself
While those around you crawled, caught on fire, and jumped out of the 114th floor to their certain deaths…

Hey. That's not bad actually.

Both Sides Now, Joni Mitchell

Have Judy Collins cover it

Hey Judy: Stick with mauling "Send in the Clowns". Again. Bitch. Didn't Joan Baez punch you in the face at a peace rally back in '68? I guess it didn't take.

Giant Steps, John Coltrane

Show the tune to the piano player about 43 seconds before the engineer hits the record button

And then use the take that you sound best on. "Giant Steps", in addition to being a very complicated up-tempo chart with rapid chord changes, doesn't exactly lie well for your average (or above average, for that matter) jazz pianist. Add the fact that it jumps around from awkward key to awkward key (B, F#, &c., and the like), and taking a solo on "Giant Steps" as a jazz pianist is like playing tiddlywinks with your elbows. Ouch! That smarts.

Alas, pianist Tommy Flanagan will always be remembered, because of that recording, as the Bill Buckner of jazz.

Bohemian Rhapsody, Queen

Have a really terrible snare drum sound

When Brian May's guitar solo kicks in after Freddy's bit about Beelzebub having put a devil aside for him, or something to that effect, the sound of the snare drum sucks every last bit of life out of what should've been a real rockin' moment right out of the whole song.

In the late 1970s and into the mid 1980s, most rock drummers preferred a fatter sound, what they at the time thought of as "heavier". Well they were wrong. It wasn't. It was bland and out of focus. Think Whitesnake, Def Leppard. This was a direct reaction against the crisper, more biting, thwackier sound preferred by the giants of drumming. Think John Bonham on "Moby Dick".

Fortunately, "Rhapsody" was featured on Rock Star: INXS. And the house band's drummer (that one black dude) really came through, using a sound more consistent with Keith Moon than with early Tommy Lee (who's a really good drummer, but not great). He, and they, and her, brought the house down, finally, and gave one of the best rock songs of all time the percussive spine it deserved.

God Bless the Child, Arthur Herzog Jr./Billie Holiday

Have Billie Holiday sing it

This one won't make me too many friends, what with all the Billie Holiday-worshiping freaks around here, but screw it. She couldn't sing. Sorry. She couldn't. There are 2 singers and 2 singers only that sang the songs properly from "The American Songbook", and they are, I repeat, Frank Fuckin' Sinatra and Ella Fuckin' Fitzgerald. Deal! [ahem]

Oye Como Va, Santana

Have a wretched guitar sound and take a meandering, vapid solo that mutilates the chorus

The song's going along just fine, it's really grooving, the organ hits in all the right places, then this lame Mexican't stumbles forward, turns up the distortion and reverb, and manages to kill any momentum the authentically tinged bass and percussion in-the-pocket Latin feel the tune had to begin with. Can you say, "Train wreck"?

Love Theme from Superman, John Williams

Add words to it and have Maureen McGovern tear it to shreds, unapologetically

Jesus Christ! It's a lovely theme with extremely interesting modulations and transitions. Leave it to Maury to go totally Ice Castles all up in that shit. She should be forced to listen to the Richard Harris version of "MacArthur Park" for 48 hours, or until her head explodes, whichever happens first, or last, literally.

Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas, Hugh Martin/Ralph Blane

Have it be a song about Christmas

It's a beautiful song, perhaps my favorite xmas song, other than "When Christmas Day Is Here", sung by those carnival geeks on the Island of Misfit Toys.

I hate Christmas. And because of the fact that this song marries seamlessly pitch perfect chord progressions, a haunting melody, and the melancholia of being apart during the holidays, I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or pull a Willy Loman with the hot water heater. (Yes, thank you, I realize he killed himself by driving off a bridge at the end, I know. But the sheer hopelessness of his wife disconnecting the hose after he leaves the house and then hooking it back up just before he gets home is a stroke of pathological genius on Miller's part. So, yeah, shut up.)

We've Only Just Begun, Paul Williams/Roger Nichols

Have it start out with a clarinet playing the melody about a quarter-tone sharp

Did you know that "We've Only Just Begun" started out life as a jingle for a bank commercial? Did you further know that Richard Carpenter is an insane retard who could butcher any arrangement with the flip of the wrist (and that he's not really playing the piano in that creepy live performance of "Superstar", the one where Karen comes out looking like a Druid on crack)? Well he is.

When Karen comes in, after the clarinet fiasco, in an impossibly low alto, and when her voice cracks slightly on "… to live…", I defy anyone not to shed a manly tear at it's beauty, especially you chicks.

Good Vibrations, Brian Wilson

Put in a Theremin

Speaking of insane retards, did you know that Brian Wilson filled his living room with sand? I didn't, until I watched an excellent made-for-TV-movie about The Beach Boys years ago starring that one guy and the queer dude from Melrose Place. Not him, the other one.

Anyway, his inclusion of that little instrument that couldn't makes the conclusion of "Vibrations" sound like a transition into an episode of Dark Shadows. (The original, not the lame remake [in the 1980s?].)

Any Song By, The Doors

Because Jim Morrison was a terrible singer and an even worse lyricist

"Yeah, c'mon, c'mon, c'mon, c'mon now
Touch me babe
Can't you see that I am not afraid
What was that promise that you made
Why won't you tell me what she said
What was that promise that she made…"

I guess we can all just assume that he and Glenn Frey went to the same poetry seminar: Rhyming Pointlessness 101.

Face it, folks, The Doors were a mid-level band whose only claim to fame was a lead singer who liked to pull out his schmeckle during live shows. "The End" is so terrible that it has its own brand of deodorant. And the live version of "Touch Me" on The Ed Sullivan Show is proof that a geezer who can take a tenor sax solo on a California rock song is probably trying not to laugh on the inside.

Saturday Night, The Bay City Rollers

Oops! Wrong list. There's not a dang thing wrong with this gem of a song!

It's got everything: a clever story line about life in the fast lane; a hooky chorus with a raucous "living out loud" anthemic appeal; spelling; and a beat that can best be described as "like eating Chinese soul food prepared by a lesbian Mrs. Robinson who's listening to Mitch Miller whilst popping uppers from a Pez dispenser". Or in that general vicinity, anyway.

Layla, Eric Clapton

End the song with a seemingly unending, cocaine-crazed multiple guitar solo and a stupid piano riff that goes on about 29 minutes too long, where the various and sundry guitars play awkward note after awkward note that don't seem related at all to the chord progression over which they're playing

And then just have it stop for no particular reason where it does. I wonder if that was Eric's moment of clarity, you know, when he finally got up the nerve to listen to the final mix, you know, sober and stuff. Ouch! I think "Layla" is the car that was stalled on the tracks when Santana's train came a'barrelin' through.

Concerto in D for Violin and Orchestra, Opus 77, Johannes Brahms

Make the fiddle part nearly unplayable, and have the most beautiful melody in the entire piece played not by the violin soloist but, rather, by an oboe

(Wait for it.)

ka-CHING

[sigh]

The Summer Wind, Hans Bradtke/Harry Mayer/Johnny Mercer

I don't know where to start

I guess you could have the guy from Tiger Stadium handle the organ parts, after having hired an isolated tribe of pigmies in the New Guinea Outback who've never heard of music to do the arrangement, then hire a terrible bass player who drags and a drummer who thinks he's actually supposed to be playing a polka.

Then Prop ole Frank up in front of a microphone so he can completely phone it in. (I'm serious. He was actually on the phone during most of the recording session, which, by the sound of that entire album, sounds like it lasted about 45 minutes.)

Then just keep modulating up a couple few times and we're there. Bingo! You're it!

Surely that's enough earworms for one post (minus the Brahms).

From the "Nice Work if you can Get it" File

2006-11-06T21:50:00.000-08:00

http://www.blogpi.net/nice-work-if-you-can-get-it-a-closer-look-at-campaign-blogger-remunerations

This is a link to some numbers about how much all the various candidates in this election have been spending on blogs. Damn I'm underpaid. ;)

I don't know if it has any mythical signifgance, but if you're one of those people who stopped trusting the more traditional media and think they are getting the a less biased opinion off some blog pundit you might want to dig through here and take a look and see if someone's paying that blogger for it.

wikifray

2006-11-06T18:20:00.000-08:00

It grows on you?

Anyway, I like it. Still very much under construction, and yes, I should know better than to talk about it before it's finished. But, I have a good feeling about it.

A lovely local model

2006-11-06T14:55:00.000-08:00

[Response to Slate's Green Food article]

Picture this: instead of suburban sprawl, there are residential clusters that surround the manufacturing or other business centers. Here, near these centers, people actually live, and the countryside is spread with farms small and large. It's kind of like the New England of 1950, but without the factory pollution. Before the highway program and the green revolution took off, stranding Joe Sixpack in the boonies.

We'd be better off if more food were bought and produced locally. It tastes a hell of a lot better, and doesn't ship from South America. If oil weren't so cheap, and transportation infrastructure so heavily subsidized, shipping of items that could be produced locally would be discouraged, and farms may actually be able to make enough profit to support themselves.

Of course, even neglecting the highway program that spreads people out to the sticks, there are still costs of living to consider. Relatively safe neighborhoods near the jobs are damned expensive. I am not sure that housing projects have been a good solution to that, historically. Commuting still works out better in the cost analysis, so we pave over grampa's farm and build a McMansion or twenty on it.

The model also works better in California than it does in Connecticut, where you can't grow stuff for six months out of the year. Who misses the days of starving to death if you didn't make enough jerky or if the potatoes rotted in the cellar? (Exaggerating. Maybe.)

It's interesting to observe how we've engineered our landscape. It seems inevitable that industry will tend to concentrate in infertile areas, and occupy as little area as possible. A balance will be met based on the costs of moving produce from one place to another, the cost of land, and on the required area needed to produce food.

Would we be better off if we subsidized community infrastructure instead of transportation infrastructure? If we didn't subsidize (petroleum-intensive) central farming? If we facilitated oil use less?

Tough to say. But I love the local model.

Keifus

My Midterms

2006-11-06T12:03:00.000-08:00

My Ballot

Senate: Jim Talent(R,incumbent) vs. Claire McCaskill

Not a fan of the way things are going in Washington, but I don't think replacing Jim Talent with Claire McCaskill is the answer. I haven't really seen her make a case for what she'd do in the Senate, besides not be Jim Talent. The campaign has been "nationalized;" e.g. the parties (especially Democrats recently) have poured a ton of. They've been trying to portray him as one more corrupt Washington Republican, and I'm not buying it.

One thing McCaskill has done, is demoagogue on the stem cell issue, with the Michael J. Fox ad, which did come from her campaign, not the national party. I had better have damn good reason to vote for someone (a fellow Catholic, mind you!) who not only disagrees with me on this important issue, but makes it a focus of hger campaign, And McCaskill hasn't given me any,

Talent

House

The incumbent Republican Todd Akin is running unopposed in a solid Republican distrinct

Akin

Amemdment 2 -- Stem Cell Research And Cures And Ice Cream For Everyone Initiative

Amemdment 3 -- Cigarrette Tax

The Missouri Right To Life groups has come out against this in the type of move that I think gives pro-lifers a bad names. Yes, I suppose it's possible the money could clear all the legal hurdles and help pay for some abortions, but I don't think that funding abortions is an ulterior motive for the amendment.

Yes

Proposition B -- Minimum Wage Increase

Yes

Predictions

Dems take the House; GOP keeps the Senate (and Talent wins).

None really stick out as great.

There was the one that made me yell at the TV, and (as I mentioned is my update) the one it is in response to isn't so hot either.

I have been generally disappointed in how we've responded to Amendment 2, as I touched on here. It's trure that the 2000 word amendment is deceptive, it's true that it authorizes "cloning" (but not implanatation), but absent those problems it would still be problematic, so there's something a bit dishonest about arguing against it on those grounds. Those tactics may (but probably won't) work in defeating Amendment 2, but they won't work in the long run.

Like most people, I dislike the fear-mongering "They want to kill US" ads for maintaining our present disastrous course in the War on Terror.

For the candidates there was one anti-Talent ad that I found particularly insulting -- it attacked Jim Talent for voting against the minumum wage while taking a $165,000 salary for himself. First, it doesn't say that Sen. Talent voted for a salary increase, just that he accepted the salary. Was he supposed to refuse it? Second, "voted against" arguments are almost always somewhat deceptive, since generally there are other things attached to those bills, but that's an old game that both sides play. Third, as noted above, I approve of a minimum wage increase, but don't deny that it has an impact on businesses and families, including mine. Now, what is the impact to me for Jim Talent's $165,000 salary, or more appriately, the difference between $165,000 and what might be considered more reasonable?

Ok, I'm done for now.

Connecticut

2006-11-06T10:33:00.000-08:00

I just drove through Connecticut. It's a state I dislike. Like Delaware, I'm only ever there trying to get someplace else. Plus, while at no point in 1-95's long concourse is it a pleasant drive. Kudos for folliage, and I've spent some pleasant hours in Mystic, but beyond that, I could live without Connecticut.

But really this is a political post. To answer John's question: where I live is a Dem machine, so I don't even think the congressional race is contested. Hillary Clinton gets my Senate vote -- New York republicans are on the verge of a collapse similar to that of the Tories under John Major. Their one hope is that they will win the state comptroller job because of a democratic scandal.

I'd been quite insulated from campaigning, until I drove through Connecticut. There, on the overpasses, stood earnest, hairy young activists with big Lamont signs, urging us to honk if we love their candidate.

Nobody was honking.

Despite some reacent poll blips, I think the Dems are going to take the House. If they don't, the Dems are well on their way to becoming the new Whigs, and the only hope for multiparty democracy will be a split in the Republican party. Senate will be Republican, and for Supreme Court purposes you, John, will have little to worry about even if it goes Democratic because I suspect the Senate will be much more pro-life than ever before.

Which brings up the question: will different electoral outcomes actually lead to different outcomes? I don't think Bush can do anything to get impeached. I don't think there's a good war strategy out there, as rob_said, it's a clusterfuck. The budget problems continue. Kaus wants to make immigration the issue, but I think all sides have been so chastened that they are not likely to move very quickly.

The one area that I think could make a difference: statehouses. And the ensuing gerrymandering.

It's all so depressing.

Topic of the Week: Midterms

2006-11-05T19:58:00.000-08:00

A few midterm questions to get us rolling:

Will you be voting?

Does your state have a Senatorial election? If so, who will you be voiting for?

What does your House election look like? How do you think you'll vote there?

Any other big items on your ballot? (Gubernatorial races, ballot intitiatives, etc.) How will you be voting in those?

What's your prediction for what Congress will look like?

Best-worst political ad you've seen this year.

Comments turned off so that responses can come in blog posts

Lust.

2006-11-05T17:43:00.000-08:00

I've twice had sex with women I didn't know. I didn't know their names. I hadn't had a conversation with them. I hadn't cast my eyes on either more than 60 minutes before we had sex.

The first time, when I tried to speak, she put her fingers to my mouth to silence me. The second time, I tried that same move, and it worked.

I guess it should be obvious the attraction was about as purely physical as it could possibly get. Of course, I'll agree with those who think "purely phsyical" is an illusion. There was of course a setting - and the setting in each instance lent itself to the events. One could read volumes, too, into the clothing worn. One's choice of clothing can communicate much without a word being spoken.

The sex was particularly selfish. Nobody had an altruistic desire to please apart from how that would enhance one's own experience. That is to say it was good.

Were these cases, cases of pure lust? The lack of communication; the lack of time spent together; the lack of any kind of bond; the lack of future - all suggest that this was lust at its purest.

But again, I guess technically, there is no such thing. I was in a particularly destructive frame of mind. If these were really cases of pure lust, there should be no way to deconstruct them. But obviously, there will always be ways to deconstruct sexual couplings.

Still - I can recall the striking clarity of the desire.

Rick Santorum Approves of Violence

2006-11-04T14:11:00.000-08:00

http://www.ricksantorum.com/Multimedia/Default.aspx

Go watch it. I'll wait. You want the one called "Wrestling". Just be aware his site is not particularly Mac friendly

I don't have much use for this guy. But this is a little ridiculous.

The commercial is all about how he's cooperating and working with other members of Congress. Sort of a tag team politics motif. He's got several sweaty grapplers going at it behind him while he stands there all calm and spouting resume bullet points. Then he gets to the last one and I started laughing.

He's bragging about how he and Hillary Clinton have "helped limit violence in children's video games".

That's horse-hockey. He went straight past Hillary and Lieberman with his support of the ESRB's Family Initative this last summer. He did sign the bill that's paying for that stupid CAPRA study to supposedly determine once and for all if videogames cause violent behavior, and I think she did too. That's the extent of their cooperation. And it's also the extent of their actual effect on anything. Spent money and soundbytes.

But it gets better. While I'm still sitting here with my jaw flopped open, he tops off the commerical about how he is cooperating and is limiting violence in a way that truly represents his message. One of the sweaty thugs comes up behind him and Santorum elbows him in the face without missing a beat on his "and I approved this message" line.

I'm still chuckling a bit as I chalk up another data point for my theory. It basically says that if you can be elected to a high office in this country, you are exactly the sort of person who should never be.

Borat, A Movie Review

2006-11-03T13:14:00.000-08:00

Foreign Correspondent Gets It, And Us, Wrong
Borat Sagdiyev's Incompetence Revealed In New Documentary
By switters
Posted Friday, Novemeber 3, at 12:45 PM CST

What a peculiar documentary. And that's saying something because I've seen some pretty peculiar documentaries in my day, not the least of which is God's Ford Park.

But Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan just didn't seem to make any sense whatsoever. There I was in the theater, with my jumbo popcorn, Coke, and Raisinettes, settling in to watch what an investigative journalist, Borat Sagdiyev, full of urine and balsamic vinegar, not to mention an unparalleled and uncompromising optimism and an old world zest for the new world, would make of our bountiful country and her robust, open people.

Alas, he seemed more interested in our celebrities (Pam Lee Jones) than in what it is that makes our nation tick like a ticking time bomb.

Add the fact that his unapologetic anti-Semitism is on public display nearly 24 and 7, and one can't help but wonder if there isn't indeed a vast right wing conspiracy in the media after all, stretching its claws all the way back to the young and innocent country of Kazakhstan. Anti-Semitism is a sentiment best left where it belongs, hidden deep within the bowels of every culture virtually since the dawn of mankind, only to reveal itself when it's historically necessary and socially appropriate, for example, during crucifixions of messiahs, Bubonic Plague outbreaks, stock market crashes, embassy fire bombings, and runs on the bank.

How depressing!

His interview techniques are dubious at best, as is his command of our language, American. If the heart and soul of investigative journalism is to find information pertinent to a story, how can one gather that information when the people from which he or she is gathering that information can't even understand the questions asked in order to gather that information in the first place? I think he might be slightly retarded. And I think we can all agree about the fact that the last thing we need in this day and age of wars and terror is a bunch of retards disseminating the current events for us, no? No!

Don't get me wrong; I have absolutely zero problem with foreigners. But why do they always have to be so swarthy? And hairy? Is it really fair, at the end of the day, when people like Borat end up in documentary think pieces such as Borat looking like ignorant, smelly, clueless halfwits?

Yes, sometimes. But that's not the point. The point is that when foreigners end up looking foreign in documentaries, it sends the wrong message from America to the world, namely, "Today we're all from Texas."

And that, in addition to Jews calling the shots, is the last thing this country needs from its documentaries right now.

I never thought I'd hear myself say this, but Borat Sagdiyev, take the boat, plane, train, donkey cart or whatever back to whatever third-world, backwards rock out from which you crawled up from under of. Your cynical investigative reporting is no longer welcome on these fatal shores, the Birthplace of Democracy. Our beloved Lady Liberty has her hands full as it is, and will brook no refusal when pandering to our own worst nature in all of us.

(Though a mirror in a funhouse tends to add a touch of profound perspective if you look at it just right [and are a little high].)

Why I Like It Here

2006-11-03T12:12:00.000-08:00

I find myself posting much more of then to WtS than I had been. Before Wts, the outlets for my writing were, in roughly ascending order of preference:

Yelling at the TV
Letters to the Editor of the local paper.
The Fray
Comment boxes of other blogs
My personal blog

I have to confess I now prefer WtS to all of these outlets.

There's some issues right now, particularly Amendment 2 here is Missouri, that have piqued my interest, but I think that the outlet of WtS has been a large factor in my increased output.

In reflecting on why that is, I think it's because I know that what I post on WtS will find a respectful, intelligent audience. The only indicator of what kind of readership we get for Fray posts is a replies, but it's imperfect. Does a low reply count mean that my post was unassailable so nobody bothered to try, or so uninteresting nobody bothered to read the whole thing, let alone reply?

Since we are such a small group, we are not as anonymous, which to my mind is a good thing. The reason is that it makes it difficult for us to caricature each other into strawmen. If I post something against abortion, I don't have to deal with a bunch of, "So, what's "pro-life" about invalding Iraq? Huh? Huh? Huh? How many babies have you adopted? Huh? Huh?" responses. We know each other well enough that just because someone has a liberal or conservative position, or even leans liberal or conservative, that doesn't mean we've signed off on the entire agenda. I don't have to waste time saying that I was not a fan of the Iraw invasion. We tend to address the content of each other's posts, rather than the most extreme beliefs of the most extreme people who share the sentiments expressed in the post.

Maybe one day our hit counts will do a hockey stick climb; maybe they won't. But I'm enjoying myself here; it's good, respectful conversation.

That's worth something.

Gotta Poetry Blog?

2006-11-03T08:14:00.000-08:00

Oh yes you do.

I'm going to start an occasional rundown of sites by current and former PFrayers. Modeled on Today's Papers (but, like, once a month tops). I'm not going to write reviews, just highlight things of interest so that people have an idea of what's happening on the web.

If you have a poetry related blog (original poetry and/or criticism) that you would like included, or if there's any way you think I could make the feature more interesting to you, let me know.

For smaller blogs, I'll ask before linking to you (by leaving a comment on your blog).

Framing

2006-11-03T07:48:00.000-08:00

I've been thinking a lot about the linguistic concept of framing -- of defining an issue, setting its parameters, structuring the context in which it will be discussed and debated. One thing I like about Today's Pictures is the insight it offers into that metaphor. What piece of the world are you choosing to display? How does that selection affect your vision? Given the limitations of the frame, how can it nevertheless be illuminating?

Bored Couples is an answer to the last question. Here is a series of the most mundane scenes imaginable, interactions the likes of which I see daily (and, yes, occasionally experience) (sorry, Sweetheart). The frame highlights something that is ubiquitous. And yet the scenes of boredom are not themselves boring. This man's cigarette is wielded like a shield against conversation, and the space this couple inhabits is entirely their own despite the intrusion of the lens.

I draw two conclusions:

1. The shared experience is preferable to the isolating hobby. Boredom is romantic.

2. Journalistic photography has the capacity to document the fantastic -- the feat of strength, the foreign culture, the once-in-a-lifetime event. But some of my favorite journalism records instead the obvious, and shows me how even quotidian drudgery contains the possibility of epiphany.

Well People

2006-11-02T16:58:00.000-08:00

I don’t mean to be a prima donna. I really don’t. But at this point, there’s really no other way for me to be. Naturally, I think, I notice when wagtheslate gets the shaft. The first time was here. In that instance, I gave Geoff the benefit of the doubt. He was just the middleman, and if I’d known he was going to take my request to the actual Editors (when the fuck has that every happened?), I’d have moderated my tone. So I made myself not resent Geoff. The key word in there is “made”, because no matter my mistakes, Geoff could have been more helpful.

Both before and after that incident, Geoff appended quite a few posts to articles--a few of mine and more than a few of august’s--without the links to wagtheslate we’d put in them. I didn’t have a problem with this. It was a slight, but perhaps for a somewhat good reason. Nevertheless, it’s within their discretion to include links, if they so choose.

Jump forward then to Dkos vs. “the fray”. Now you all know that the real action didn’t take place in “the fray”, but took place here on wagtheslate. But did Geoff work wagtheslate in his fraywatch column? No.

Then comes the fraywatch Easterbrook smack down follwed by the oh so original fraywatch My Two Cents. Now correct me if I’m wrong, but I could have sworn I’d seen both of those things somewhere else. Hmmmm… where oh where I wonder?

But you know what, not a big deal. Really. The ideas are obvious ones and I really don’t think we need fraywatch or appends recognition. However, that doesn’t mean I’m not noticing.

And then today Geoff deletes my wagtheslate post in the fraywatch fray. I ask him why? He replies Solicitation.

So clearly this has been building for some time. Sure, I had suspicions, but nothing definitive, or actionable, or worth wrongly fracturing what I felt was a decent relationship with Geoff. But I have to say, “Solicitation”? Since when is that particular rule enforced? Don’t get me wrong. Geoff is on solid ground. It says right there in the rules of the road that you’re not allowed to solicit. But I have to say, the fray editors is given full discretion, and they’ve all exercised that discretion liberally over the years, including Geoff and including with regard to wagtheslate (and bestofthefray).

Bottom line people, I no longer give Geoff the benefit of the doubt. He purposely showed wagtheslate to the Editors at Slate in a less than flattering light. He is actively working to undermine wagtheslate while simultaneously taking liberties with the creativity and interest it is generating. He’s threatened. And like a little twerp, he’s not upping his game, he’s playing dirty. Geoff is a dick. A dick. He’s not acting on orders from above. He’s acting of his own volition. And it’s malicious.

I could accept not having an ally in Geoff. He has his own vision. But in its absence, I did expect benevolence. But I can no longer convince myself that Geoff’s slights are all purely coincidental. I’ve ignored the pattern as long as I can, and this latest incident really is sufficient in and of itself to convince me the guy is an insecure, belligerent, duplicitous jerk.

Knowing this. Knowing that this guy is going to take the credit for our good ideas to further his own pathetic existence really does bother me. Not only has he certainly sabotaged our efforts with the staff at Slate, he’s going to continue to use us as long as we let him. I think it’s time to seriously discuss our relationship with Slate. I don’t mind doing them the favor, but I do mind bloodsucking leaches getting ahead thanks to our efforts. It really just leave a bad taste in my mouth. I’m sure I’ll get over it, but fuck man.

Frayge6:TheOuterSanctum-What Time Is It?

2006-11-02T10:24:00.000-08:00

Check Your Fraywatch
Autumn Leaves Us Wanting More Daylight
Compiled by switters
Updated Thursday, November 2, 2006, at 12 PM CST

Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care?

No.

In a week that saw everything from David Edelstein's return, to doodahman's feature in Fraywatch in which he castigated a Dear Prudence reader for watching her grandmother starve to death, a reader who then showed up, crying, to defend her actions, which dood castigated some more, to a veritable knock-down-drag-out fist fight of words between David Mills and (possibly) Terry McMillan over there in TV Club – oh, and Best of the Fray is totally like broken, again – our fearless editor, Frayeditor05 (Adam?), turned his considerable editorial acumen on the earth-shattering topic that has us all atwitter with angst, melodrama, and seasonal depression, i.e., the Daylight Savings Time fiasco. And scam.

Snore!!!

Are you kidding me? There's a lynch mob brewing in Theater calling for Twyla Tharp's tiny-brained head on a platter over her abomination that is The Times They Are A-Changin', Constance Casey decides over in Gardening not to plant spinach this year because we may be drinking poisoned water, Plotz claims King David was a con man, the poem "A Moment Ago" makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, everyone is thinking it but is to afraid to say that 30 Rock is really terrible but Alec Baldwin is excellent, Fred Kaplin stops just short of calling Ornette Coleman a genius and nobody calls him on it (okay, one person did), and Christian takes on the whole "Fall Back/Spring Forward" debacle? What's next: "Dandruff: The Forbidden Exfoliant"? "Readers Discuss the Prevalence of Hangnails"? "What's Up With All These Car Commericials"?

And isn't there some kind of voting thingie next week or something? I'm seriously beginning to wonder why I even bother sometimes. (Why do I?)

Anyways, unless you've been in the deep reaches of outer space trying to fix the Hubble telescope (or Ballot Box) for the last 3 weeks, it should come as no surprise to loyal readers of Frayge6:TheOuterSanctum that we firmly espouse the following notions:

1.) Slate owns your posts.
2.) As such, the folks at Slate are free to do with your posts what they see fit, within reason and propriety (whatever that means, and sometimes even not).
3.) The Fray is a collection of message boards which are, more or less, open to the public.
4.) As such, readers are, more or less, free to comment on said posts however they see fit, within reason and propriety (whatever that means, and rarely does that happen a lot).

So, if one of you completely insane retards gets on here and posts,

"Dear Slate Readers,
I feel so terrible. I circumcised my 2 year-old daughter with a pair of pruning sheers, and I really feel bad about it, but I feel deep within my heart that it was the right thing to do because of my spirituality, and the voices in my head. Am I a bad person?
–Left Holding the Clitoris in Atlanta"

don't be surprised if the Cyber Sisters show up and ream the shit out of you for mutilating another human being in the name of whatever god you've been brainwashed into believing in. At least for this week. Again.
=
For your consideration: ™
=
For Your Consideration
=
Our freedom of speech is freedom or death…
-Chuck D

Hornswaggled by Twyla Tharp!

2006-11-02T10:23:00.000-08:00

Is there anyone who seriously thinks that Twyla Tharp is a real name? I mean, really, if I had that name, on the stroke of 18 years of age, I'd be applying to change my name to something a little less embarrassing... like Swackhammer Birdbrain Jackhammer.

The illustrious Internet Anagram Server returns a suspicious anagram of "Twyla Tharp":

"THY LAP WART"

And we all know what this refers to (and its implicated size, apparently), don't we?

Q: Mr. President

2006-11-02T08:44:00.000-08:00

Q: Thank you Mr. President. On September 17, 2001 you said, "I want justice," "And there's an old poster out West? I recall, that said, 'Wanted, Dead or Alive.'" So my question is, how come, over 5 years later, you haven’t brought Osama bin Laden to justice?

THE PRESIDENT: Ah, a trick question. [laughter] Well, as you know -- or you should know -- if you’ve read your history books you’d know that there wasn’t a lot of newspapers back then -- there wasn’t a lot of paper. It was hard to come by. So if you wanted to advertise for a job, you made up a poster -- a Wanted poster, and you put it in the town square. And people looking for work would go to the town square to look at the Wanted posters because there were no newspapers. And people were like paper -- there weren’t a lot of them -- so it was like a joke. Wanted, Dead or Alive. But you really didn’t hire dead people. Except for Indians. There were a lot of dead Indians in the old West. Does that answer your question? There's an old saying in Washington -- I know it's in the Capital, probably in the beltway -- that says, depends on the meaning of what is is -- and "Wanted" is like "is" in the context of the old West.

Election Prediction

2006-11-01T16:44:00.000-08:00

An explosion of conservative blogs and right of center online commentary if the Democrats take the House and/or Senate.

The Fray being a microcosm of the internet, and taking note of the long lament at the departures of quality conservatives from the fray, my theory goes they opted out of the debate because they found defending Bush and the Republican controlled Congress increasingly distasteful, and ultimately untenable. Mind you, quality conservatives are ones with principals. But if Congress goes to the Democrats in a substantive way, this will provide those quality conservatives an early opportunity at offense. They’ll return, not to defend Bush, but to attack Democrats. But don’t lament. The first casualty of this influx of quality conservatives won’t be liberalism. The first casualty will be the sad state of online debate, and with it the popularity of the wingnuts the liberal bloggers have had to engage in the absence of a rational conservative voice.

Halloween Blows... Or Sucks... Or Something...

2006-11-01T14:18:00.000-08:00

Confessions of a Halloween Curmudgeon... (or I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you snooping kids)

See, I don't get the paper, so in my town, I never know when the trick or treaters are coming, I ostensibly miss it, or get home from work late. If I do get in late, I douse every light in the house except for a room in the back just to keep from having to answer the door.

Inevitably, someone invites you to a Halloween party. Now, somehow, it is thought, by a non-trivial percentage of the population, that getting verschnickered while in your street clothes is good, but getting dressed up in some costume makes it ten times more fun. I can say from personal experience that it is not. The only good thing about the Halloween party versus other drunken evenings amongst friends is that the really hot women almost always go for the Sexy [vocational or fictional character here] Costume, which does make it somewhat better, but 10 times? Not quite.

In order to not seem like I am trying to make a personal statement about my utter contempt for and detestation of Halloween which might bring down the true-believers, I suck back the bile that thinking about the upcoming revelry produces, and try to be instantaneously creative with a costume. This never goes well. Since I really left my fantasizing about being someone else entirely back in my teens, this is a particularly arduous, and ultimately, failured task. I particularly detest having to go to those "open for about three weeks" costume shops that rent out disused stores in strip malls. I get the distinct impression that I'm at a garage sale while I'm there, making it absolutely clear that I am buying stuff that I absolutely WILL discard in short step, whether a plastic sword, a pimp hat, or whatever bric-a-brac I can cobble together into a lame excuse for a costume.

What my efforts will show is that I had no "vision" that year, and when I attend the party, I will feel precisely that much more annoyed as Johnny and Jane All-Hallows-Eve came as matching bookends, and their kids are out trick-or-treating in lovingly crafted-by-hand fully-functional-and-Transformable Megatron and Starscream outfits they spent 14 weeks in the garage with welding torches making. Shit, even the potato "fusion" cannon on Megatron's arm works, the Starscream outfit is capable of actual flight, and both employ hydraulics strong enough to enrubble your backyard fire pit. I assume these options are for "trick" purposes?

Sue Hotoutfit will be there too in her Sexy Longshorewoman's outfit (or was it Sexy Hairnetted Cafeteria Lady? Oh, the hat gives it away, nevermind), bending over coyly in front of Pirate #14 of 54 that came to the party. And that's nice. But the pirates, what a sordid lot of retreads these guys are. All of the pirates will, of course, let out a cliche'd little "Aaaarrrr!" every third sentence and occasionally call you a "scurvy dog" as they mock threaten you with one eye squinted closed. May all 54 pirates that attended that party impale each other on their genuine, imitation, prestige, premium plastic cutlasses with authentic vinyl trim.

The next afternoon, I wake up blearily on the couch with my costume still on and the plastic cutlass poking me in the face (I was Pirate #14... Aaarr...) . I peel myself up off the couch, pop a few vitamins, wash them down with about a bucket of ice water and proceed directly to the bathroom to remove this ridiculous outfit, place it in the trash, and shower three or four times in a row because I feel so utterly unclean. They don't make soap powerful enough to remove "self-loathing".

Ideas for Jukebox Musicals

2006-11-01T13:08:00.000-08:00

Wait, wait, I too can be a producer! Twyla, call me. We'll get Julie Taymoor and go all atwitter. You know, people suspended on wires, flying around the stage, real rubberhoses for the "shooting heroin" scenes and more. We can make these work!

1) Kiss Me Gene! The true story of KISS -- makeup artists, drugs, reality TV. Think about it. We can recreate that moment when he hangs up on Terry Gross during Fresh Air. Magic, I tell you.

2) Gettin' to the Point! Based on the inimitable Crosby Stills Nash and sometimes Young. How young studs grow old, fat, and drug addicted. Really, I see Alan Cumming as David.

3) Just A Little Harder! The Janis Joplin musical. May need to add simulated sex, on stage. Is Chloe Sevigny available?

4) Screw Joe Hill! The Joan Baez musical. This may require lesbian simulated sex, on stage. Is Chloe Sevigny and/or Hilary Swank available?

Wait, I have more. Twyla, don't leave, I can still...Twyla?.....

TWYLA!!!!

NERD CULTURE VS. JOCK CULTURE

2006-11-01T07:03:00.000-08:00

Interesting post by Max Boot guestblogging over at The Volokh conspiracy about the challenge the Air Force faces in adapting to the Information Age.

A particular challenge is integrating a new type of solider into the culture:

This is part of a broader challenge confronting all Information Age militaries: How to make room for those who fight with a computer mouse, not an M-16. Will traditional warriors--men with shaved heads and hard bodies--continue to run things, or will nerds with bad posture and long hair, possibly even women, assume greater prominence? Two Chinese strategists write that “it is likely that a pasty-faced scholar wearing thick eyeglasses is better suited to be a modern soldier than is a strong young lowbrow with bulging biceps,” but, even if that is true, reordering any military along those lines presents a far more profound and problematic challenge than questions about which tank or helicopter to buy. As Eliot Cohen writes: “The cultural challenge for military organizations will be to maintain a warrior spirit and the intuitive understanding of war that goes with it, even when their leaders are not, in large part, warriors themselves.”

But I think that's only half the challenge. The real problem will be injecting a "warrior spirit" into the geek culture.

My experience is that the pasty-faced scholars have little or no interest in a military career. Maybe it's because they perceive the military culture as hostile them, so changing it may help that. It's a bit of a cliche to break the male population down between geeks and jocks, but it true that somewhere around junior high school, most boys end up on one path or the other. The jocks come to dominate the school culture; the geeks stew and plan their revenge.

BTW -- I sometimes think this is behind a lot of the visceral hatred of Bush even before he exposed himself as incompetent. Sure, the jocks might rule high school, but that's where they would peak. The geeks would be rewarded for their diligent work and assume the reins of power. Then this smirking son of a president who shrugged off his duties early in life claims recovery and repentance and gets elected (or selected if you're in a particularly bad mood) to be president. It ain't right...

Clinton hatred was slightly different. I think a lot of Clinton hatred is that he got away with things that a lot of us wish we could get away with it. You weren't supposed to be able to smoke pot, screw around, and become president. Most of us chose one path or the other, and most of us who chose the prudish route still didn't come close to becoming president. But Clinton got to eat his cake and have it, too. It ain't right...

It's all high school stuff...

In any instance, I'm not sure how the military could go about making a military career attractive to geeks. I don't think money would do it, and it would risk alienating the jocks they still need.

Maybe the geeks need to be sold on the idea that military strength is what makes their geek culture possible. I confess I'm not entirely convince of it myself. Boot teased that his next post will address the importance of military strength. I look forward to it.

U2 -- Hypocrites?

2006-11-01T06:30:00.000-08:00

I was saddened to read Timothy Noah's account U2's tax sheltering, and I'm not sure what to make of it.

Noah calls them "hypocrites." On the surface this seems even worse than hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is roughly defined as preaching to others that they should do something that you do not do yourself. What it appears that U2 is doing is telling others to do something, and then withholding the means for them to do it. I suppose this is how some people feel about abortion opponenets who oppose government aid programs.

It would be one thing if U2 claimed that they could be more efficient is using their funds to help global poverty (like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet) than governments could, but a hallmark of Bono's advocacy has been pressuring governments for aid, rather than individuals and coporations.

Now, Noah's article takes a couple liberties as well. Third world poverty, rather than Irish poverty, has not been the main focus of Bono's advocacy, and G8 governments, rather than governments like the Irish government, have been the main targets of Bono's appeals. Nevertheless, the money for aid must come from somewhere, and it does strike me as odd that U2 would seek to minimize its contribution to the pool of available funds.

Finally, (and I realize I'm descending into fan-boy rationalization here) it could be that Bono simply got outvoted on this. It is probably the case that Bono's bandmates support his advocacy but do not share his zeal, and are willing to do some benefit concerts but not sacrifice their children's inheritance.

Anyway, those are my somehwat muddled thoughts.

Why I’m glad I don’t have a soul

2006-10-31T21:13:00.000-08:00

No spooky non-corporeal co-inhabitant of my body.
No enduring immaterial reality that I effect in ways that are mysterious to me.
I’m a special and unique time-limited offer.
No preparation required.
No greater reward.
No scraping together the price of a stairway to heaven.
No deferment of satisfaction.
No wondering what I did to deserve my misfortune.
No deadly sins, just accidents and misunderstandings.
No suspicion that I’m pissing God off with my every word and act.
All consequences are earthly and earned.
No one had to die for my sins.
No boringly interminable eternity.
Nothing to barter with – the Devil’s not interested.
There’s little chance I’ll be:

Broken on the Wheel
Placed in freezing water.
Dismembered Alive.
Thrown in Snake Pits.
Put in pots of boiling oil.
Forced to eat rats, toads, and snakes.
Smothered in Fire and Brimstone.

Losing 21 grams put a little spring in my step.

Next up: Why I’m glad there’s no God.

Heaven

Ev'ryone is trying to get to the bar
The name of the bar
The bar is called heaven

Heaven
Heaven is a place
A place where nothing
Nothing ever happens

When this kiss is over it will start again
It will not be any different, it will be exactly the same
It's hard to imagine that nothing at all
Could be so exciting, could be so much fun

Heaven
Heaven is a place
A place where nothing
Nothing ever happens

Talking Heads

Twyla Tharp: Insane Retard

2006-10-31T14:17:00.000-08:00

Article

First of all, a couple few things.

This was a great, great article, Jody m'boy. It was like I was there with you, because I was; I was the guy in the balcony that couldn't stop laughing when The Blue Man Group stumbled out onstage and did a percussion version of "Don't Think Twice, It's Alright" using nothing but PVC pipe, a pool cue and 7 cordless drills. [Disclaimer: It wasn't me.]

However, having said that, I'm having trouble letting this slide:

…he's also one of the best pop singers of all time; his phrasing is right up there with Frank Sinatra and Billie Holiday.

Yikes! I don't know that I'd compare his "phrasing" to Old Blue Eyes, though his confused time feel is on occasion eerily reminiscent of Billie Holliday's hiding her inability to sing by constantly dragging and melismating over the bar line, not to mention the marble-mouthed word swallowing. Although in light of your review it seems "sword swallowing" might be more apt.

Again, having said that, it sounds like The Times They Are A-Changin' nearly epitomizes the complete lack of creativity on the part of Broadway these days, particularly when something like 2004's Avenue Q exemplifies everything that can be good about Broadway, which isn't much.

Let's face it, folks: Musicals are really really stupid. And just when we thought they couldn't get any stupider, Twyla steps up to the plate and, mixed metaphors aside, presides at the marriage of Peter, Paul and Mary to Cirque du Soleil, resulting in a hideous, post-yuppie love-child that looks and sounds more like the dog-faced boy at the carnival freak show hammering out "Blowin' in the Wind" like a circus barker than it does anything resembling even the most remote attempt at something having the tiniest iota of artistic merit.

It sounds like a PBS pledge drive show on mushrooms.

I mean, what the fuck is wrong with her? Oh, sure, Movin' Out merely hinted at stupidity and the utterly vapid. Does Times punch you in the face with them?

There's a great scene in Robert Altman's The Player in which, during a production meeting, Larry Levy (Peter Gallagher of The O.C. fame) asserts the notion that they can get movie ideas straight from the newspaper headlines, "ripped directly", if you will. Twyla goes one better: Now they can get ideas for musicals without having to write either music or lyrics. And there doesn't even have to be, really, a story or anything coherent. What a completely brilliant plan!

Alas, I believe my worst fears, and a personal thesis, are coming true: Baby Boomers are ruining everything, whether it's architecture, the economy, or Broadway. Get a life, geezers! Or better, cede the reins; this wagon train ain't stoppin' in Blaine.

And by the way: Perfect ending to the piece.

The song is delivered in fist-thrusting stentorian fashion by Arden, standing at the lip of the stage. "Searchin' high, searchin' low / Searchin' everywhere I know … / Have you seen dignity? / Have you seen dignity?" he cries. And then a clown in a polka-dotted jumpsuit flies past.

That made me burst out laughing. Well done. But what do we have to look forward to, I wonder: Fear and Loathing (and Singing!!!) in Las Vegas? Might make a nice "thinking man's Sunday in the Park with George". We'll get Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice on retainer. I'm thinking Hugh Jackman as Raoul and Gabriel Garcia Bernal as Dr. Gonzo. They can sing, right? Sounds like a nice Bob Fosse vehicle. Is he still dead?

P.S. The best musical of the last 10 years, other than Avenue Q is Team America: World Police. Again.

The Many Logics of Iraq

2006-10-31T11:27:00.000-08:00

The first logic was WMD + terrorists, but it turns out that one wasn’t reality based. It was quickly replaced by the second logic of flypaper, which, whether you like it or not, worked like a charm “Mission Accomplished”. Unfortunately, turning Iraq into a terrorist heaven didn’t really square with turning Iraq into a Democracy, which is the third logic. Thus, flypaper has since evolved into an accompanying fourth logic (that’s 3 and 4 together for those of you losing track) which boils down to fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here? So that’s 4 total logics by my count, two casualties of war, and the other two on life support.

So it’s 2:00 a.m. and the BBC’s news summary includes a bit about Cheney saying that Iraqi insurgents are stepping up violence in an effort to influence midterm elections. I’m first struck by the tactical idiocy of Cheney defining an almost certain victory for the insurgents. Not ultimate victory, but one of those “benchmarks”. If Democrats win the House and/or the Senate, the various groups vying for power in Iraq can do better than say they had a hand in it, they can quote Cheney saying they had a hand in it.

In a war where propaganda is so very important, you’d think the Commander-in-Chief would be loathed to script talking points for the “enemy”. When dealing with an insurgency you’d think the Commander-in-Chief would check his rhetoric for duel uses before spouting it. When your decisions cost lives you’d think regrets would teach you something. You’d think.

But I digress. There’s a fifth logic I’d neglected to mention. It’s different than the others in that it’s not currently, nor has it ever been shared by anyone in the Bush Administration. It says the Iraq war has been a boondoggle from the beginning. It first grounds itself in the failings and inconsistencies of logics 1 through 4, as well as the incompetence of the Bush Administration throughout. It then turn to the here and now, reviews the facts/realities at hand, and draws its conclusion.

Take this month’s death toll in Iraq (102 at the time I’m writing this post). Rather than ignore this number, the fifth logic takes it into account. The fifth logic concludes that 102 dead US soldiers is a sign we’re winning the war on terror in Iraq. The fifth logic doesn’t discount Cheney’s claim that insurgents in Iraq have planned ahead and increased violence in an effort to get Democrats elected. Rather, it considers it a possibility, and again concludes that if that is in fact the case, it is a sign we’re winning the war on terror in Iraq. How is that? Well, an insurgent and a terrorist are two different things. Up till now, the terrorist’s logic of keeping American bogged down and bleeding in Iraq has ruled the day. But if the new goal is to get America out of Iraq, it’s not the terrorist’s logic that has changed, but the ruling logic that has changed. And whose logic has overwhelmed the terrorist’s in Iraq? The insurgent’s logic. The insurgents want us out. And last I checked, the insurgents are Iraqis. In short, if Cheney is right, Bush is getting what he asked for, Iraqis taking charge of their country, control of their future. If you think that’s a worthy goal, vote Democrat.

Opposed to Science?

2006-10-31T07:46:00.000-08:00

One of the charges those opposing embryonic research often face is that they are opposed to "science." An example comes form Scott Adams's blog today:

Statistically speaking, any hacker who is skilled enough to rig the elections will also be smart enough to select politicians that believe in . . . oh, let’s say for example, science. Compare that to the current method where big money interests buy political ads that confuse snake-dancing simpletons until they vote for the guy who scares them the least. Then during the period between the election and the impending Rapture, that traditionally elected President will get busy protecting the lives of stem cells while finding creative ways to blow the living crap out of anything that has the audacity to grow up and turn brownish.

Now, I realize Scott Adams is a humorist, but similar assertions are a regular part of our discourse.

Since almost all of the opposition to embryonic research comes from religious groups, most prominently the Roman Catholic Church, which has made some serious missteps in its relationship with science, the debate can be framed as religious luddism vs. scientific progress, with an obvious conclusion.

But there's a significant difference in the motivations for opposing Galileo in the Middle Ages and opposing embryonic research today. Galileo was opposed because those in power saw his conclusions as dangerous -- a heliocentric solar system was a direct challenge to the Creation narrative, and thus to the authority of the Church. The same goes for evolution.

In fact, some who challenge the Church's position on embryonic research point back to Aquinas and other Church scholars putting personhood at "quickening," which is several weeks into pregnancy. But the Church's position has developed since then based on what science has taught us about the early stages of development.

The driving force behind opposition to embryonic research is not fear of its conclusions, but opposition to the methods involved. The Church was wrong to suppress Galileo. However, if Galileo's research involved launching condemned criminals into space,the Church would be correct to oppose this method.

This isn't another round of the same religion vs. science fight. The sides may have the same general names, but we're playing a different game.

Editorial Meeting

2006-10-30T10:49:00.000-08:00

I’d like to hear any subterranean thoughts anyone may be harboring about projects, design, content, strategy, etc…

Mine:

-We’re heading into our third month with a significant amount of momentum. On average, we’ve grown by 1,000 additional visits per month. This month’s growth is due to a combination of factors including the addition of the comment feed on the sidebar, more regular contributions and not insignificantly, the switters/dKos roil. It’s also worth noting that we enjoy a higher quality of visit as measured by visit length and page views, so in that sense we’re well ahead of the curve even though we’re still wet behind the ears.

-I’ve visited IOZ off and on since he began his blog, and I noticed last week his persistence is beginning to pay off. Dawn, those numbers are the reason he left the fray, and they’re also all the proof anyone (including Slate and The_Bell) should need. Regardless, I take IOZ’s success as a good harbinger for wagtheslate. We could do worse than to follow his example and occasionally engage our fellow bloggers.

Making Sport of Daily Kos

2006-10-30T08:48:00.000-08:00

Not something I’m going to do, but… Quickest/easiest low-cost way to earn TU status: Make this a favorite. Visit it daily, and via comments and ratings, support and applaud the troll police.

Hillary Clinton Would Make the Best Damn President

2006-10-30T07:08:00.000-08:00

since World War II.

Discuss.

I think she can win. I think the Clinton vision of the Democratic Party is one that can get it elected. Her effect on the opposition is remarkable; six years ago, she was barely taken seriously as a New Yorker. Now her origins, and even her political aspirations, are barely an issue. She's capable of talking to Republicans, of claiming and holding the center of today (as opposed to the center ca. 1976, which is what a lot of Dems seem to mean when they talk about the "center"). She understands the pitfalls of the presidency. She's got a husband with a lot of international goodwill whom she can dispatch throughout the world in a pinch.

I know she only cares about getting elected and may have no moral center. I prefer that to the current alternatives, who have a moral center of pure evil, and who don't seem to give a shit about getting elected.

I think Obama would be the new Kerry. He'll seem great in the early primaries, and have folks wincing by August.

Election prediction: Dems get House, Senate a tie (i.e. Republican -- because GOP hangs on in Tennessee and Virginia). If I am wrong, it will be because the "undecided" voters simply stay home.

Sado-porn

2006-10-29T20:43:00.000-08:00

So, I rented Hard Candy last night. Interesting movie – a “tables turned” scenario in which the predatory pedophile photographer becomes the victim of the protagonist fourteen-year-old putative victim. She tortures him, subjects him to a pseudo-castration, and eventually coerces him into suicide. She’s the hero.

And it struck me – this is the essence of sado-porn. Anything is acceptable, given the right context. We’re supposed to be cheering for the young heroine, as she drugs the adult man, ties him down, plays out what he believes is a castration surgery, and then pretends to dispose of his testicles in the garbage disposal. Watching this movie, it’s apparent that any act, no matter how grotesque, sadistic, or violent can be not only acceptable, but laudable. The audience, horrified at the depravity of the victim, is supposed to cheer.

More overtly horrifying examples of contextual manipulation come to mind. The Sharon Tate murder, for example, or the social milieu that must have made Auschwitz possible, or perhaps the gassing of the Kurds, or Pol Pot’s antics in Cambodia; horrifying acts deemed laudable within a carefully created context.

Any given act can be considered socially desirable, given the right context: the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo, the nuclear incineration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Oklahoma City or the World Trade Center.

The destruction of Iraq, the corrosive impact of the Homeland Security Act, or the election of a petty, brutal little man to the highest office of the most powerful country in the world.

What separates the heroes and the villains? When does is an act of sadistic aggression, or wholesale destruction, become unacceptable, regardless of provocation? Apparently, the answer is never. When pushed sufficiently to the edge, any act becomes acceptable.

If this premise is accepted by a sufficiently large group of people, then they are fodder for manipulation. So long as there is a sufficiently persuasive despot who can instill a sufficient degree of fear and paranoia, any act of aggression can be recast as an act of self-defense.

The protagonist in Hard Candy is afforded the license of the righteous victim, and we identify with her.

A movie is such a little thing, isn’t it? A contrived scenario, whose purpose is to titillate, or entertain. This is just one little piece of sado-porn: extreme dehumanization of a dehumanizing villain. But this is the same phenomenon that promotes genocide – we only find the impulse laudable, because of the context from which we are viewing it.

This is the point on which there is no separation between the political right and the political left – no-one questions the process, only the context in which the impulse to objectify and destroy the villain is employed. Both parties condone vigilante justice, so long as they can identify with their respective victims, and the context in which victimization is viewed can be manipulated to justify a like response.

And until we recognize this, the substantive differences between political philosophies amount to so much window-dressing.

Saying Grace

2006-10-29T15:12:00.000-08:00

There are cadences of the voice that I can mimic but not duplicate, and one of them is the sound of my great grandfather saying grace. He ran a chain of grocery stores in the Twenties and Thirties, so his table was abundant even in difficult times. He knew of his fortune and expressed his gratitude mainly at suppertime, when he asked those gathered to bow their heads in prayer.

I knew him much later in life, when his fortunes had not exactly turned, but at least abated. Danville, Virginia was not the same town in 1975 that it had been in 1920, and from the looks of things it had hardly been a metropolis even at the height of its long tobacco boom. The old house smelled of smoke, but not whiskey (unlike the home of my grandfather, where bourbon was drunk in copious quantities starting around breakfast). It scared me, that home. It had stern Victorian turns, stairs that were forbidden to me, twisted, aggressive lamps. I tended to sink myself into a large chair and watch the football on the occasions we visited, which were not many.

One of the reasons my grandfather was an alcoholic (I suspect) was that his father was a zealot of temperance. My great grandfather's face was as foreboding as his abode, and his God was a vengeful one who did not suffer the little children much latitude. By the time I encountered him age had desiccated him, leaving him with little of his earlier brimstone. He made clear, however, that he was a force in the world because he was on the side of the righteous, and that those who would be righteous (or those, like me, who didn't know good from evil) would do well to do what he said.

Yet, when we bowed our heads in prayer, this awesome God softened, as if He, too, could smell the mashed potatoes and gravy, the black-eyed peas, the butter in the biscuits. "Lord, we thank You for the bounty we are about to receive," (a pause for breath – my great grandfather was a conductor of words). "We ask that you bless this food to our bodies, oh Lord, that we may do Your work, and that Your divine grace may fulfill us all the day long." Nobody talks like this. It was as captivating to me as any record. I could even hear the capital letters. "Bless our families oh Lord and keep them safe in their travels," (me! I got that he was talking about me) "and guide them in their lives as You guide us now."

A convention has developed in my family, for even today when we say the blessing we follow the form dictated by my great grandfather, that at this juncture in the prayer some pro forma mention be made of the less fortunate. I cannot now say if that was a later emendation or if it was in the original text. My great grandfather pulled around the corner and quoth: "In the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, Amen," and the rest of us amened in unison.

I think even then I was suspicious of God, or at least of invoking the name. He was an instrument of shame, and the effect on my grandfather (forever apologetic, secretive, and inadequate before the menacing deacon) only became clear to me later in life. But the artfulness of language still resonates with me, as do the smells of ham and cigarettes, the sonority of Virginia accents, and the chords of voices joined in grace.

A Prayer for Undying

2006-10-29T13:14:00.000-08:00

The other day I was trying to explain addiction to a friend. He put forth the idea that the fulfillment of one’s desires would make one less inclined to use one’s drug of choice. I disagreed. I said that because addiction is closer to the addict than anything else, nothing can come between it and us: no lover, no job, no pastime, no geography. It fits right up next to our skin like a co-joined twin that saps our life force yet without whom we will not survive. No amount of love or suffering could make me stop drinking, would make me give up that comforting spirit, that familiar companion. I stopped because I was going to lose it anyway, because I was going to die.

Here’s how it went for me (age 14 to 28):

Party. Party. Party. Party. WooHOO! I am a cool party girl! Everyone wants to be me. Party over here. Party over there. Party. Party. Party. Party. Ten years pass. Bad things start happening. Try to stop drinking. Fail. Try again. Fail. Try again. Fail. Try again. Fail. Try again. Fail. Quit drinking for good. Fail. This time I really mean it. Fail. Try again. Fail. Give up. Really bad things start happening. Make a couple of trips to the emergency ward. Resolve to never drink again. Get hammered and spend a night in the drunk tank. Quit drinking for good. Get evicted from apartment. Put badass boyfriend in jail. Recognize impending doom. Resolve to never, ever drink again. Get drunk with badass boyfriend the day he’s released. Become resigned to early demise. Get drunk and pass out. Wonder if maybe there’s another option besides untimely and possibly gruesome death. Go to a meeting. Listen. Go to another one. Hear other people tell stories just like mine. Keep going, everyday. Watch in awed disbelief as people celebrate months and years without a drink. Keep going. Make friends. When the desire to drink hits hard, be in a meeting with people who care about me instead of a bar with people who don’t care about anything. A year passes. Then another. Many, many good things happen. Fourteen years later, I still haven’t had a drink. Life is sublimely lovely and wild and heart-breaking and fun...and I hardly ever think about drinking at all, anymore (only once a week or so).

I didn’t stop drinking because my life sucked or because I was going nowhere or because I couldn’t meet a decent (read: “non-sociopathic”) guy. I didn’t stop because I couldn’t do any of the things I wanted to do if I kept drinking. I didn’t stop because I was never going to have a career, or a family, or a real home. All of those things were true, were readily apparent to me. The only reason I stopped was because I didn’t want to die. Well, that's not quite true: dying seemed okay, actually. It seemed inevitable. I couldn't feel anything anymore besides excruciating emotional pain, and I’d sort of resigned myself to death, was prepared to welcome it. I stopped drinking because I thought I might give not dying a try. Just to see, you know?

Note to a friend: People love you. The world would be a little less interesting and a little less annoying without you in it. There's plenty of time to die. Try life. Go to a meeting, or go to treatment again, and do it as if your life depends on it. I’m guessing that this time around, it does.

Practice saying this prayer: I need help. I can't do this alone. I want to live.

"Just Watch Me"

2006-10-29T09:52:00.000-08:00

_{(Reposted from Best of the Fray - DrNo.)}

You think a liberal can't be tough on terrorism? You think a liberal can't have a spine of steel and balls of iron?

Just watch this, probably the most famous, and infamous, televised interview in my country's history. Even Jack Dallas, I'm sure, weeps at such lack of spine in American politics. _{Read the "Did You Know" for a brief history.}

'Polo below thinks Bush is setting-up America for martial law. He may be right. But Bush is an amateur, a dilletante compared to the toughest iron-assed liberal in the history of western democracy.

"The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation," once said he, and removed from federal legal statutes puritan blue laws.

He embraced the counterculture of the late '60s, early '70s, but with a finely-honed intelligence and catholic Catholic eye. He sported a rose in his lapel, dated famous actresses and singers, preceded Nixon to China (earning Nixon's eternal enmity), married a flower-child, once performed a mocking hand-above-head pirouette immediately behind the Queen, in Buckingham Palace. He repatriated the British North American Act.

He was a suave lady's man to put Clinton to shame, an intellect to put every U.S. President he ever met to shame. Nixon called him an asshole, LBJ didn't know what to make of him.

He was everything you'd expect of a liberal, but when his country was threatened by terrorists, he was the meanest bastard ever to wear that label, and the terrorist threat ended there and then. He declared Martial Law, invoked the War Measures Act, and guns and troops and tanks occupied every corner of suspected insurgency. It was the most Draconian measure he could possibly take, but take it he did, and to this day many hate him for it. But the terrorism stopped. Immediately.

Tanks on the cobblestones of old Quebec City! Armed troops on Montreal streets! Thousands arrested with no charges! And in the end, massive injustice to many, but threat quelled. "The price of freedom," quoth the great Liberal.

And when he died thousands clamoured just to touch that slow rail cortege from my country's Capitol to his home, Montreal, just to have a fleeting moment of intimacy, a connection, a last goodbye. They cried, they saluted, entire towns emptied just to lay a finger, a palm against the railcar carrying his body.

I'm not here advocating such extreme measures for America: rather, suggesting strength and intelligence combined can accomplish wonders without destroying that which it seeks to protect. America's present administration seems to lack half that equation.

It's not the party; it's the person, people. Character, strength, will, core goodness, core belief system most matters, think I, and those qualities are not exclusive to any party.

Please remember this when you vote, America.

Trudeau | Liberal | Fighting Terrorism | Martial Law | Canada | October Crisis | DrNo

A Time For Reckoning...

2006-10-27T20:41:00.000-07:00

Fray-cas here...

I see a lot of things these days...

None of them impress me greatly.

Truly it is the same old thing. We weep for those going out, and try desperately to make sure that there are plenty coming back in, all while ignoring and, honestly, denigrating who are, right now, doing nothing more than being...

But what, really, what is it all worth?

I had an epiphany this evening, and I thought I might share it with you:

No matter what you are, what you believe, no matter what you try, or how you succeed, there are those who will hold you in utmost contempt...

And there is nothing... nothing at all... that you could ever hope to do about it.

Success is a double-edged sword. It not only proves the shiftless wrong, but draws a bullseye on your back for those who have made their living out of decimating the competition.

I am a survivor. There is very little that I cannot accomplish without a very small expenditure of will. From what I have seen, our little country could do with a few more like me. Yet I am spurned.

I wonder why...

Would someone please explain why this country hates its best? Would someone please explain why this country lauds its worst?

Do people like me frighten you?

A missed opportunity.

2006-10-27T16:54:00.000-07:00

A few weeks back some of my in-laws were in town. From Indiana, they're Mennonites. The middle daughter is 20, lacks direction, still lives at home, but is actually rather bright (and a good chess player). I'd had the thought that if the opportunity presented itself (we were ever out of mother-in-law's earshot) I'd tell her, "By the way, you should know, there's no such thing as God."

The opportunity came and went. I didn't so much chicken out as it didn't come up. Somehow, it just isn't that important to me. Still, I think I should have. Next time.

[The Breakfast Table] Short Order Breakfast for the Political Junky

2006-10-27T10:09:00.000-07:00

Emailed By Ender

A quick breakfast table for the hardcore political posters. Run it from Monday, October 30, through Election Day. Of course, it’s a buffet, but to kick things off, a menu of how each participant follows politics—what they read, what they watch, what they listen to—and how that translates into a balanced diet of news and opinion.

This blog is currently a rough draft. If the Breakfast Table is a go, I’ll complete the customization. No need to sign up for blogger. Participants will email their entries in, and top post them in The Breakfast Table fray (easy peasy).

Arrgh!

2006-10-26T20:42:00.000-07:00

I attended Washington University during William Danforth's last year as Chancellor, and I admired what he did in making Wash U. and elite university, so going attacking him feels a bit like I'm attacking my own grandfather.

Nevertheless...

The ad that ran tonight featuring Dr. Danforth saying something like, "we enjoy watching the Cardinals play baseball, but when it comes to important medical issues, I hope Missourians will listen to experts."

Arrrgh!!

First of all, which medical school did Sheryl Crow attend, again? How about Michael J. Fox? Or even your brother, former Senator John Danforth. Oh, that's right, they're not medical experts, are they? They're celebrities Amendment 2 supporters brought in and put in front of the cameras in the hopes that we'd be so star-struck that we'd go along with whatever they tell us. But those opposed run an ad with the Cardinals #3 starting pitcher, and now we shouldn't listen to anybody but experts? Right. I anxiously await Missouri cures pulling all the ads from endorsers who do not possess medical degrees, and removing the names of "Civic, Business, Government & Faith Organizations," "African American Leaders," and, for heaven's sake "Faith Leaders," because, as Dr. Danforth said, Missourians should only listen to medical experts. Anyone else's opinion is irrelevant.

Secondly, think about the attitude Dr. Danforth is inviting us to have. Chill out, Missourians, don't think about what those silly baseball players have to say, don't think at all. The experts say it's good; that ought to be good enough for us.

I seem to remember being invited to have this attitude about four years ago, and now our country is mired in a civil war half the world away.

UPDATE: I should mention that the context is an ad featuring Cardinals pitcher Jeff Suppan, among others, opposing Amendment 2.

While I'm here, I have to rant a bit about the lack of savviness on display here. On the other side, we have an ad by a well-liked actor best known for his roles in sitcoms and comedy movies. One theme of the debate is that it's a choice between scientific advancement and religious fundamentalism.

So, how do we begin our response? We start with an actor best (perhaps only) known for portraying Jesus in a film that many had derided as anti-Semitic (for now, it doesn't matter whether it was in fact anti-Semitic, what matters is the perception) directed by someone who recently was shown making an anti-Semitic tirade. In case any viewers didn't make the connection, this actor then mutters something in Aramaic, so it's ultra-clear that opposition to Amendment 2 is fueled by Mel-Gibson style religion.

The appeal to those who have not already committed to voting against Amendment 2 is not at all clear to me, but the turn-off is.

Timothy Noah Fakes Understanding

2006-10-26T20:19:00.000-07:00

In this little piece, I am left with a great deal of concern for Tim. Mirroring the subject of his article, should we not be fooled by an obvious and deliberate show of stupidity from Tim himself?

The possibilities:

A) He doesn't get it.
B) He wants us to think he doesn't get it.
C) He wants some people to think he doesn't get it, allowing the cognoscenti to chuckle knowingly...

As John McLoughlin says, "The answer is A!" Tim, Tim, Tim. What the hell is this?

Take it from me. Rush Limbaugh wants you to think he's a dumbass, a pea-brain, an absolute yutz. It's a con job. Don't fall for it.

Exactly how is this true? He doesn't want us to think he's a dumbass, Tim.

Rush is just simply an asshole, specializing in over-the-top crucifixion of any given person or group of people that it would please his dumbass dittoheads to crucify, ostensibly for the purposes of book sales and ratings. It doesn't matter whether he believes any of the tripe he spews or not, because he's an asshole just the same.

Let's say he believes in the shit he shovels... that would make him an asshole for believing in this shit... a truly horrid human deserving of derision and public ridicule. Let's then, say, he doesn't believe in the shit he shovels... that would make him an asshole for using his position to poop yet another shitburger into the septic tank of American politics for his own profit... as if American politics really needs the help overflowing the bowl and making the bathroom floor go code brown.

I know in the world of perception meets reality, that you've always got to be sure that what you're seeing is what's really there, and it is just way too easy to think that everything valuable is hidden behind a curtain.

But if, in the future, you find yourself confused, here's the acid test.

If shit comes out of it, it's either an asshole or a sewer pipe, and if you can't tell the difference from there... well, I can't fucking help you.

C’mon Tim, say something stupid.

2006-10-26T12:18:00.000-07:00

One crucial point is this. Conservatives don't think less of Rove or Rush or any of their other generals for perpetuating these lies. Among conservatives there is an understanding that Rush doesn't actually believe Gore claimed to have invent the internet. Rush knows exactly what Gore said. Rush's public stance is that of a knowing liar to those who know better. He's not stupid and he's not to be criticized for pretending to buy into the lie. He's selling it. He's selling it to the simpleminded and listless. And it's this understanding, this unwritten agreement that we, liberals and progressives, lack. *

Here is the thing. We liberals have supposedly figured it out. These tactics are “classic” and apparently “right out of the right-wing playbook”. But the truth is liberals won’t have truly figured it out until a liberal opinion maker realizes that the proper response to a Machiavellian maneuver isn’t a dissertation reverse engineering it, but a Machiavellian maneuver of their own. C’mon Tim, if Rush can do Machiavelli, certainly you can. Or is it harder than it looks?

Frayge6:TheOuterSanctum-A Star Is Born

2006-10-26T10:37:00.000-07:00

A Thousand Pointy Heads of Light
If You Bleed Us, Are We Not Pricks?
Compiled by switters
Updated Thursday, October 26, 2006, at 12 PM CST

In a week that saw everything from pole dancing to Dana Stevens' crucifiction* to august's ascension to the celestial realm, Ozymandias looks to the heavens and takes issue with TheQuietMan's request for the editors to remove his star, and the editors' subsequent said star removal. Be careful what you wish for.

Please disregard TQM's request to have his star removed and give it back. His one liners [sic] are generally better than most two page self serving [sic] tomes in BOTF. If he sees this he will probably protest. He'll get over it.

Hmm… We're trying to think of one of TQM's "one-liners", which, if I'm not mistaken (and I rarely am), usually end up being "one hundred-liners". Or so.

Freditor_G wonders if it's a forest or if it's just a bunch of trees.

The main advantage I see to the stars is that they indicate a noteworthy response to help guide readers to good discussions. Thus, the most valuable stars are the ones who get out into the Fray and mix it up, sparking great discussions and giving reasoned criticism of the articles.

There are lots of smart people with sharp writing skills hanging out on the Best of the Fray. Many of them wear stars. But nobody who reads Best of the Fray needs my help figuring out who's a good poster and who isn't. Is providing "blue bong-hits [sic] of approval" and pointy badges of ego-validation to the small groups haunting our community forums really a service to the wider Fray community?

"…blue bong hits of approval…" "…blue bong hits of approval…" That's a keeper, Chief! At least you put it in quotes.

Days cuts his sponge bath short at "the home" to throw his propellered beanie into the ring.

Stars, checkmarks, and funny Slate squares... Are more than just goofey [sic] symbols to color up the page (although that may be their best use) [sic (punctuation?)] they represent the structure of the magazine; the completion of the publication. A star is more than the influence it brings to the page, more than the power of the post it publishes, the star is the character of the magazine; the way it feels to the reader; the reading experience.

I'm sorry. What?

Ozy cuts (back) to the chase.

In the simplest terms, I see a checkmark as indicating "this post is worth a read" while a star indicates "this poster is generally worth a read."

Which I guess means that a little purple "S" in a box means "this post is worth the 'weight'"? Or not.

Pragmatist theoretician sydbristow throws aside "her" blond wig and takes a break from an exciting life of chasing down terrorists and fun-for-the-whole-family international intrigue and "frays" it all on the line.

BOTF is certainly a dilemma. Stars are meaningless (truly), but useful in preserving history (for those who care). So, stars go, more work for editors (assuming BOTF is worthwhile, and history is part of what makes it worthwhile), and where does that leave you?

All in all, though, I would say:

* no new stars; announce the number of stars available (say, 50 <-- no problem, see next point)
* preamble to this point: 1) Editors should view posts with nicks hidden (enhancement of course); 2) check overwrites a star (ditto) .. so, no check in, say, 6 months, star is gone (ditto)
* discourage cross-posting (because it discourages discussion, i.e. make the would-be participants come to the post)
* minimal checks in BOTF (utility perspective: enhance the article-related Frays, maybe the Slate authors will wade in, which upgrades the overall Fray, etc)
*fine with deleting moronic/pithless top-posts in BOTF

Wow. That's quite the bean in that pretty little head of "hers". Which is why I backed off on all the "[sic]"s.

Much miffed, Otoh dares our fearless editor to knock the chip off his shoulder in a spot-on impersonation of Robert Conrad in those battery commercials years ago.

That's rich coming from one of the clowns that starred Switters [sic]. He's sure made Slate/Fray proud of late, hasn't he [sic (punctuation)] with his much publicized adventure with the Daily KOS?

I'm certain that all current and former star holders are very proud to count Switters [sic] as a good member in standing. Ahem!

In point of fact you and Adam routinely demonstrate the same arrogance that represented one of Kevin Arnovitz's major faults.

Sounds like somebody hit a nerve. You might want to think about having that particular sore spot cauterized. It's got "dry socket" written all over it in about 17 languages, 3 of which we're still dictionary-laden in. At least as of this writing.

Is that a frog in your throat or are you just happy to see you? Ouch! Hey, leave me out of it, pinhead. I think we liked you better when you stalked Ender. So it's Kevin's fault again, though he's been gone for 8 months? It's like Blame Game Central over there. He's turning into the veritable Bill Clinton of The Fray.

Still, at the risk of sounding extremely arrogant, what's it like being a guy with penis envy? And I find it supremely ironic that people who like your posts get banned and flushed while people who like mine get, well, starred. Oops!

Oh, and it's switters, you blowhole. The shift key costs extra.

TheQuietMan?

relatively speaking,
the awarding of stars is a juvenile exercise.

It's the equivalent of putting happy faces on children's work. It's nice to be well thought of, but frankly, praise, when dealing with adults [sic] works differently.

What?! Speak up! (And I'd like to buy a comma, Pat.)

Are star posters the highest common denominator, Wooley asks, or are they the highest denominators of the common?

Star posters have some things in common.

1. They all write very well.
2. They read the articles and stick to the topics.
3. They usually do not post much.
4. They do not engage in childish threads and churlish behaviour [sic].
5. They are all very intelligent.
6. They have excellent self-control.

Maybe they're just all high. "They have excellent self-control." "They have excellent self-control." We'll get back to you on that one.

Echoing Ozy, NickD claims that checkmarks are simply more reliable and consistent indicators of quality than stars are.

I respectfully disagree with Geoffs [sic] assertation [sic] regarding his opinion that a Star leads one to a good discussion. I almost always open a check marked post as that is something that has been read by the editor and found to be interesting or as having merit. The star on the other hand has been awarded to a writer for his past work and does not always indicate the current quality of any said post. There are often times when I do not open a Star post, [sic (the comma should go after the parenthetical – what's with you people?)] (I am certain that the star posters seldom open mine either)but [sic] there are a few Star posters as well as un starred [sic] posters I always read.

Buck up there, champ. One of the best-kept secrets of This Place is that everybody reads everybody, except for me, who only reads himself. It'll get better once the swelling goes down.

[A brief aside. Hey Slate writers: If you're going to steal from me, the least you could do is quote me more. Again. Jesus rimjob Christ!]

Now unless you've been toning down the "stay the course (coarse?)" presidential war rhetoric instead of toning down the actual "staying the course" war business itself all weekend, then !!!NEWSFLASH!!! it should come as no surprise to loyal readers of Frayge6:TheOuterSanctum that we fully and wholly endorse august's star. Add the fact that the previous star award went to rundeep, and let's just say the bar has officially been raised. [Gulp!]

On a related note, we here at Frayge6 find doodahman's MTC feature in Fraywatch to be extremely well done, well deserved and well timed. Bravo.

Got too sense? Come join in on the discussion here.

*borrowed from Gregor
=
You ever black out when you're drinking, or as I like to call it, "time travel"? You're at a bar, you're drinking, you black out… You wake up, you're at another bar, you're drinking, you black out… You wake up, you're at McDonald's, been workin' there 3 years, still haven't made assistant manager… You wanna quit, but you're bangin' that girl on the Fry-o-lator… They say she's retarded, but those titties ain't retarded… [nervous though robust laughter]… I'm sorry, is that an Eminem tune?
-Dave Attell

nyah, nyah, nyah

2006-10-26T09:09:00.000-07:00

Go, Canada.

Hating The Underdog

2006-10-25T20:32:00.000-07:00

Reagarding the Sports Nut article on why the Cardinals are not receiving the affection that usually greets unsing teams making postseason runs, I first thought that it had to do with where they are on in the success cycle. The Cards aren't some sort of an upstart team surprising everybody. This is a team that has been successful for some time (but had not won a World Series) , was predicted to do well this year, underachieved a but but still managed to make the playoffs, then got hot in the postseason, and squeaked by the team that had dominated the league during the regular season.

This makes sense until I remember something else -- last year's Pittsburgh Steelers. The Steelers had been winning for several years, but not won a Super Bowl during this particular run. The Steelers underachieved during the regular season but snuck into the playoffs as the 6th seed in the AFC. The Steelers got hot and marched through the playoffs, including a close victory over the team that had dominated the conference during the regular season (the Colts).

The similarities don't end there. Both championships are being contested in Detroit. Both franchises have a long heritage of championships and tradition. Both have fan bases considered by many to be the best in the sport and include colorful traditions (Sea of Red, Terrible Towels). Both were facing teams that had even longer droughts from the championship series.

But the Steelers were embraced as lovable underdogs, and the Cardinals are greeted with a shrug and a sneer. So what's the difference?

Maybe one difference is the statistical emphasis in baseball. A team that wins three consecutive NFL playoff games on the road is perceived as having accomplished something significant and survived the ultimate test of its toughness. A team that wins two consecutive baseball playoff series in which they were the underdog is perceived as the beneficiary of random luck and favorable pitching match-ups.

The 2005 AFC was considered the stronger of the two conferences. The 2006 National League was the subject of much analysis about how bad it was.

The Cardinals defeat of the Mets was aided by the Mets losing two of their top starting pitchers; the Colts were going at pretty much full strength. Beating Peyton Manning gets you more love than beating Oliver Perez.

The Steelers had Jerome Bettis, a likable veteran who hailed from the Super Bowl City. The Cardinals don't have such a story, or even many terribly likable players. The closes the Cardinals have to the "aging veteran getting his last shot at the title" is probably Jim Edmonds, who let's just say doesn't inspire the same sort of attention. Albert Pujols has exposed himself as a jerk. Tony La Russa thinks he's smarter than you. Nobody's heard of Adam Wainwright. David Eckstein's a fun story, but he hasn't been hitting. Chris Carpenter is excellent, but doesn't have much to hang on to.

The Cardinals aren’t loved because they’re not lovable.

It's Just an iPoditude

2006-10-25T20:02:00.000-07:00

rob_said_that picks a few interesting bones with Michael Agger vis-a-vis his iPod article. Of course, I'll indulge in a little metapicking of my own.

Can't a person just like something without ownership being construed as making a statement of fashion?

Well, rob... um... no. That's marketing's primary purpose. Summed up: it's not a product, it's a lifestyle choice... or at least that's the sort of idea it is marketing's job to convince us. Don't be mad at Agger, rob. Some of us are immune to marketing, some aren't. You can usually tell who is and who isn't, usually by looking at the balance on their credit cards. Mike's probably got a sizable chunk of "funny munny" stowed on his plastic. Of course, the idea of what is or isn't cool is also something most people of adult age generally have lost or are in the process of losing interest in, and I say most because I'm acquainted with quite a few who are just as interested in "cool" as they were when they were sixteen. Being cool (or at least "dressing" the part) is defined by the young by necessity, and usually requires a lot of time, energy, keeping your ear to the ground, and liquid assets to keep up with it. Exhausting, that is.

Apple is an interesting company, with regards to its advertising and marketing, at least. Back in the dusty old days they're tag line for the Mac was "A computer for the rest of us" or some such nonsense. Evocative of access to the electronic peasantry? How... egalitarian... how... populist.

iPod, now, is being marketed as the "in" thing. Clique-ish... exclusionist. How... aristocratic... how... Heathers. So maybe Aggers is on to something, rob. Maybe iPod marketing does try to tap into the childish urge some humans feel to avoid looking dated. Maybe the iPod is just about being cool.

Apple is the company the "cool" kids spend their money on. They're hip. They're now. Apple is marketing. Marketing is Apple.

Seems such a fuss for a media player with a hard drive.

God is all over the place (Quarn, Ch. 2)

2006-10-25T14:06:00.000-07:00

Re: Chapter 2: AL-BAQARA (THE COW)

Thy ears are companions of the Fire

Estimates vary, but let’s safely suppose there are over a billion Muslims in the world at this very moment. That makes the assumption--that at any given moment (including this one) there are thousands of Muslims studying Chapter 2 of the Quran--a safe one. If that is the case, the ears of every disbeliever (and that includes every non-Muslim and even some who say they are Muslims) should be burning. You’re being talked about, and in less than flattering terms.

If you don’t believe in God in the Quran, this chapter is largely about you. It starts right in on you. It’s gossipy (i.e. not to you, but to the true believers about you). Of course you, the disbeliever, is in for it. Sucks for you. Worse, you’re not a disbeliever by choice. Nope, you’re a disbeliever because God made you that way. In essence, God screwed you over so he can disrespect you to his true believers and ultimately punish you as an example to his true believers. Your whole purpose for being, it seems, is to keep the true believers feeling superior and on the straight and narrow.

God is a real trash talker. Consider yourselves defamed.

Allah of the Israelites

It seems the Quran was written for an audience that is well versed in the Old and New Testaments. So much so, that no good Muslim should be without a Torah and/or(?) a Bible. In no uncertain terms, Chapter 2 makes clear that Allah and the God of the Jews and Christians are one in the same. Interesting that, because if “Allah” is the Jewish and Christian “God”, and he most certainly is, why isn’t the English translation of “الله” “God”? Apparently it’s an issue. I didn’t mean to look it up either. Rather, I meant to look up the Arabic characters. You can take the fact that this inconsistency occurred to me in a vacuum (an observation from ignorance) for what it’s worth. Regardless of why, I note in myself a subtle enlightening that Allah is in fact the God of Adam, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Jesus…the children of Israel. I suspect that although we know better (I did!), calling God Allah has the insidious effect of distinguishing in our minds the God of the Muslims from the God of the Jews and Christians. It’s a false distinction, and, at minimum, a counterproductive one. And one that, even though I knew better, had played its trick on me. It wasn’t until I started reading the Quran that I noticed I didn’t associate Allah with all the things I associated God with, and vise versa.

For God too, the third time is the Quran

So it’s about 600 AD. There are Jews and Christians, and just as in modern times, among them you’ll find hypocrites. In fact, just like today, there was apparently a lot not to like about Jews and Christians circa the seventh century. What do you do? You take their God, you take their signs, you take their prophets, you take their texts, and you write a scathing criticism of the establishment along with instructions on how to avoid their hypocrisy. You start their religion anew. The mistakes of the past were those of the Jew and the Christian. You needn’t carry the burden of their sins. Rather, let them serve as lessons for those who would not repeat them. And better still, lessons for those who, if they had been Moses’ charge, would not have worshiped the calf, or if they had been at Jesus’ side, would not have slain him.

Here is God, here is religion, but without all the baggage of men. You see, in Mohammed’s time, Islam had no history. It was a newborn, and as such, unsullied by men who would practice it. That’s the appeal. Here is a religion that is yet to be ruined, and more, unruinable by men. Unfortunately for Islam, it is no longer immune from the criticisms it levels at the Jews and the Christians. And that’s what you’ll find in Chapter 2. A critical refutation of Jews and the Christians that today is just as valid if leveled against Muslims. Or, to put it another way, if you were to write the Quran today, and include in it the hook, you’d be remise if you didn’t include Muslims along side Jews and Christians as poor examples.

If God is being honest

He wrote the Quran for men to read. He talks about women, but not to them. God says they have rights similar to those of men, according to what’s equitable (whatever that’s supposed to mean), but adds that men have a degree of advantage. So basically, women are not to be treated equally, but the inequality with which they are treated should only be to the degree which is required for men come out on top.

The Quran does say it’s a good individual act to free slaves. But it also talks about proper relations with slaves as if slaves are a fact of life. I imagine they were. But conspicuously lacking is a mandate to free all slaves. This, to me, is symptomatic of how the Quran bends over backwards to accommodate a myriad of conditions or circumstances in an effort to appeal to as many people as possible. You don’t want to alienate he who hath slaves, so you don’t tell him he has to free all slaves, but if he wants to feel better about himself he can free one or two. You don’t want to alienate slaves, and if in your religion one curries favor with God by freeing slaves, well, you’re on their side. What’s not lost on me is that according to God, a slaves freedom is bought, not won, i.e. the buying and selling of slaves is a legitimate practice.

God hath covered every base

In chapter 2 you’ll find instructions for Ramadhan, the Hajj, bequeathing your worth and the particulars of divorce. The instructions are both accommodating to a variety of circumstances such as under what circumstances you can remarry your ex-wife. They are often practical. For example, in the case of the Hajj, be well behaved and once you’ve completed the Hajj, get the hell out of the way quickly least you cause a traffic jam. But often, in an apparent effort to consider all possible circumstances that might come up, the instructions leave room to disregard the original aim. Take Ramadhan, the holy month. You’d think it would be a good excuse to stop fighting. But if you tell your people they can’t fight during Ramadhan, sooner or later they’re going to get slaughtered. So you have to spell out under what circumstances they can fight. And in doing so, you basically defeat the whole purpose, since it is often repeated that God knows what’s in your heart and mind, so if you can convince yourself that the conditions for fighting during Ramadhan are met, well, you can fight.

The word of God is still just a word

All in all, I found Chapter 2 interesting in parts and mind numbing in others. What more I know about Islam is probably best summed up as better understanding of where it fits into history, and given the transparency of its mechanisms (to me at least), a renewed sense of resignation that I’d learned to ignore. There’s just something incredibly pathetic about the human race.

By Ender | Main

A Moderate Question

2006-10-25T13:45:00.000-07:00

There have been a number of articles on Slate this week regarding the efforts of Democrats to appeal to moderate Republican voters. This is utterly reasonable and necessary in order to a) win and b) have some mandate when in office.

Here's my question: are those same moderates upset or alienated by Democratic efforts to oust Republican moderates in order to obtain Democratic control? Jeffords and Lieberman come to mind, though a case can be made that Joe skews more to the right.

Is this an issue? Or are moderates just seeing an opportunity to screw the GOP as a message that will be (hopefully) inescapable? Moreover, even if moderate Republican voters are upset by the strategy will it matter?

The laws of unintended consequences are mysterious and powerful. Why not just concentrate your efforts on the neocons, instead of risking a loss of credibility as you paint moderates with a righty brush, and risking the loss of powerful allies on the other side who might disdain their colleagues as much as you do?

This post has been pre-rated "troll" by DailyKos.

Better Dead Than Red

2006-10-25T11:36:00.000-07:00

The post below highlights what I think is a running subtext in the Amendment 2 debate.

In the last few elections cycles, Missouri has turned from a "swing" state to a "red" state. We're home to Branson, the entertainment capital of the RedState world. We've elected a thirthysomething year old Republican governor from Springfield who is the son of the House Majority Whip. Out most prominent Democratic politician, Dick Gephardt, retired. We went for Bush twice. We overwhelmingly approved a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. We elected a Democratic governor and senator back in 2000, but that probably had more to do with a halo effect from Mel Carnahan's untimely death than anything else.

A lot of people aren't happy about this, including some who supported one or more of the developments listed above. Instead of being a battleground in presidential races, we're a reliable source of electoral votes for the Republican candidates. Sure, we might have liked Bush better than Kerry, and we weren't excited about re-defining marriage, but that doesn't mean we wanted to become East (What's the Matter With) Kansas.

This anxiety is espcecially prevalent in the metropolitan areas around St. Louis and Kansas City. There's a sense that outstate politicians are leading us down a path to irrelevance. Hence, "Jefferson City politicians" which cues this distrust of outstate politicians.

This is probably best personified by Amendment 2's most prominent supporter, former Senator Jack Danforth. In addition to promoting Amendment 2, Mr. Danforth has written a lot about how religious people have gone too far, and need to rein themselves back. He supports this amendment while maintaining his stance as "pro-life." He reflects the mood of the state -- we've lurched too far in the socially conservative direction; let's back up.

Enter Amemdnment 2. Here, Missourians have an opportunity to amend their Constitution to protect controversial research from those representatives from tiny towns who get their voting orders from the church pastors. Nobody could say we're in lock-step with the Religious Right then, could they? We'll have shown our openness to technology, and proven we're not some sort of red-state backwater, indistinguishable from any number of other rectangular states. We'd matter, damnit!

This is part of why celebrity appeals are such a feature. The message seems to be -- This is an opportunity for Missouri to prove to us cool Hollywood people that you're not a bunch of slack-jawed cold-hearted religious fanatics, but technologically savvy compassionate cosomopoltian people we'd like to associate with.

And while I'm here, thank you, Rush, for turning an interesting conversation about what type of ads and manipulations are in bounds into a conversation about what a jerk you (an by extension, all those who oppose embryonic research) are. Really, it's a big help. It's not like we're in the middle of a race in which the other side is claiming a monopoly on compassionm and are eager to demonstrate how only a cold-hearted ignoramus could oppose them. Thanks a heap.

I bring this up, but don't know how to effectively counter it, But I think it's something it's important to be aware of. It's bigger than this particular issue, bigger than whether or not the amendment itself is deceptive, bigger than whether it prohibits or protects "cloning," depending on who's defining the terms. For many Missourians, this is a referendum for their own independence from the socially conservative red state pigeonhole they find themselves in, and it's not going to be easy to get them to vote "no."

Who Decides?

2006-10-25T11:35:00.000-07:00

One of the themes of the Amendment 2 proponents is that medical decisions should be made by families and their doctors, not by politicians in Jefferson City.

This is an appealing argument, echoing the effective Who Decides? pro-choice argument. And it sounds good and makes intuitive sense.

But think about how this type of argument would be applied in other contexts:

Soldiers on the ground should decide what methods of warfare are acceptable, not Washington politicians.
Cops in the streets shoud decide what methods of search are reasonable, not self-important people in black robes in stuffy chambers based on what some guys in powdered wigs wrote over 200 years ago.

This isn't how we do things. We are proud of the men and women in the armed forces, but we still believe in civilian control of the military. There is some benefit to a bit of emotional distance in determining the best guidelines; those guidelines should not set exclusively by those committed to achieving goals that the guideline would interfere with. They should have a say, but not the final say.

To strain an analogy, it's best that these decisions be made by chickens rather than pigs.

It’s the thought that counts (Quran, Ch. 1)

2006-10-25T09:27:00.000-07:00

Re: Chapter 1: AL-FATIHA (THE OPENING)

It’s a short prayer, a Surah, which touches on how great God is, a bit of God’s character, an oath of fealty and a plea for guidance… Thus, according to the introduction, God answers this prayer with the Quran (instructions). Given its brevity, I’m personally at a loss for anything more interesting to imagine. Read: All assertions as to the meaning or purpose of this short prayer lack any kind of support whatsoever, thus all who would venture to interpret it are false prophets.

By Ender | Main

Launching the Missile

2006-10-25T09:01:00.000-07:00

Dispatches

On of the many ways of tracing the changes in Asia over the past thirty years is to trace the differing role of foreigners. There used to be three: soldier, businessman, missionary. As export economies began heating up, the demand for English teachers made places like South Korea, Japan, and especially Taiwan hotspots for backpackers looking to restore their coffers, liberal arts majors looking to buy a little time, and all manner of curious passers-by. Now the variety is incredible. Intermarriage is extremely common, multiple English language publications exist in several major cities in East Asia, and the variety of opportunities is greater.

When I lived in Taipei, I always hoped that it would be remembered as the next Paris, expat-wise. I hoped that there would be a literary culture and discussion and fun along the lines of Movable Feast. It didn't quite work out that way, but I still think it's possible. Asian literacy rates (including English literacy) are very high, especially in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore. One can find twenty-four hour bookstores, cafes, cheap eats, all manner of cultural events (which, thank god, no longer have to display a unitary "tradition" but can showcase all manner of voices).

The Korean movie wave is but one of the ways life has become more textured. Ralf Potts is right that the awakening of a generation of Asian artists is having as profound an effect as the technological and economic changes of the past thirty years. The world of expats is not the best way to capture those changes, but it is one of the most accessible for Slate's readers. If he can even excavate a few choice anecdotes, this series should be a fun ride.

-------

Quick story: It took decades for Taipei to build a subway. In the interim, traffic was insane and walking on sidewalks impossible: everything was a bottleneck of motorscooters and murderous busses. A Dutch friend was living in town when Mainland China launched a missile over the island. He got a call from a news service in his home country. It woke him up:

Newscaster "How are things out your window?

Friend (groggy) "Oh, pretty chaotic"

Newscaster: "Is there panic in the streets?"

Friend: "Well, you always have to be careful."

Newscaster: "Can you get off the island?"

And so forth. It was thus, according to my friends story, that some hack publication in the Netherlands described a normal Taipei rush hour as the breakdown of social control.

Not far from the truth, actually.

Improper Self-Love

2006-10-25T08:48:00.000-07:00

Watching last night's World Series game, when Zumaya threw the ball into left field, I remarked (or would have remarked, were I not watching the game alone) about what a stupid play it was for Zumaya to throw to third base on that play, even if the throw were perfect, since he should have thrown to second to start a somewhat routing 1-6-3 double play rather than the rare (so rare I can't recall ever seeing it) 1-5-3.

Sure enogh, seconds later, analyst Tim McCarver echoed my exact thoughts, and I began to congratulate myself for thinking the same thing as Fox's highly paid analyst.

But then, it ocurred to me, Tim McCarver has been the lead baseball analyst for pretty much the past 20 years (and before that, he covered the Phillies, my childhood team). Is it any wonder, after taking in over a hundred postseason games with McCarver at the mike, that my insights into the game would match his?

Actually, the lead announcing positions have seemed pretty static since what seems like forever. In football, you've got John Madden. In baseball, you've got McCarver. In college basketball, you've got Billy Packer. For the NHL, there's Bill Clement. The NBA has had some flux, but when Hubie Brown's not coaching, he usually occupies that position. College football doesn't really have a preeminent analyst, though Keith Jackson has been a powerful force in his play-by-play role.

I'm 31 years old, and have been following sports since childhood, and I have no memory of watching a World Series game with an analyst other than McCarver (I think Joe Garagiola was with Vin Scully on NBC in the mid-80's when NBC and ABC (with McCarver) took turns broadcasting the World Series, but I'm not sure about that). I have no memory of an NCAA Final Four with anyone but Packer.

It's surprising to me that there's been virtually no turnover in these spots in the past 20 years. Thinking about it, I wonder if it's because of the experiences like mine above. We've grown comfortable with these analysts, to the point where our understanding of the game mirrors theirs. So now, they confirm our insight into the game and make us feel smart.

Who's beating the meter?

2006-10-24T15:05:00.000-07:00

I notice that WTS as a Google Page Rank of 0. Is it that we haven't been cycled in yet, or did we do something to anger the ranking people?

On the Whole "Hand Substance" Thing

2006-10-24T13:16:00.000-07:00

I'd buy the explanation that Tony LaRussa didn't want all that "BS" if he were a "you put your best nine guys out there, I'll put my best nine guys out there, and we'll see who's better" type of manager.

But he's not.

LaRussa, more than any other manager, inserts himself into the competition. He'll use three pitchers to get the last three outs when his team is up by four runs. He'll bat the pitcher eighth. He'll order squeeze plays. He'll play a .200 hitter in left field because he likes the match-up with the starting pitcher.

This isn't all about between-the-lines strategy. La Russa gets in the opposition's head, and makes the other team do stupid things (like, making several throws over to first base when the runner on first is a hulking slugger with a bad hamstring, and one of those throws ends up in right field).

If pitchers looking for every edge is part of the game, then paying the price when caught is as well. If there's some sort of gentlemen's agreement that opposing managers don't press things like this, then part of that agreement should be that players be somewhat skillful in disguising it -- i.e. don't get caught on camera with a giant smudge on your hand. Kenny Rogers made Tony La Russa look like either a moron or a chump. There's nothing gentlemanly about that.

Squelch! Squish! Splat!

2006-10-24T12:17:00.000-07:00

I tried to log into Slate to answer Marylb's wonderful post about being who we are on the BOTF and I got a security certificate error and it still refuses to log me in. The system makes a sort of electronic splattery blert when it pops up an error dialog. And that's just perfect for this day.

Meeting at my son's school yet-a-frelling-gain so I get stuck in four times as much traffic as usual. And I guess just because I have to use the route, they've decided they need to install a hyperspace bypass or something so there's orange cones and reflective vested shoulder-angels lining the whole route gesturing at you to slow down. WTHeck!? I roll down the window and point out that this is stop-and-go. If I slow down any farther I'd back into the guy behind me. He laughs and shrugs and goes back to making calming gestures at cars.

The weather is a very typical Fall sort of day. It's like God decided we need to soak like beans or something and put a dismal gray lid all over everything. Back to the house for something I forgot. As I get out of the car, the carport drops half a cup of drizzle about half a degree above sleet down the back of my neck. Lovely.

When I came out, the little girl across the way is waiting for her bus. She's in kindergarden this year. She's so cute standing there in her cute little purple raincoat and her backpack. But she's staring at the drips off the front of her hood. The look on her face says that she's just done with the entire proceeding. I know that feeling. Her bus gets there. As she squelches her way across a puddle to get on she notices me and we share a big wave and a smile. Hopefully her day goes a little better. Except now I'm stuck behind her bus all the frelling way down the arterial.

The color is leeched out of everything. Even the maples look drab. The leaves don't drift down in elegant swirls. As I'm walking across the parking lot a big clump of three or four of them splat onto the blacktop next to me close enough to splatter my shoes. One of them's a really pretty red one the girls would probably like for their collection but my hands are full so I can't pick it up.

I get in, put my stuff down, and I'm greeted with this morning's Charlie Foxtrot and a cup of coffee. A sip tells me whose turn it is to keep the kitchen up this week. I know it's him because he makes what may possibly be the most average worst pot of coffee in the world. It's just bad enough you make that squinchy face when you take a swig, but not so bad you won't go ahead and finish it off just for the caffiene's sake while planning a run to the coffee stand over your lunch hour.

Reading through email, I find the project slipped a day thanks to the accounting system vendor's shenanigans, I've got a customer with a spyware problem who is certain it's all my fault, and Live's logon server just sat and sputtered until it got in the way of my work and I shut it off. So I can't answer Maryl.

I doubt I had anything that would be real helpful to say. Mostly it was a anecdotal "me too". But it would have felt nice to talk to her again.

How To Confront

2006-10-23T20:28:00.000-07:00

There's a good discussion going on at Mirror of Justice about how to effectively give witness the Church's teaching on the fundamental dignity of human life.

This is especially topical for me here in Missouri, as I have been struggling on how to most effectively oppose Amendment 2, which will enshrine in our constitution that nobody can get in the way of using embryos for research. (And by the way, where are all those people who were weeping over the purity of the Constitution when it was proposed that it define marriage as it has always been defined... And while I’m ranting parenthetically, the thing is being promoted as ensuring Missourians have “access to cures.” Is there any chance a law preventing Missourians’ access to cures would pass? But there were actual court rulings establishing same sex marriage, but we kept hearing about how “unnecessary” these amendments were).

Amendment 2 has been promoted by a series of treacly ads about the potential benefits of the research that don't even attempt to address why this research is controversial. The ads would be no less true if they were promoting the most brutally unethical type of research imaginable, such as forcibly seizing newborn babies, killing them and harvesting their organs. Just tell people it’s about cures and they’ll go along.

The main opposition to this has been to say that the Amendment is deceptive, and that “it’s cloning !!!” My concern is that if this tactic works in this election, it won’t work going forward.

I suppose the word cloning tests well, because people think of reproductive cloning, which gives them the creeps. But this is therapeutic cloning, which the Church considers even more problematic since the cloned embryo is necessarily destroyed. So the Church’s positions are nearly opposite those of the public. We might be able to get past this by conflating both using the word “cloning,” but I suspect only once, and it feels dirty (similar to how those on the other side conflate adult and umbilical cord stem cell research, which nobody opposes, with embryonic stem cell research under the term “stem cell research.”)

Maybe the best place to oppose this is on my knees.

Blogging the Qur'an, Quran, Koran

2006-10-23T15:40:00.000-07:00

WE'VE MOVED.

With reference to the USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts, below you will find links to the blog entries for each chapter that has been blogged. This page will be updated with each new blog entry.

Last updated: 10/25/06
Most Recent Post(s): [1] [2]

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144]

Readme

A Funny Story

2006-10-22T07:25:00.000-07:00

In response to David Plotz's take on Samson in Blogging the Bible, first time frayster Soulsrcher wondered about teaching Bible stories to children. Soulsrcher is a "non-practicing Christian," but wishes to inform rather than indoctrinate the kids. (He? She?) chose to begin with Samson and Delilah, but is not clear on how to move forward. The entire thread is worth reading. The question reminded me of this funny story from my own chilhood...

I grew up in a believing household in Southwestern Virginia. My parents were raised in what I think are now called "mainline" (as opposed to "evangelical") churches. In the seventies, the conflict between those streams was not so politicized, and the fissures not so sharp.

Compared to our neighbors, my parents were very well-educated. We went to the Presbyterian Church, which encompassed a pretty big variety of religious beliefs. One of my most vivid memories of the time is that after communion was served (in my chuch anybody could take communion) the kids of the church would race down to the church kitchen to down the extra grape juice and grab as much bread (the host was cut up Wonder Bread) as we could. We then played hide and seek in the cemetery, crumbs of host falling from our mouths and our shirts stained with the blood of Christ.

I didn't believe any of it. I came back from Sunday School one day and announced to my believing parents that I was an atheist. At eight, I could not swallow the nonsense I felt they were feeding me, and I was indignant at the notion that I might be too young to understand such things. Gravity was intuitive to me, and growth as well. It seemed to me that the universe clearly followed laws, and anybody telling me that those laws could be disregarded willy-nilly -- just because there was some story of an angel, a ruffian, a wanderer, whatever -- well, I thought they were nuts. Star Wars seemed equally likely, but more honest because it was clearly a story. Unlike the pastel paintings of a bearded God, The Force had credibility.

The point is that your kids will react to what you do in unpredictable ways.

I still don't believe most of the Bible stories happened. I do, however, have a certain kind of faith. It came to me much later, not in born again style but as a result of incemental discoveries about the ways I found I was viewing the world. "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity" (from Ecclesiastes) spoke to me much more directly than the burning bush.

We don't really know our children, and we don't really know our God. You are searching, let them search with you. It's what will happen anyway, and it's ultimately more honest to yourself. That example ought to help your kids, as they get older, understand how to discover the things of this world, and help them find whatever faith that may.

Republican Entertainment

2006-10-21T15:09:00.000-07:00

The draw of Republican politics has always been in the cult of personality, the entertainment value. If you look at successful, multiterm Republican officials, you'll see a pattern:

Reagan had his bad memory, doddering ways, and predilection for jellybeans.

Dan Quayle couldn't spell, couldn't think, and couldn't help but gaffe. Laughs aplenty there.

George Bush has his dumb nephew demeanor and affinity for bludgeoning the English language.

Dick Cheney gets an honorable mention for being either the worst or best marksman in history, and gets additional bonus points for having his target apologize for causing his family grief!

Nixon had his curmudgeonly hatred of the young and his paranoia, presumably from all the pot that got confiscated during his administration. (Relax, that rumor got floated LOOOONNNGG before that movie 'Dick' was released)

Then look at the one-termers, the wannabes, or the never-was-es:

Newt Gingrich has his pasty-faced troll look down, but rarely says anything of great entertainment import.

George H. W. Bush was possibly the most uncomfortably boring President we ever had. It took an impressionist like Dana Carvey to make him funny. His running mate however, as mentioned, at least kept his administration in contention.

Bob Dole, a.k.a. The Decent and Honest Man, had a pencil shoved in a tragically unfunny way in a useless limb. That was his thing. The pencil.

No comedian ever suffered for his/her art with a Republican in the White House. Oh, sure, Clinton provided a few laughs for us during his tenure, but some people would argue with some merit that he was more of a Republican than a Democrat anyway, and that the only reason the Congressional Republicans went after him is that he didn't want to know the Republican secret handshake. For those interested, it starts out normal enough, then gets rammed up the other's shaker's bung.

So much for that secret. Consider yourself 'scooped', pun miserably intended.

If the neocons really want to shut Bill Maher up a little, they should put Democrats in office, after all, what would he talk about then? Of course, they'd have to vote Democrat to do it, and I'm sure then that the exploding head scene from Scanners will be re-enacted in voting stalls across the country.

So why is there now talk of all of this Democratic takeover of Congress? As below, I believe there is a certain amount of truth to state that the entertainment is over.

Nope, guys like Santorum, Hastert, DeLay, and the whole bunch just aren't funny. Odd, but not funny. Santorum recently increased his odd factor with his Tolkien allegories, but Frodo isn't funny. He's a hobbit. Hobbits aren't funny.

As much as I think it's good media that just about every Republican politician in the Beltway has an upcoming indictment or jail term, that's not comedy. That's CSI: Washington, DC. Good entertainment, but America's looking for a much needed laugh. We're in the general public risibility quotient we'll probably see from the 25th season of The Simpsons. Bart will still be about 12 with a new catchphrase, Lisa will still be an iconoclast, politically-aware nerdiloid, Marge will find something new hiding in her hair, Maggie will suck her pacifier, and Homer will drool.

It must be time to change the channel.

Rudence Interrupted

2006-10-20T21:30:00.000-07:00

So he says to Rudie, "Hey Rudie, when's the next installment?"
So then Rudie says to him, "Get bent, shithead."

As some may have noticed, and should the huddled, starving masses be prevailed upon to care about such things, Dear Rudence has been in a state of forced abeyance for the past two weeks.

For those that require some form of Crayola annotations for their scorecards, the following are the reasons, tick them off as applicable:

1) The Fray had some serious issues on my attempts to post a week ago, casting a half-written installment to the ether on a preview attempt.

2) The Fray refused all attempts at login yesterday.

3) Prudie's been serving up softballs and Rudie is just a little uninspired by Calamity Jane's problem that she's shacked up with an axe murderer who's wanted in three states and can't quite figure out that this guy just may not be good for her.

4) Rudie is in the throes of his yearly tussle with rhinovirus, courtesy of one or more of his illustrious coworkers who decided that pushing a pen across his/their desk was more important than not being a dimestore Typhoid Mary. Judging by the severity and tenacity of this particular virus, it obviously must be one of those Andromeda Strain mutants that incubates in their children's kindergarten and gets brought home like a clay mug from art class.

Aside from that, everything's just fucking fine and dandy. All reasonable attempts to be productive vis-a-vis Dear Rudence have either met with frustration or fatigue, both of which, as it stands, will not run their full course until next week.

Rudie would apologize for this state of affairs, if it weren't against his religion.

"Are you nuts? 9/11 is terrific!"

2006-10-20T14:40:00.000-07:00

I couldn’t help think that would be the Republican leadership’s response if ask, “If you could wish 9/11 away, would you?” In fact, I know that’s how they’d answer.

So what’s worse, a willingness to sacrifice the innocence (electronic or otherwise) of a congressional page for political gain, or the lives of thousands? Something tells me the latter, and I’m bothered by that. But I’m also bothered by the fact that the unquestionably heinous exploitation of 9/11 for political gain is sooo yesterday’s news. We tried pointing it out. We wrote volumes on it. And it didn’t matter. The point was lost on a majority of Americans, and so was the battle.

I indicted the Republican leadership above. But really I should be indicting most people. If the Republicans lose control of one or both houses in the next few weeks, it won’t be because a majority of Americans lost faith in them, it will be because a majority of Americans have lost interest in the action packed War on Terror. They’re bored. 9/11 is old and the war script is stale. Yawn.

What do you want to watch tonight Honey?

The same thing we always watch.

The War on Terror?

Yup.

I’m so sick of that show.

You’re preaching to the choir babe, you’re preaching to the choir.

Anything else on tonight?

Nope.

Never is, is there?

Nope.

Time to vote for the Democrats eh?

You read my mind.

Vote for Continued Occupations or vote for Saddam

2006-10-20T14:30:00.000-07:00

Jonah Goldberg is again trotting out his idea that the US should have the Iraqis vote for whether they want US troops to remain in Iraq:

Polling suggests that they want us to go. But polling absent consequences is a form of protest. With accountability, minds may change and appreciation for the U.S. presence might grow.

If Iraqis voted “stay,” we’d have a mandate to do what’s necessary to win, and our ideals would be reaffirmed. If they voted “go,” our values would also be reaffirmed, and we could leave with honor. And pretty much everyone would have to accept democracy as the only legitimate expression of national will.

Except, as I've mentioned before, there's a problem with this ideals and values being reaffirmed business. That is, that before the US invasion, Saddam also probably would have one such an election, and for the same reasons. Heck, in a three way ballot in Iraq between Saddam, "cut and run", and "stay the course", I wouldn't be surprised if Saddam won today.

So, I'm not really sure it's such a great re-affirmation of our values that we'd win the same type of election that a guy currently facing war crimes trials and that we've been spending the last 15 years saying is the worst guy in the world would also win.

Privacy Fence, Part I

2006-10-20T13:37:00.000-07:00

I have really terrible neighbors that live behind me. I live in a bedroom community of homes built in the mid-1950s consisting of small 3-bedroom/1-bath bungalows (pre-renovation) where backyard backs up to backyard. The neighbor to my left built a 6-foot privacy fence some years ago, and the neighbor to my right an 8-foot fence 3 years ago. But all that separates me from the neighbors behind me and, currently, 3 horrible, poorly treated (which goes a long way in explaining their horribleness) dogs, one of which spends the majority of its time in my backyard (climbs the fence), is a decrepit chain link fence.

Now unless you've been on Pluto taking samples of the atmosphere in order to determine if it's a planet or not for the last 18 months, it should come as no shock to you to learn that I don't like most people, mainly because they tend to be thoughtless and stupid. Add the fact that the folks I share a fence with are clueless retards, and you might jump to the conclusion that these mongoloids are the greatest sense of anxiety for me as a homeowner.

About 3 weeks ago, on a Saturday morning, for whatever reason, I decided to bail, temporarily, on Kitchen Demolition 2006, and take on Privacy Fence Fest Extravaganza and Drinking Tournament. I tend to get overwhelmed by projects, big and small (I believe I've mentioned this before), so that particular morning I played severe head games with myself and vowed to go at my own pace, set no deadlines, take it slow, do it right, and fend off as best I could any and all frustrations that came my way – structural, physical, psychological, sexual – as best I could, and give myself credit where it was due for whatever progress I was making, little or great. The "courage in a can" did wonders.

So off I was to the Home Depot to buy posthole diggers and a San Angelo Bar, a 6-foot tempered steel 35 pound (at least it seems like it) shaft about an inch in diameter with a diamond-shaped bit on one end and a chisel-looking head on the other. One of the early, frustrating roadblocks on Project Fenceway was encountering the vast root systems of 50 year-old shrubs and trees, and Paleolithic concrete deep within our planet, earth. I was going for an 8-foot fence, so the holes needed to be, at minimum, 24-inches deep and set in cement. So one can imagine my angst when I'd encounter apparent boulders at 4 inches deep. (I think I cried once.)

But with Bud Lite coursing through my veins, dogs piercing my eardrums with incessant yapping, and anger welling up in my loins, before I knew it, I had three holes dug, 24 inches deep. And it only took 4 hours!

That's when it hit me. This was extremely doable. I was making progress. Getting shit done. And I'd forgotten that I can be quite adept at this sort of thing. It's not like I'm framing in a room or doing finish carpentry. It's a fucking fence. It's not like people are going to be standing on it or anything, or even leaning up against it, for that matter. I.e., it doesn’t have to be perfect.

I was also very pooped. I don't know if you've ever had to work a San Angelo Bar, but it really could be considered an upper-body woodshedding. So with an incredibly beautiful Autumn day in the deep south, mixed with a generous amount of endorphins, with some progress on a project thrown in, life at that moment was pretty good. And it wasn't just the beer talking this time, either.

Sunday rolls around and I continue the same routine: slam diggers into the ground, hit a root/rock/boulder/concrete/China, work The Bar until I'm spent, slam diggers into the ground, then The Bar, diggers, The Bar, diggers, and so on and so forth. These holes today are proving to be quite the test for yours truly's patience, attitude and determination. By 2:30 in the afternoon I was utterly used up and went back in the house to watch football and call my oldest brother and talk to him about fasteners.

"So it's an 8-foot fence?"
"Yeah."
"And your posts are 8 feet apart?"
"Err… Yeah, more or less." ("more or less" might be a bit on the forgiving side – what's your definition of "8 feet"?)
"And you're going to string 4 2x4s across the 4x4s?"
"Yes."
"Then you don't need to lag bolt your 2x4s to the 4x4s. Use 3-inch 3/8th lag screws. Should be fine."
"Okay. I'm also thinking about putting up decking instead of fencing."
"Why?"
"It strikes me as more sturdy."
"Yeah. It might help dull the sound, too."
"So, drywall screws?"
"No. Get 2 1/2 inch decking screws. They usually come in a box of like 500 or so that includes a custom bit."
"Okay. Great. Thanks. And tell the girls [my nieces] that if anyone offers them pot at college to take it and save it for me. Ha ha ha!"
"Ha ha ha. Haha ha ha!"
"Ha ha ha ha!"

Progress. Fatigue. Beer hadn't tasted this good in years that Sunday evening. I could feel my mood lighten as I contemplated taking back my backyard from those retarded philistines behind me: landscaping, another deck, covering the deck my brothers helped me build 4 years ago. I was actually… excited about where I lived, and my small but charming backyard became transformed in my imagination. Was this the same momentum I'd had when my oldest brother and I redid one of the bedrooms with floor-to-ceiling bookshelves 3 years ago? Yup.

The next Saturday I awoke with a touch of anxiety. Today I was setting the 10-foot posts in cement. How would I get them straight? Will they line up correctly? Will I use too much/too little concrete? Will I ever find love again? Will SNL suck every bit as much this year as it did last year? (No. It will be worse, believe it or not.) Will the 4x4s be sturdy enough to hold up 4 2x4s and then decking? Will the Tigers make it to the world series? What's that flashing?! &c., and on.

But wait. Didn't you like work as a stonemason's apprentice for a summer in Colorado, and didn't you actually mix the mud when your oldest brother laid block for the foundation of his house?

Yeah. Relax. Take a deep breath. Go to The Depot and get the 4x4s and many many bags of cement. Go at your own pace. Do it right. Take your time. Don't get frustrated.

So I do.

I get back, tune in the Auburn game on the radio, it's turning into another perfect Fall day, and I proceed to mix up the mud in my wheelbarrow. You may or may not be aware of this, but good mud should have the consistency of something right in between mashed potatoes and Cream of Wheat. Not too runny, not to thick. While mixing up a batch in a wheelbarrow with a spade is not exactly as strenuous as working The Bar, it's not a stroll down Easy Street right into downtown Snapville, population: Done! It's more like lugging a telephone pole up Backbreak Hill past Fatigueberg, population: This sucks! Picture the whole time the neighbor dogs barking constantly as I'm setting the posts in the hole, and you can imagine that my mood was pretty bad.

But when I got the third one in, and started the process of dumping cement in the hole, leveling the post on both sides, more cement, more leveling, more barking, more cement, more leveling, barking, barking, barking, the project had begun to take on a life of its own. Not only was this doable; it was very doable, and, further, was being done. This is the hardest part of a fence: Setting the posts so that they're as straight as you can get them and that they line up pretty much perfectly with one another. The leveling part was going really well. The lining up part? Not so much. I didn't run a string or a chalk line when I dug the holes the previous weekend. I just sort of eyeballed where the holes should be in relation to the existing chain link fence. Bad move. Oh well.

There are a lot of crappy, fast-growing trees along the chain link fence, so I'm only able to go so far before I have to stop with the posts and get the power company to come out and prune them out of the power lines. So as Saturday's early evening shows her face, I've set the last post I can till then, and make plans for the morrow.

Sunday's rosy fingered dawn approaches in the east, and I stumble outside with the dog to survey my progress. Damn. This is gonna work. I'm a little nervous about the compromised line of the future fence as I gaze down its breadth, but I continue measuring between posts to see how long the 2x4s I will buy need to be. These are what I call "stringers", although it's probably not technically correct to do so. Fuck you. It's my fence.

The stringers go from 4x4 to 4x4 roughly 2 feet apart, give or take, and will be attached, "fastened", if you will, to said 4x4s with 2 3-inch lag screws on either end. You drill a pilot hole (though you don't need to; I do because I want to avoid even the remotest chance of splitting a stringer), then you make a countersink with a large drill bit, then you sink the lag screw into same. I went ahead and bought a $200 dollar drill, easily justifiable because I'll easily get my $$'s worth out of it this winter and spring. It's a sweet 2-speed number that, when used with a 3/8th ratchet drill bit, makes fast work of sinking the lag screws.

But when you're running stringers on an 8-foot fence all by yourself, it's time consuming. I had swell clamps to hold the 2x4s up, but the process of getting the stringers level can be a bit tedious. Still, somewhere in the middle of running the stringers from post 2 to post 3, I realized that the hard part was over. Other than banging my head on tree branches and lumber and having to get into awkward positions to screw in lags, the rest of this process was going to be gravy. Just the previous day I was so pissed off at myself and those fucking dogs, not even 24 hours later I'm walking on air because the thing is actually starting to look like, well, a fence, though a self-consciously skeletal one. But the skeleton of a fence nonetheless. Dude! Right on!

That night I slept the sleep of the just.

Which brings us to this past Saturday and Sunday, 2 of the most perfect days weather-wise all year. Today I'll get decking and a humungous box of screws.

Decking is essentially 1x6s, which are actually 3/4x5-1/4 inches thick and wide, and 8 feet tall. It's pressure treated lumber, as all of the pieces have been, so there's no need to paint or stain it. Now I don't have a truck in my massive arsenal of vehicles, but what I do happen to have is a 1989 Isuzu Trooper, copper in color, with a back seat that folds down and a failing clutch. Ka ching! I head to The Depot and load up 40 1x6s (see above), balance the load in the back and head for home, pretty jazzed about the whole deal, until I take a corner just a tad to aggressively, and lumber flies out the back of my Trooper all over the road. So I'm sitting in my car looking at all the lumber in my rearview mirror and waiting for one of the those epic car accidents that seem to be the overture for every episode of CHiPS and, well, laugh. I'd turned off of a pretty busy road, but most of the lumber followed me onto the street I'd turned onto, so the carnage was confined mostly to the neighborhood road. I crammed the shit back into Ole Rusty and we resumed our journey.

Oh, did I happen to mention that though The Depot keeps their decking indoors that almost every 1x6 piece I deemed suitable for my fence was not dry? I.e., wet? Which prompted me Sunday while back to retrieve more of it to shout at a Home Depot Customer Service Representative, "Hey, wait just one second. Some of this lumber is dry. Dry, I tell ya. Where's the wet stuff, pal. I know you've got it hidden somewhere, soaking overnight in a giant pool of saltwater. Now out with it!" He didn't laugh, but the folks holding a brand new Kohler toilet seat in the adjacent plumbing section did. Score!

Wet decking isn't a deal killer. It's just that there's a crucial difference between dry lumber and wet lumber. And that difference, when it's all said and done and I've tallied how many 1x6s I've put up, is, roughly, 13,000 pounds. I've got some decent spring clamps, but will they hold up a board that weighs 20 pounds because some underpaid black guy hoses down all the decking at the end of the day for whatever reason?

Answer? Yes. I'm on a roll. With God on my side, who will stand agin' me?

It's hard to describe what happened over the course of the next 2 days. As the bone structure grew tissue and sinews, musculature and definition, a wall was being erected between myself and my domestic nemesis, Doofus R. McRetardington, Sioux name: Eyes Real Close Together. All the while I'm putting up decking, the dogs are yapping their yap. So with not a little self-satisfaction I can hear myself, instead of shouting the profanities of last weekend that would make David Mamet grab his little Notebook of Neat Ideas and Things I've Overheard – no, I was muttering things like, "Hush now, small one. Soon, but not soon enough, my visage to you will be a distant memory in your chickpea-sized brain. Fret not, my insane canine child. You'll not have the likes of me to disturb your twisted slumber for many moons, and I'll be but a specter in the eve, a breeze through the Willows, a dream from which you'll awake timid and shy. Oh, and if you don't shut the fuck up, I'm going to brain you with this shovel, you stupid little cunting motherfucking fuck. Be still."

I got about half of the fence done. It's the most beautiful thing I've ever seen, other than my ex-girlfriend, the one-the-got-away. Alabama Power, A Southern™ Company, is coming out Monday a.m. to cut back the trees that are in my way. So tomorrow I'll finish the fencing to the left corner. Sunday I'll buy a chainsaw (Nice!) and take out one tree so that I can dig 2 more post holes for the right corner and set the last 2 posts that afternoon. I'm taking Monday and Tuesday off, and if all goes well with the power company guys, by the grace of god his majesty, I could be drinking a Coors Lite looking at an 8-foot tall piece of personal empowerment. Momentum may be a bitch to get started, but once it's rolling I'm banking on the fact that it's going to be hard to stop.

Fences don't make good neighbors. Fences hide stupid, retarded, idiotic, thoughtless, rude, ugly and stupid neighbors.

[Note: Sorry if this was so long, to those of you that read it. But I don't care. I don't even care if anybody reads it. It just felt good to say. See y'all Wednesday.]

Shocked, but not too shocked

2006-10-20T07:20:00.000-07:00

Regarding Kinsley's latest about how everyone's competing to appear the most appalled by the Foley scandal.

At least for the Democrats, it's a more complicated dance than that, because they have to be appalled, but no more appalled than if the targets were young women, lest their shock be traced to homophobia.

Hey August!

2006-10-19T20:17:00.000-07:00

Congratulations!

How well do you think you know me?

2006-10-19T14:14:00.000-07:00

Do you believe me?

Would you believe me if I told you I had children? If not, why not? Would you believe me if I told you something bad about myself - like I was cheating on TQL.

Would you believe me if I told you I'm on unemployment insurance? Would you believe me if I told you I am Adam Morgan? How do you decide what to believe about me?

I'm just curious.

My time on the fray has certainly changed perceptions of me. Newcomers see me differently than the old timers. And those in between the newcomers and old timers see me in a different light altogether. And over time, those perceptions seem to change - or evolve - in telling ways.

I've mentioned this before, but I now occasionally post on the fray under a different name. The reactions I get, for what would be the same point, are very different, simply because the other name doesn't carry the TQM historic baggage.

I'm not sure I can point out why, just yet, but I think that should bother you.

Oliver Perez Must Not Bat

2006-10-19T12:46:00.000-07:00

It's not the be-all and end-all, but in my opiniion, if Mets starter Oliver Perez steps to the plate with a bat in his hand in tonight's game, the Mets probably win. If not, the Cardinals probably win.

Given how ineffective Perez has been this year, the fact that he's pitching on short rest, the Mets probably only want to get through three or so innings anyway. So if he bats, it means:

It's the first or second inning, which means the Mets have had at least three base runners against Suppan in the first two innings, or
Perez is mowing down the Cardinals hitters in the first three innings such that Randolph doesn't feel moved to pinch-hit for him in the third.

Either way, it's bad news for the Cardinals, whose greatest advantage in this game is the starting pitching match-up.

If I see Perez in the batter's box, it will mean the Cardinals have failed to capitalize on that advantage.

And then things don't look so good...

Innocent Music

2006-10-19T09:25:00.000-07:00

Warning to diabetics! This post is rich in treacle and poor in musical taste (or knowledge). Proceed at your own risk.

"Daddy, what's this cd?"

"Put it in sweetie, tell me what you think."

Keifus grooves, junior observes, thinking.

"Do you like the sound of it," I ask.

"Kind of. Actually, it's a little scary."

And she's right I suppose, though I might have gone with angry as the adjective of choice. If you asked me ten years ago (back when I meant to buy the cd), I'd have argued that you'd need a certain measure of seething anger--need to know just how much to direct inward and just how much to send out--to really appreciate that sort of music. I wish like hell I could tell you what does it--it seems like the same old three or four chords, if ordered a bit differently. I can see how unexpected progressions could prick the hackles and all, but maybe it's just the powerful and wavering vocals and the heavy guitars. My daughter evidently gets some of the emotion however, and rejects that sense of menace for now. Good for her.

"Daddy, I'd rather listen to that bluegrass cd.**" (G, C, and D again, but now in happier progressions.) So we do. I practice rhythm as the kids dance around. It's cute, and it's maybe the best fun I've had all week.

But it's a funny thing. We didn't used to need fun music to catch the mood. It was anything with a beat and a melody. We were never a Raffi family, and we didn't shield the children from stuff we enjoyed. Keifus got moody and pretentious and my wife had a penchant for the mellower moodiness of Vietnam-era tunes: Paul McCartney and Buffalo Springfield and Creedence sort of thing.

Six or seven years ago, when she was little, my daughter and I would dance around together to heavy guitar riffs, at her request, because she knew I liked them. She'd groove along with me to the brooding strums, and we'd both be grinning, finding the modicum of joy that's the kernel of any artistic release. It was a pure thing in its way.

But no more. She's growning an appreciation of context.*** She still prefers the simpler pleasures, as you'd hope a child would, but now she needs the pleasurable cues to help her access them.

Ah well, there's a lot of life to learn yet, and she will. And even though her tastes are innocent now, I already miss the days when they were innocent enough to listen to angry rock and dance to it with Daddy.

Keifus

* Fritz Gerlich asked who'd break a butterfly on a wheel (not me, my precious child) pretty much as the thought passed my headphones, but I was pretty sure it didn't originate with the mainstreamed goth kids.

**Note that she doesn't mean the good bluegrass, but rather the play-along garbage that wifey bought to learn the fiddle during her quarterly musical inspiration. It's very frustrating stuff, actually. It's just the right speed so that the bare melody they play is dreadfully boring, but playing fills or solos is just north of my speed limit.

*** I drive the kid nuts telling her that she's not allowed to watch certain TV programming until she can tell me convincingly that she knows what irony means. She's closer than she thinks.

Deliver See No Evil, A Movie Review

2006-10-18T10:15:00.001-07:00

Ripped directly from today's headlines, yesterday's congressional hearings, and last Sunday's sermon (and tomorrow's NAMBLA application), Deliver See No Evil grapples with the question the Catholic Church has been asking, answering, getting answers to, and then sweeping it all under the rug in the Vatican's romper room for nearly 15,000 years, namely, What do you get when you take a priest with a seemingly bottomless affection for kids and have him baby sit your pre-pubescent boys and girls at slumber party sleepovers in his house? (Naked Twister™?)

Answer: Well, it sure ain't "the love that daren't whisper its name, i.e., "the love of feet".

Deliver See No Evil, from documentarian filmmaker Annie Bergowitz, Jew (how convenient), tells the story of that loveable yet Irishman Patrick Olivier "Patty" McDrunkagain, former priest and sometime jail denizen, who simply loves children. And it's that love that gets the better of him and them in the end, giving a whole new meaning to the word "anti-sodomite".

Let the fun-for-the-whole-family laugh riot begin!

Something something… "And then Jesus wept."

And with a twist ending that will have you scratching your head and hugging your kids for dear life when priests are not-so-hurriedly shuffled from parish to parish until they're finally "outed", you'll begin to wonder if it's more accurate to say, "On the lam of God." Looks like it's time to get out the "Doll of Molestation", do some pointing, and toss off a couple of verses of that wonderful Bill Gather song, "He Touched Me". Again.

The end.

When the lights go out, folks, we don't want movies like Deliver See No Evil. We need movies like Deliver See No Evil, if for no other reason than it's important to understand that the Catholic Church doesn't have the "corner" of the "market" on pedophilia. It's just that when a religion has tenets that declare its leaders holier-than-thou to its followers, literally, their "store" seems to have the best "customer service".

[Disclaimer: I was baptized and confirmed in the Lutheran Church. The wound is deep, Sire.]

[said with a very strong New York City accent]
Don't get me wrong. I think God loves everyone. I really do. I just don't think he loves everyone at the same time. Oh, sure, he'll make a butterfly land on a retarded boy's head, making him feel all special and alive. Meanwhile you're getting fist-fucked right outta camp.
-Dave Attell, from Skanks for the Memories, live in Denver (from memory, sorry)

Drawing Lines on Research

2006-10-18T10:15:00.000-07:00

Despite some advice to the contrary, I think it might be useful to draw some lines in discussing ethical research.

There are points of agreement in the research debate.

Most people agree that it would be unethical to kill an innocent child or adult or research purposes, regardless of the potential benefit.

Also, most would agree that it would be unethical to destroy en embryo even in the moment of conception if the benefit is non-existant or trivial (say, to make Coca-Cola taste sweeter).

So, in the graph below, I plotted these point on a graph, and drew a line between them separating destructive research that is definitely unethical based on the above two premises from research that is not ruled out by these premises alone.

But wait, it's hard to imagine a scenario where we would be willing to perfrom on adolescents, and not adults. In fact, most people wouldn't be willing to perfrom this research on infants, so let's move the sticks...

Ok, so now our range of area of debate is bounded by conception and birth on the development access, and no benefit and save the world on the benefit access.

My position, and that of the Catholic Church, is that there is no more lines to draw. Or rather, there is a vertical line on the y-axis -- it is unethical to destroy any human life for research puroposes, regardless of the potential benefit.

In my opinion, this is the most coherent position that has been articulated. In short, I have not seen a convincing argument for why that line (or whatever shape) should be anything other than a vertical line on the Y-axis.

By the pricking of my thumbs…

2006-10-18T04:08:00.000-07:00

Inside me lives a crusader, an inquisitor, a stalker and a harpy. There’s a mad despot in there sharing space with a moist-eyed idealist.

You don’t want to give me any power.

Oh, I’d be okay sometimes. I might be a good fray-steward part of the week, but on Thursdays I’d morph into a sadistic teenager while you’re all out for lunch. Or I’d compliantly follow my pack into a wasteland of social engineering, only to look up one day to discover we’d eliminated everyone but ourselves and the most persistent of idiots.

And I’ll always work things to my own benefit. Always.

Trust me.

The great thing about the Fray is that it’s not regulated by users like me, and the value of posts is not determined by those who have collected the most points or who belong to the biggest posse, but by those who make the best arguments.

In advance of the fray-redesign, there was discussion of various ways to apply user ratings in order to allow each of us a customizable view. How do you feel about the fray adopting this kind of feature now, having experienced first hand the effects of the Truster User system at dkos, where users have the means to up or down-rate posts regardless of their merit, giving them power to exclude posts and posters based on their own personal tastes, and that of their friends?

And now that you've been blogging awhile, what other features would you like to see?

(You do realize that without a quick toggle with which to flag worthy and unworthy posts, all we’ll have in our arsenal is words. Are words enough?)

…something wicked this way comes.

Word.

_____________________________________________________________

Excerpts:

MsZilla reconsiders the wisdom of user-ratings systems.

Geoff responds: If it's merely power to assign scores in tandem with a voluntary choice to heed scores or not... Doesn't seem like it should have the same impact.

MsZ: Yes, it does . . . A group of people can still downcheck something to a level no sane person would ever want to open it . . . If you make it so everyone can do it, all you've done is made sure everyone on the site can exercise group summary judgement.

Geoff: I really do feel that we owe it to readers to make a configurable viewing experience that helps people with varying amounts of time to kill navigate the site efficiently.

On an earlier thread, MsZ’s diagnostic: Other than the technological flaws, the "problems" everyone keeps blathering about with the Fray are PEBKAC. The problems exist between the keyboard and the chair.
. . .
You can hang bells and whistles off this place until it looks like a bloody Christmas tree. They'll keep asking because if you do that then they can blame the site. There is no amount of code that will fix the core problem. Each improvement is just another opportunity to find a new and improved way to act like jerks to each other.

_____________________________________________________________

slatefray strayflea asterafly flaytears leafystar staryflea flarestay layfaster seafartly yefaslart farystale fasteraly realyfast fartsealy rastfaley stearflay eslytfraa artsfaley flaterays afelarsty sylfareta latfaresy teasflyar earlyfast staryfale yarfetals

Chicken With Plums

2006-10-17T07:08:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine, Marjane Satrapi, is in the United States this week. She grew up in Iran, so we can be happy she's willing to come. In her epic graphic memoir, Persepolis, she recorded her life during the revolution, when her family opposed both the Shah and the clerics who came to power in his wake. Marjane is not the sort of person to tell people what they want to hear, so her parents decided that Iran was too dangerous for her. Marjane now has French citizenship, but every time she crosses the border to the U.S. she's subjected to a 2-3 hour interrogation. She jokes that it would be more efficient just to be given a yellow star.

She's come to the states to promote her new book, Chicken With Plums. She's giving a reading tonight at Barnes and Noble in New York City, and will be in DC, Minneapolis, and points westward. I wanted to give her a plug not only because she's a friend, but also because Chicken With Plums is one of the most remarkable books I've ever read.

The comic book opens with a shopping trip. Nasser Ali Khan is looking for a new tar, a stringed instrument that looks like an elongated mandolin. He cannot find what he wants. The wood of each instrument is too dry, the sound too dull, the feel all wrong. None resonates with the music of his old tar, and so he decides to die. Did I mention it was a dark book?

We then watch Nasser Ali Khan in the last eight days of his life, days spent in memory of pleasure: his tar teacher, his wife, Sophia Loren, the succulent chicken with plums that his mother made with caramelized onions and tumeric. And so this book about death turns out to be a meditation on what keeps us alive, what music plays in us. It is graphic poetry, and recalls a line by Edgar Lee Masters: "The earth keeps some vibration going/there in your heart, and that is you." It could be an evidence for twiffer's arguments about art.

Persepolis was an epic work of revolution, war, and exile. In Marjane's next book, Embroideries she found a way to draw a conversation (better: she found a way to draw a conversation about sex). Chicken With Plums is probably my favorite, not least because of its image of Death reciting Khayyam:

Whoe'er returned of all that went before
To tell of that long road they travel o'er
Leave naught undone of what you have to do..
For when you go, you will return no more."

Such is Marjane's artistry that as he recites the lines, even Death looks rueful.

Isn’t it ironic…

2006-10-16T19:42:00.000-07:00

that the one frayster dKos embraces is in fact the very same kind of poster that warranted a special section in the faq? Yup. I think it is.

Comment Feed Experiencing Technical Difficulties

2006-10-16T16:59:00.000-07:00

Because the comments were coming fast and furious today, we triggered a spam blog flag with beta.blogger which responded by requiring word verification of posts to 3936. I've sent a request for review and that we be white listed, but I'm not sure how long it will take.

Ender

Too Reasonable for the Room?

2006-10-16T15:17:00.000-07:00

Or maybe I should phrase it as vanilla?

It's become abundantly clear to me that while I can make an arguement just fine, I have a terrible time starting them. Heck, I couldn't even start a decent fight over on Kos by challenging one of their most closely held tenets - that "election fraud" is what lost them that last election.

If I can't do it with chum like that, what do I use? I don't want to just salt the thing with factual inadequacies. That's about as sporting as dynamite fishing. I don't want to just hop around saying random insults like a gigged frog, either.

So, I'm asking for lessons here. How does one start a proper "discussion", but without the lame expedients of kicking sand in people's faces or just trolling?

Get rich quick scam #49

2006-10-16T10:02:00.000-07:00

Okay, let's see how this goes. Hope y'all are not as sick of this post as I am.

All those people who had school spirit grew up to be parents. They are tools.

The people with spirit get tooled as well, and if you've got a certain sort of street smarts (which I haven't), you can screw them like a driver. If you're not particularly shrewd nor are you particularly spirited (ahem) you tolerate it all with bemused arrogance, but you don't participate in the expensive frivolity. Just like in high school.

Parents are easy marks, caring, as we do, about "education" and "curricula" and "extracurricular activities" and all that other happy horeshit. The latter is quite possibly unwise. Going outside to play is as good for the character as those expensive gymnastics lessons might be, and in many ways it's better. For a five-year-old, say, outside is almost certainly better for the little scamp, provided junior isn't a world-class tumbler in the making (oh Christ, have I denied my little Sweetums a single fragile opportunity, oh please God, no!). But off they go just the same. We sign 'em up because it's a bulwark against predators and God forbid we actually interact with the littl'uns. So it's off to the rink with 'em, off to the camp, to the gym, to the studio, to the pool, to the meeting, to the friggin stable. One of those things has got to stick--I've heard anecdotes!

But, like lunches, there's no such thing as a free after-shool activity. The least they'll ask you to do is volunteer, but it's more likely they need cash, and wherever money flows, there's room for middlemen to dip into the stream. You might think that the best way to fund these things would be to--you know--pay for them outright, but here in America we would greatly prefer to consume our way to solvency. Some marketing visionary (quite possibly pioneering the use of the charmingest little sales force out there) discovered he could "support" these noble activities at a (I am not exaggerating) 90% take. But as a parent, who can take a chance?

The parents of said youngsters, guilty of benign negligence as it is, feel positively obligated to buy the crap from the kiddies' catalogue or the junk-box.* It's bad enough we parents are pressured into this lame consumption, but it's highly suggested we solicit those other poor wretches we're forced to see every day. And who else do you think is so pathetic as to actually be lured by the myriad selections of wrapping paper, candles, nuts, and other assorted gifty swill? Other parents, that's who! So if you buy some garbage from my kid's catalogue, I'll buy some from your kid's. So that's two items that each of us felt we had to purchase, for which neither of us had the slightest interest. For my part, the thirty bucks could have been a straight donation and been done with it (or even better, the netted buck-fifty apiece) and felt that warm glow without having to re-gift a stanky candle no one wants.**

So even though it hurts me inside when my little girl gets excited about the comic-book-back-page prizes she could win if she sells however many thousand units, I still get that warm fuzzy knowing that, by not participating, Daddy is building character. After all sweetie, look at your old man. He turned out OK. Right?

Right?

Keifus

*A horrible memory. When I was a member of Lord Powell's young Movementarians I had to truck around giant cardboard suitcases of trinkets for sale. Back then, it was de rigeur to go door-to-door and canvass strangers, before it became acceptable for Mom and Dad to become junior sales associates at their places of employment.

**Interestingly, the only kids that solicit for direct donations are the young cheerleaders outside the liquor store. That's a whole different sort of wrong.

Open Mic

2006-10-16T09:38:00.000-07:00

Onlookers Wanted

[Updated] Or see...

[Updated] And finally...

[Last Update] Despite punoqun's easygoing quasi-on-their-side demeanor, he’s been banned. So, I suppose I’m done.

And a link to Goeff's article.

Random Question

2006-10-16T09:37:00.000-07:00

How did we arrive at "sockpuppet" as the term of derision for a known poster deceptively posting under a different name? Would a marionette be preferable? A ventriloquist dummy?

It seems to me that the ventriloquist dummy would be the more apt comparison, since in that case one is attempting to create the illusion of separate personalities, while the sock puppeteer is usually making no such attempt (though I suppose Lamb Chop would be an exception.

I suppose "sock puppet" rolls off the keyboard easier than "vebtriloquist dummy," and it apparently has caught on, so we're stuck with it.

Wonder how this post would be received on dKos....

My Epilogue on Kos

2006-10-16T08:54:00.000-07:00

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are always cocksure and the intelligent are always filled with doubt. -- Bertrand Russell

[Shamelessly lifted from a kos user]

There’s a summary of sorts I posted on my blog, where I mention poll results, and make some final observations about my (brief) experiences at Kos.

In summary – group dynamics that foster exclusion, censorship a mob-mentality aren’t going to help anyone get elected. Worse – if the goal of Kos is to help Democrats get elected, and that helping individuals refine their thinking, build counter-arguments etc. is part of the process, the mission of the place is undermined by the reprisals against users who voice, or support, positions that fall outside whatever passes for “mainstream kos.”

And last – any particularly rabid minority can exert an inordinate influence in the place. In that way, it reflects the most unfortunate social dynamic in either national political party.

I was watching a local news television program last week, and the reporter was interviewing someone from a political think tank (wish I could remember which one. The interviewer was local reporter Chris Vanocur). They were contrasting elections in Australia, with elections in the U.S.

In Australia, voting is mandatory. Though citizens can choose not to vote, they must do so by sending a letter explaining their reasons. For most, the letter’s more bother than casting a ballot, and Australians typically vote in numbers well over 90%.

This has resulted, according to Vanocur’s guest, in a fundamentally different strategy for campaigns. In the US, political parties are each attempting to maximize the number of party members going to the polls (and perhaps instilling some hopelessness in members of the other party, but that’s another story). Each party attempts to appeal to those within their respective group most likely to vote – those with the strongest opinions. The goal of campaign advertising is therefore motivational – it’s intended to whip party loyalists up into enough of a frenzy that, come election day, they’ll drag their lazy selves up off of the couch and stumble to the polls. This is why campaigns so often end up resembling shouting matches.

This is also why negative campaigning continues to flourish, despite the overall impact it exerts on public opinion as a political tool.

In Australia, on the other hand, campaigns are intended to address the majority of the population, rather than the majority of voters. The majority of a population is, by definition, centrist. Because motivation to vote at all is no longer an issue, there is a greater emphasis on the actual issues, rather than on inflammatory issues US parties rely on to urge people to the polls. The tenor of political campaigns is significantly different.

One comment on my thread (which I couldn’t respond to, by the time I saw it) discussed the diversity of opinion at kos, and scoffed at the idea that kossites are somehow unified in their opinions and actions. That, however, is an argument I never would’ve made. My objection to the impact of trusted users and their ability to troll-rate comments (and thereby ban users) is that any particularly rabid minority group can exert inordinate influence on any particular thread. I’m sure the majority of kossites are reasonable, intelligent folks I’d love to have coffee with.

But those aren’t the people who banned me. Or Switters. Nor were the others apparently willing to stand up to such organized venom – the threat against a (apparently venerable) participant who uprated one of my comments speaks to the social prohibitions for bucking the mob.

There’s research on strength of opinion and resistance of opinion to challenge that suggests many of the most vehement in any group, (this would include kos), are also the least sophisticated – the strength of their opinion compensates for their underlying insecurity or conflict about it. Those with the most well-formed opinions are more nuanced – they take longer to answer questions, and they are more likely to continue bringing up caveats and exclusions. People like that make poor mob members. At Kos, apparently they also make poor opponents to the mob mentality.

In the end, the whole thing reminds me most of this Monty Python sketch

So, good luck with your mission, Kos. I’d rather spend my time in places where Democratic ideals are also practiced, not just talked about, and unpleasant truths can be discussed without fear of censure.

He looked 18 to me.

2006-10-16T07:41:00.000-07:00

If I had one of these hooked up to go off for sixty seconds each time I received a reply to this post, and if I didn’t make this information available to you who were reading and commenting on my post, would I be engaging in an act that was sexually exploitative? How about rape? Would I be guilty of rape?

That’s silly, isn’t it? The idea that my engaging in non-consensual cyber-sex with unwitting participants would amount to a violation of that magnitude. It would be kinda creepy, sure, and if I were an adult (and some days I am) and my readers were minors – hot seventeen year-old boys, say – whom I also engaged in sexually-explicit chat while I took my pleasure, well, that would be exploitative, wouldn’t it? A step beyond creepy to outright predatory, even?

But seventeen year-old boys are hot! And sometimes they’re hot for older women. I’m sure there are a few seventeen year-old boys out there who’d engage in a tryst with an older woman without being coerced, even. I imagine some might even be eager to do so. Would having sex with one of these hot boys make me a pedophile?

What if I were a man, and my readers were seventeen year-old girls? Ripe, sexually-mature seventeen year-old girls. In cheerleader outfits. Would I be a pedophile if I had cyber-sex with them? What about sex where there was genital contact? Am I a pedophile then? What if I merely lusted after them secretly, but never acted on these desires? Am I a deviant – someone who shouldn’t be left alone with children? A pervert?

For some, it’s not even a question. Foley is a deviant, a pedophile. “If you are gay so be it, but that is immaterial to the fact that you are first and foremost a pedophile. You don’t represent gay men, so don’t be sending out press statements announcing you’re gay as though that is tied to your actions. We don’t want and we don’t need you on our team.”

So, when did the desire to have sex with a sexually-mature person become pedophilia? Isn’t pedophilia, by definition, sex with someone who is not sexually mature?

The above blogger, when challenged on his use of the term, equivocates thusly: While the clinical definition of pedophile may specify a specific age range of the victims, I use the term in a broader sense here. Regardless of how you define pedophile, Rep. Foley engaged in inappropriate behavior. He took advantage of his position as Congressman and at minimum, sexually harassed at least one underage boy. Please don’t give me the age 16 is legal consent argument. We don’t know where the boy lived at the time of the communications, so its hard to say what laws apply. Regardless, Foley should have known better . . . I stand by my original argument that what Foley did was predatory and wrong. Getting into debates over semantics and technicalities distract us from the real issue: as a Congressman and an adult in general, Foley acted in a way that was improper and possibly illegal.

I believe that minors ought to be protected from exploitation by adults, and I agree with most everyone that Foley's actions were predatory and inappropriate. I’ve no wish to defend Foley. I would, however, like to defend the language. scott-o-rama claims that Foley is, in the broader sense, a pedophile, that he acted in a way that was improper and possibly illegal. Pedophilia “possibly illegal”? Only in some states, apparently.

I’m sure neither scott-o-rama nor all those other misguided scribes who called Foley a pedophile intended to blur the definition of the term by making it more innocuous than it ever ought to be. And I can understand why members of the gay community don’t appreciate Foley’s sudden identification with them. The real pedophiles, though – the ones who get hard for little kids? I bet I know what they’re thinking: “Hey Foley, can I get the name of your lawyer?”

Daily Kos Stuff

2006-10-15T19:31:00.000-07:00

If you’ve read enough science fiction, you’ve no doubt read about a warlike alien race or two that nearly decimates humanity at first contact, only to be pushed back at the last stand and subsequently defeated by those ingenious monkeys (read: humans). Well, I think in this case, we’re the humans and Kossacks are the alien race bent on assimilating the known universe.

It’s worth appreciating that our little foray into the Kos’ psyche probably doesn’t even warrant a footnote in their virtual war annals. Truth of the matter is we’re just the latest in a long series of rational and not so rational interlocutors who’ve taken an interest in poking this very peculiar animal with a stick. What history I know of involves Kos’ evil twin RedState, the equally silly Pirate Armada lead by our very own Bluto, and finally a refreshingly rational dissection, the likes of which I’m sure has been done ad nauseum.

So, really, we’re not making news here. That said, I find the only worthwhile exercise left is that of not underestimating Marcos. Why would he allow his minions to behave so badly? He’s certainly not powerless, and I doubt very much he suffers the same complex that blinds his little army of Napoleons to their true motivations for occupying their days finding ways to spending their TR stipend.

My answer: Marcos knows he’s just not that interesting. If he were, well, he wouldn’t need an anthill attacking every strange and curious visitor who dares test the waters. What’s worth more to Marcos, a loyal lockstep reader, or a pissed off visitor who, once silenced on Daily Kos, takes their complaints and posts them elsewhere? Clearly the latter. Clearly, we’re doing Marcos a huge favor by dissecting his little fiefdom. We’re spreading his legend. Because Marcos knows better than anyone that he too often fails to generate interest on his own, and although it’s second best, his success owes more than he’ll ever admit to the bad publicity of the likes we’re giving him right now.

That said, you do have to wonder who does Marcos respect more? His loyal followers whom he’s bought by giving them the power to disappear those they disagree with, or those who find his trusted user bribe not only valueless, but insulting? Something tells me Marcos’ TU’s would be devastated to learn what he really thinks about them.

It’s brilliant really. Just as there are dumb people in the real world who will gladly surrender themselves to an institution that tells them they’re special, there are dumb people on the internet ready and willing to wall themselves in the second they find a place that will cater to their delicate and feeble egos. It’s plain to see. They’ll not leave the security of Daily Kos, and to be honest, god help Marcos if they ever did. Because there is such a thing as bad publicity, and you’ll recognize it if Marcos’ army of halfwits ever makes the mistake of venturing outside fortress dKos en masse.

Rainy Day Election Musings...

2006-10-13T15:01:00.000-07:00

Somebody flipped the Winter Switch here sometime last week. We went from a long string of golden days baking the tattered tan end of summer into the dust to three days of rain marching back and forth across the sky and hitting the pavement like the heels of polished jackboots.

I stood at the bus stop with the maple tree dripping water and wet brown helicopters into my hair. The invisible residue summer's travels left on the road sparkles on the puddles and runs down the gutters in oily rainbows. That'll be gone soon and flat gray will be all that remains. What a perfect day for the serious business of pondering an election.

I'm not sure where this going to go. I'm doing my part working on the issues that matter to me, and in November we'll see where this all ends up. I see it as a mechanical system in need of some work, and the metaphor carries through this whole process.

You don't get too far tightening a bolt if you are putzing around with that hose clamp off to the other side. People spent a lot of time blowing smoke about "election fraud" this last couple years, when an obvious culprit is the stupid ways partisan regulations have crept into the election system that lock people into voting specific ways. It never says it in so many words, but if you stack all the stupid rules together you effectively can't vote for anyone who isn't Republican if you declare yourself a Republican in the state of Washington. Or even better is the rules/traditions that allow an incumbent to run without opposition from his own party and to actually avoid a real primary election in many cases. If you're a member of that same party you're effectively disenfranchised. Where this really bites is where it applies to many federal elections like Senators, Representatives, and the President. I know this affected my voting patterns and I believe it's a huge factor in these close presidential elections where in order to vote for the candidate of the opposite party you literally have to not be able to vote for anyone in your current party anywhere else on the ticket. What say we stop going on about chads and supposed weakness in voting machines and fix the concrete and demonstrated problems in the election rules.

The whole system is connected so you have to be careful how your change is going to affect the rest of it. Trying to get an ordinance passed about jobs for people in low-income housing while slashing the funding for the bus system in that area and cutting funding for subsidized child care isn't going to have the effect you're hoping for. Unless all you're trying to do is shut up some vocal group and not do anything really effective.

If you don't use the right tools you can't turn it. The best you're going to get is hand-tight. And that's just not good enough for most applications. My favorite one is the people who try to tell you that there's a right to privacy in the Constitution. Or a right to education. Or any number of other indicators that they don't know what their problem is so they can't bring to bear the right effort to fix it. I have an acquaintance who is all up in arms about some of the content in the "health" book her child brought home. So she wrote a letter to her Congressman. Real helpful. You want to fix local education issues, try talking to your local school board and get on the Curiculum Committee.

If you don't even know which way to turn the wrench then you're really up a crick. I've run into a bunch of those. A bunch of absentee ballots here in my state are going to be invalidated because people didn't indicate their party affiliation on it (see that section up there with the hose clamp and the partisan election regulations). This is plainly marked on the page but they didn't follow the directions. It's not just their fault - it's hard to wade through the verbiage. I don't know how it's going to affect some races.

I'm not a fatalist about it. I just know that to make real change in a system involves acting on the system itself and doing it intelligently. But sometimes it's hard. This next election is going to be interesting, that's for sure.