I'm not a car person, but even I was a little sad when GM announced a couple of days ago that they were shutting down Pontiac. I've always had a soft spot for Pontiac, as the very first car my parents when they moved to America was a Pontiac and they've made some truly bad-ass muscle cars (I'll miss the Firebird. A lot- since I always secretly kind of wanted one. An old school one from the 70s...)
Anyway, if you're a fan of cars, shed a tear- and read this tribute from Car Fan Extraordinaire, Jay Leno...
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Retire ALREADY!
This is the rumor that will never die... Brett Favre, coming to Minnesota.
Please no. Minnesota desperately needs a decent quarterback and Favre was a decent quarterback, in fact he was an excellent quarterback about ten years ago. Now, he's way past his sell-by date and an acquisition of Favre by the Vikings will be another in yet a long series of attempts to get a decent QB that usually fail.
Minnesota fans may be feeling the temptation to gloat and rub it in the faces of Cheeseheads everywhere. Don't. Favre will be a major disappointment- and the Vikes, if they would have been thinking would have done what the Jets apparently just did and grab ahold of a proven quantity like Mark Sanchez. Or someone. Anyone!
Just not Favre.
Please no. Minnesota desperately needs a decent quarterback and Favre was a decent quarterback, in fact he was an excellent quarterback about ten years ago. Now, he's way past his sell-by date and an acquisition of Favre by the Vikings will be another in yet a long series of attempts to get a decent QB that usually fail.
Minnesota fans may be feeling the temptation to gloat and rub it in the faces of Cheeseheads everywhere. Don't. Favre will be a major disappointment- and the Vikes, if they would have been thinking would have done what the Jets apparently just did and grab ahold of a proven quantity like Mark Sanchez. Or someone. Anyone!
Just not Favre.
It's Here!
Two probable cases of swine flu in Eastern Iowa. Probably will be confirmed by the end of today. Wash your hands, people!
This could get dicey, especially if it's get into the student population. Everyone goes to the bars, everyone lives in the dorms and because it's a college town, oodles of students go where on Spring Break? That's right! Mexico!!!!
Put it this way- I lived through the mumps outbreak of 2006, where I had to be stuck in an apartment with my roommate at the time, Colin who spent the week laying on the couch and groaning and talking about how swollen his glands and his nuts were. I swelled mildly, but nothing like him... and with the mumps-- it spread fast through campus. So cross your fingers and wash your hands!
**UPDATED: Minnesota's confirmed a case now...
This could get dicey, especially if it's get into the student population. Everyone goes to the bars, everyone lives in the dorms and because it's a college town, oodles of students go where on Spring Break? That's right! Mexico!!!!
Put it this way- I lived through the mumps outbreak of 2006, where I had to be stuck in an apartment with my roommate at the time, Colin who spent the week laying on the couch and groaning and talking about how swollen his glands and his nuts were. I swelled mildly, but nothing like him... and with the mumps-- it spread fast through campus. So cross your fingers and wash your hands!
**UPDATED: Minnesota's confirmed a case now...
Fireproof
The Missus and I watched Fireproof the other night and it was a surprisingly good movie. If you're grasping at the straw for how to save/make a relationship better, it might be worth a watch. Most people, when they hear it's a 'Christian movie' with Kirk Cameron roll their eyes or say 'ewww...' a natural reaction, I suppose in the world we live in today. (Could I just say it's sort of weird how America is a deeply religious country and yet people can get very uncomfortable with public displays of faith?) I'll admit, that was my initial reaction too-- but I was pleasantly surprised.
Fireproof works on two levels. If you're a person of faith, then this movie will resonate deeply with you. I'm fairly libertarian with my spirituality- to me, faith is something deeply, deeply personal- so I tend to like my theology with a lighter touch- and the theology of Fireproof is fairly heavy handed. The acting and the dialogue are fairly clunky as well (the theme of the movie: Never leave your partner behind. Especially in a fire. I know that because Kirk Cameron says it at the opening of the film- like a thesis statement- and re-states it word for word at the end of the film-- also just like a thesis statement! How about that!)
But what I took away from the movie is this:
Faith can move mountains.
Can it save marriages? Sure. Do I think it's a universal solution? I do not. But the message of the movie also works on another level- I think in the society we live in, marriage is tough because we've been raised by a generation that is self-centered and has imposed that on the next generation- and marriage is essentially about something more than you and what you want. There's no 'I' in team- and marriage makes you a team. It also makes another good point that a lot of people just have a bad patch and that's that. Bam. Divorce. People give up a little too soon- and if it's your marriage, I think the movie makes a good point that's its worth fighting to save.
At the very least, you shouldn't give up without a fight.
Is it a cinematic masterpiece? No. Is it entertaining? Mildly so. Does it make you think? Yes, it does. It's worth a peek.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Swine Flu Update
Swine Flu continues to spread- the US had it's first confirmed death from the disease, a 23 month old Mexican child who was brought to the United States for treatment... we have cases in six states as of this morning- nothing new on that score as of yet.
Wash your hands, everybody!
Wash your hands, everybody!
Planegate Gets BETTER!
Oh Planegate keeps getting better and better! The monumental fuck-up of a photo-op over NYC a couple of days back (where the FAA and the Feds forgot to tell anyone on the ground not to panic- remember that one?) Well, it turns out that the Feds knew it would cause panic, didn't tell anyone and went ahead with it anyway.
Yeah, someone should get fired for this. I mean, heads should roll.
Yeah, someone should get fired for this. I mean, heads should roll.
Switch-er-roo!
PA Senator Arlen Specter switched parties yesterday and is now officially a Democrat and probable Kingmaker in the Senate (presuming Al Franken actually gets to be a Senator at some point in time.) What this means? Probably not much in the long run... the GOP is bleeding voters right now, according to a new poll only 21% identify themselves as Republicans- and Specter was not doing well in primary polling against a hard-right Conservative opponent in PA for next year.
In other words: survival!
But what does this mean for the GOP: well, as always with Washington D.C., it doesn't matter how much you polish a turd, it's still a turd. The Democrats may not be everybody's cup of tea, but the big problem for the GOP from where I'm sitting is this: if you promise one thing when you want power and do exactly the opposite when you're in power then how can voters believe that you've really changed? Preaching the same old message of small government and social issues may resonate with the traditional base, but to the voters at large, they've heard it all before. There's nothing new or different with the GOP and they need a complete reinvention if they want to really take back power and reinvigorate conservatism as a posed to taking power by default when the Democrats screw things up.
Both options may be preferable if you're a Republican, but as an independent voter and more importantly as an American- I'd prefer the former to the latter. I want meaningful conservatism and liberalism that isn't mired in the tired old tropes of the past (which it is-but that's another story!). If I must put up with this narrow, decrepit, fantastically annoying two party system, then dammit, it should be ideologically vigorous and more than just pale, superficial and generally useless.
No matter how much you polish a turd, it's still a turd- I'd really like to trade my turd in for something a little better.
In other words: survival!
But what does this mean for the GOP: well, as always with Washington D.C., it doesn't matter how much you polish a turd, it's still a turd. The Democrats may not be everybody's cup of tea, but the big problem for the GOP from where I'm sitting is this: if you promise one thing when you want power and do exactly the opposite when you're in power then how can voters believe that you've really changed? Preaching the same old message of small government and social issues may resonate with the traditional base, but to the voters at large, they've heard it all before. There's nothing new or different with the GOP and they need a complete reinvention if they want to really take back power and reinvigorate conservatism as a posed to taking power by default when the Democrats screw things up.
Both options may be preferable if you're a Republican, but as an independent voter and more importantly as an American- I'd prefer the former to the latter. I want meaningful conservatism and liberalism that isn't mired in the tired old tropes of the past (which it is-but that's another story!). If I must put up with this narrow, decrepit, fantastically annoying two party system, then dammit, it should be ideologically vigorous and more than just pale, superficial and generally useless.
No matter how much you polish a turd, it's still a turd- I'd really like to trade my turd in for something a little better.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Get It Together!
Pretty much one hundred days into the new administration and I keep waiting for the guy I voted for to actually show up and lead. That may be a little harsh, but so far I find the new administration to be deeply disappointing- middling at best, flailing at worst. I don't think Obama's incompetent per say- it's just that I have a sneaking suspicion that all that worry about his perceived lack of experience may be coming home to roost. On balance, it's not been bad- but there are tiny, tiny mistakes that are piling up and making the administration look bumfuddled. My pet peeves thus far:
1. The Stimulus Debacle: This was a blown opportunity right out of the gate. It was a huge tactical mistake to send the President down to Congress to stump for votes and it was an even bigger mistake just to get sucked into the bloated Democratic bill that Pelosi wanted. Stumping for votes made him look like a cheap pan-handler and letting Pelosi set the terms of the bill made him look weak.
2. The Bow: This is apples and oranges- but a perfect example of the tiny, rookie mistakes that just keep piling up. He bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia- on balance, not a major thing- but a silly mistake. Someone should have said 'Hey, you're the Leader of the Free World and you don't bow to nobody!' (Remember the big deal about this photo? That's what I'm talking about.)
3. Then yesterday brought news of this: the White House wanted to update the file photo of Air Force One and thus had a secret photo op planned over New York City. AF1 buzzed the City at heights of about 1500 feet or so and scared everyone absolutely shitless, for obvious reasons. Mayor Bloomberg is rightly apoplectic- as, to as a certain degree am I. I mean, WHY?
4. And just to top it all off, the pace of confirmations is criminally slow. Part of that is Congress' fault- but it's also again, symptomatic of an administration that should have hit the ground running, but is, instead, staggering its way towards something resembling a trot. HHS Nominee Kathleen Sebelius is expected to be confirmed today- but right now, in the middle of a public health emergency (Swine Flu), you probably don't want to know just how many Health Officials we don't have in place in the new administration.
All in all, I find myself more than a little disappointed. There's still potential for a turnaround, but people in D.C. need to get their shit together in a major way. These stupid blunders are piling up one on top of another and the Democrats in both Congress and the White House seem hell bent on handing everything back to the Republicans by default. And Republicans, well damn- they're not exactly fun, happy people and they're flailing around just as much. (The latest: immigrants are to blame for the Swine Flu. Yeah, cause Hispanics are gonna want to vote for the Party who thinks they're disease carriers.)
But to summate: Mr. President- GET IT TOGETHER!
1. The Stimulus Debacle: This was a blown opportunity right out of the gate. It was a huge tactical mistake to send the President down to Congress to stump for votes and it was an even bigger mistake just to get sucked into the bloated Democratic bill that Pelosi wanted. Stumping for votes made him look like a cheap pan-handler and letting Pelosi set the terms of the bill made him look weak.
2. The Bow: This is apples and oranges- but a perfect example of the tiny, rookie mistakes that just keep piling up. He bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia- on balance, not a major thing- but a silly mistake. Someone should have said 'Hey, you're the Leader of the Free World and you don't bow to nobody!' (Remember the big deal about this photo? That's what I'm talking about.)
3. Then yesterday brought news of this: the White House wanted to update the file photo of Air Force One and thus had a secret photo op planned over New York City. AF1 buzzed the City at heights of about 1500 feet or so and scared everyone absolutely shitless, for obvious reasons. Mayor Bloomberg is rightly apoplectic- as, to as a certain degree am I. I mean, WHY?
4. And just to top it all off, the pace of confirmations is criminally slow. Part of that is Congress' fault- but it's also again, symptomatic of an administration that should have hit the ground running, but is, instead, staggering its way towards something resembling a trot. HHS Nominee Kathleen Sebelius is expected to be confirmed today- but right now, in the middle of a public health emergency (Swine Flu), you probably don't want to know just how many Health Officials we don't have in place in the new administration.
All in all, I find myself more than a little disappointed. There's still potential for a turnaround, but people in D.C. need to get their shit together in a major way. These stupid blunders are piling up one on top of another and the Democrats in both Congress and the White House seem hell bent on handing everything back to the Republicans by default. And Republicans, well damn- they're not exactly fun, happy people and they're flailing around just as much. (The latest: immigrants are to blame for the Swine Flu. Yeah, cause Hispanics are gonna want to vote for the Party who thinks they're disease carriers.)
But to summate: Mr. President- GET IT TOGETHER!
Monday, April 27, 2009
Perez Backlash?
There's a bit of a backlash about the silly Perez Hilton-Miss California brouhaha over gay marriage... some Conservative bloggers pointing out that Perez hit Miss Cali over her opposition to gay marriage, but there's nary a criticism of President Obama- whose stance on the issue is the exact same thing.
That's a bit of a double standard there. Right on for calling out Perez for that... marriage equality proponents cannot just hit out at opponents. We have the right- no, in fact, I'd probably call it a duty to criticize ideologically friendly potential allies who don't have the backbone to stand up for the right thing.
You can't criticize Republicans and give chicken-ass Democrats a pass. Otherwise, nothing is going to get done.
That's a bit of a double standard there. Right on for calling out Perez for that... marriage equality proponents cannot just hit out at opponents. We have the right- no, in fact, I'd probably call it a duty to criticize ideologically friendly potential allies who don't have the backbone to stand up for the right thing.
You can't criticize Republicans and give chicken-ass Democrats a pass. Otherwise, nothing is going to get done.
M-Day!
If you're a same sex couple in Iowa today, you can get married- right now. Some judge somewhere has waived the traditional three day waiting period and the first marriages, if they haven't happened already, are going to have today.
Happy M-Day, everyone!
Happy M-Day, everyone!
Swine Flu
...it's spreading. No cases in Iowa as of yet, but we've got big-ass hog lots here, so I'm sure it'll show up at some point. Cheerfully, reports are that young adults between the ages of 25 and 45 are the biggest group of people at risk, which is just such a great way to start the working week, what with me being 25 and all.
If you want up-to-the minute news on this stuff, I'd say Drudge is your man. That guy has been all over this since the word go and he's getting stuff well ahead of anything you're going to find on the mainstream media.
Happily, we've got stockpiles of effective flu vaccines around the place. They're working on a specific one- right now. And there are common sense measures we can all take at this point in time:
Cover your mouth when you cough.
Wash your hands.
If you're sick, stay home.
And if you're fresh back from Mexico, then this stuff goes double for y'all.
If you want up-to-the minute news on this stuff, I'd say Drudge is your man. That guy has been all over this since the word go and he's getting stuff well ahead of anything you're going to find on the mainstream media.
Happily, we've got stockpiles of effective flu vaccines around the place. They're working on a specific one- right now. And there are common sense measures we can all take at this point in time:
Cover your mouth when you cough.
Wash your hands.
If you're sick, stay home.
And if you're fresh back from Mexico, then this stuff goes double for y'all.
NFL Draft Reports
What are these people smoking? The Vikes may have done OK in the draft, but you want to know what's missing from this little round-up: a quarterback. That's probably the weakest link in the whole chain. I worked two training camps up in Mankato for the Vikings and I can tell you this: T-Jack ain't getting it done. You can't wait forever for him to show up and play.
They need a quarterback. Then we might be able to talk about Super Bowls.
They need a quarterback. Then we might be able to talk about Super Bowls.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
The Struggle Continues
This week saw the killer of 18-year old Angie Zapata, Allen Andrade sentenced to life in prison. Zapata who was transgendered was beaten to death by Andrade, first with his fists and then with a fire extinguisher in a particularly brutal fashion. You can see the families reaction, here.
The struggle for equality for transgendered people is one that will be mired in controversy for a long time to come, I think-- even as there's been a flood of marriage equality laws enacted across the country, there's increasing debate over what are being called 'bathroom bills' in some states, designed to prevent transgendered people from using the bathrooms that they identify with. Personally, if I'm in the bathroom, I'm not hangin' out at a social occasion. Same thing with a locker room: I'm there to do my business and get out. So to me, it's really not that big of a deal who uses the bathroom. I'm going to do my thing, they can do their thing- everyone's happy!
But apparently this matters.
And just so we're clear: controversy over transgendered issues isn't necessarily ideological- one just has to look at the now long-running debate over the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival to see that.
But whatever the status of transgendered rights in this country, the conviction of Allen Andrade is at least, justice for the murder of Angie Zapata. And despite being born out of a brutal tragedy, that can only be seen as a step in the right direction.
The struggle for equality for transgendered people is one that will be mired in controversy for a long time to come, I think-- even as there's been a flood of marriage equality laws enacted across the country, there's increasing debate over what are being called 'bathroom bills' in some states, designed to prevent transgendered people from using the bathrooms that they identify with. Personally, if I'm in the bathroom, I'm not hangin' out at a social occasion. Same thing with a locker room: I'm there to do my business and get out. So to me, it's really not that big of a deal who uses the bathroom. I'm going to do my thing, they can do their thing- everyone's happy!
But apparently this matters.
And just so we're clear: controversy over transgendered issues isn't necessarily ideological- one just has to look at the now long-running debate over the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival to see that.
But whatever the status of transgendered rights in this country, the conviction of Allen Andrade is at least, justice for the murder of Angie Zapata. And despite being born out of a brutal tragedy, that can only be seen as a step in the right direction.
Pissed Me Off.
Yesterday, I had a kick-ass day at work. I've had a couple of off days this week, but yesterday, my call time was awesome and I had just a beautiful call where I trucked through a FAFSA and a funding plan in about 30 minutes flat. Care and privacy concerns forbid me from revealing to much about the specifics of my job, needless to say, I provide financial aid services for Kaplan University Online- helping prospective student with their FAFSAs and explaining their funding plans to them.
My supervisor, however, came around yesterday and informed us that with regards to the FAFSA, marital status is contingent on the couple being a man and a woman- given that gay marriage is about to start officially in Iowa, he just wanted to give us a heads up.
I don't know why it caught me off guard. I honestly hadn't thought of that and DoMA is still on the books- but it's just another example of what you don't think about when it comes to this issue... God knows what I'm going to say if that comes up on the phone, explaining to a newly married couple that for the purposes of student aid, they're not in fact married at all, because of their gender.
I take some comfort from the fact that the seeds have been sown, however. Inch by inch precedent is gaining and building- and I think DoMA, if challenged up to the Supreme Court, will be overturned. It's just a matter of time...
But if anyone out there is filling out a FAFSA, be warned... if you're not in a heterosexual marriage, they don't consider you married at all.
My supervisor, however, came around yesterday and informed us that with regards to the FAFSA, marital status is contingent on the couple being a man and a woman- given that gay marriage is about to start officially in Iowa, he just wanted to give us a heads up.
I don't know why it caught me off guard. I honestly hadn't thought of that and DoMA is still on the books- but it's just another example of what you don't think about when it comes to this issue... God knows what I'm going to say if that comes up on the phone, explaining to a newly married couple that for the purposes of student aid, they're not in fact married at all, because of their gender.
I take some comfort from the fact that the seeds have been sown, however. Inch by inch precedent is gaining and building- and I think DoMA, if challenged up to the Supreme Court, will be overturned. It's just a matter of time...
But if anyone out there is filling out a FAFSA, be warned... if you're not in a heterosexual marriage, they don't consider you married at all.
25 de Abril 1974
Today is the 35th Anniversary of the Carnation Revolution in Portugal, which overthrew the fascist dictatorship and began the transition to democracy. It also marks the beginning of the end of the Portuguese Empire and the start of what political scientist Samuel Huntington called 'the Third Wave of Democracy.'
It's a small, but significant point in history that is overlooked. When we think about fascism, we think it died after World War II, forgetting that Portugal and Spain were under the boot heels of Franco in Spain and Salazar in Portugal until the early 1980s. After Portugal returned to democracy, Spain followed suit, the Colonels in Greece were overthrown-- all the dictators of Southern Europe came tumbling down, and then the wall of Communism began to crack, and the decade of the 1980s saw a surge of democratization around the world. A tsunami of freedom, if you like...
And it started in Portugal, where the people, holding carnations, persuaded the regime's police not to resist.
There were consequences to the Revolution that I disapprove of: essentially, once the regime was overthrown, Portugal quit it's colonies and allowed them independence in a scant six months- and as white residents of their colonies fled, chaos was left behind in their wake. Angola is only just now emerging from Civil War and it took Mozambique years to recover from theirs. East Timor is the newest independent country in the world, after a thirty year occupation by Indonesia and a bloody revolt for their freedom. Imperialism, for all it's faults, does come with a price tag: responsibility. And while the end of the dictatorship was wonderful, freedom is good, there was a responsibility to the people of those colonies that was unmet. Haste was required after a ten year colonial war, but care was required as well. The chaos of the end of the Portuguese Empire is probably the only tarnish to the legacy of the Carnation Revolution.
Oh, and the song playing in the video- it's called 'Grandola Vila Morena'-- when it started playing on the radio early that morning, it was a signal to the anti-regime forces to begin advancing into Lisbon.
It's a small, but significant point in history that is overlooked. When we think about fascism, we think it died after World War II, forgetting that Portugal and Spain were under the boot heels of Franco in Spain and Salazar in Portugal until the early 1980s. After Portugal returned to democracy, Spain followed suit, the Colonels in Greece were overthrown-- all the dictators of Southern Europe came tumbling down, and then the wall of Communism began to crack, and the decade of the 1980s saw a surge of democratization around the world. A tsunami of freedom, if you like...
And it started in Portugal, where the people, holding carnations, persuaded the regime's police not to resist.
There were consequences to the Revolution that I disapprove of: essentially, once the regime was overthrown, Portugal quit it's colonies and allowed them independence in a scant six months- and as white residents of their colonies fled, chaos was left behind in their wake. Angola is only just now emerging from Civil War and it took Mozambique years to recover from theirs. East Timor is the newest independent country in the world, after a thirty year occupation by Indonesia and a bloody revolt for their freedom. Imperialism, for all it's faults, does come with a price tag: responsibility. And while the end of the dictatorship was wonderful, freedom is good, there was a responsibility to the people of those colonies that was unmet. Haste was required after a ten year colonial war, but care was required as well. The chaos of the end of the Portuguese Empire is probably the only tarnish to the legacy of the Carnation Revolution.
Oh, and the song playing in the video- it's called 'Grandola Vila Morena'-- when it started playing on the radio early that morning, it was a signal to the anti-regime forces to begin advancing into Lisbon.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Disappointing
This is disappointing. I suppose there's some legal justification for it that's beyond me, but I don't see it. People should have the right to have an attorney present when they're being questioned. If for no other reason than if you're in that much trouble, you're probably not going to think about the appropriate constitutional protections that'll keep you from screwing yourself entirely.
But this is another disappointment from the President.
But this is another disappointment from the President.
I.C. In The News
Well, Iowa City is in the news. Drudge linked to an AP story this morning- and, it's such a charming story. Apparently gangs of men are roaming are streets beating people up at random- and AP makes our fair city look like crap, to be frank. Maybe that's just a perception, but to me, that's the way the article reads.
As usual, our city officials are flailing around trying to find a solution. They've been talking about 'non-alcoholic' alternatives for students since I was in elementary school. Do college students still drink? You bet. And you know which two words don't appear in these discussions, ever:
Responsible drinking.
To me, this is a simple debate- college students are always, always, always going to drink. No squishy, wishy-washy alcohol free alternatives are going to break down the culture of drinking. But if we can encourage responsible drinking, we might be able to change the culture on campus to something we can tolerate. At the end of the day, with a problem as intractable as this one, we can only hope to move the culture- not break it down or change it.
As usual, our city officials are flailing around trying to find a solution. They've been talking about 'non-alcoholic' alternatives for students since I was in elementary school. Do college students still drink? You bet. And you know which two words don't appear in these discussions, ever:
Responsible drinking.
To me, this is a simple debate- college students are always, always, always going to drink. No squishy, wishy-washy alcohol free alternatives are going to break down the culture of drinking. But if we can encourage responsible drinking, we might be able to change the culture on campus to something we can tolerate. At the end of the day, with a problem as intractable as this one, we can only hope to move the culture- not break it down or change it.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Jim Carrey On Vaccines
Huffington Post has an exclusive from Jim Carrey on the vaccine-autism link. I find this debate interesting- Jenny McCarthy and company do have a point: we are vaccinating our children a lot more than we used too. I don't personally see the need for my kids to get any more vaccines than I did. I got chicken pox- and I was perfectly fine, so why are we vaccinating are children against it now?
Carrey posts an intelligent, articulate piece on the issue- he's not just a celeb talking out his butt, he's got some solid info behind him, but even as he's right- (the judgment on vaccines ISN'T in)- he's also wrong. From what I know (which granted isn't much) the judgment isn't in on autism itself yet. We need a lot more research, a lot more effort to diagnose it correctly, more of everything! That to me, is the larger problem.
Carrey posts an intelligent, articulate piece on the issue- he's not just a celeb talking out his butt, he's got some solid info behind him, but even as he's right- (the judgment on vaccines ISN'T in)- he's also wrong. From what I know (which granted isn't much) the judgment isn't in on autism itself yet. We need a lot more research, a lot more effort to diagnose it correctly, more of everything! That to me, is the larger problem.
South Africa Votes
Long lines and some delays are reported in South Africa's Presidential elections which are underway as I'm writing this. ANC Candidate Jacob Zuma is widely expected to win, but there's some indication that the ANC might loses it's stranglehold on Parliament with the emergence of a breakaway faction, the Congress of the People (COPE) which was formed after former President Thabo Mbeki was ousted last year. Mr. Zuma is a controversial figure in some quarters, having, if memory serves, been forced to resign due to corruption charges- which were dropped just a couple of weeks before the election. (Convenient? Perhaps so...) Plus, when Archbishop Desmond Tutu isn't behind you- you're probably going to have some problems winning friends and influencing people.
Per the Beeb, there's no real indication that the Presidential race is going to be close- but the betting money is on the second place battle for Parliament between COPE and the other main opposition party the Democratic Alliance. Interestingly enough neither have ruled out a coalition.
Competition is good. It might be a good thing for the ANC to actually have to work for a living instead of just dominating government the way it has since apartheid ended in 1994. Vibrant, healthy democracy can only be a good thing!
Per the Beeb, there's no real indication that the Presidential race is going to be close- but the betting money is on the second place battle for Parliament between COPE and the other main opposition party the Democratic Alliance. Interestingly enough neither have ruled out a coalition.
Competition is good. It might be a good thing for the ANC to actually have to work for a living instead of just dominating government the way it has since apartheid ended in 1994. Vibrant, healthy democracy can only be a good thing!
What's In A Name?
Well, Kiwis must be scratching their heads over this one: New Zealand is made up of two islands- commonly known as the 'North Island' and the 'South Island' for obvious reasons. But now, someone's twigged to the fact that those names were never actually registered so now they've got to figure out what to call them- in English and Maori.
No word on the English possibilities- but in Maori, they're figuring:
Te Ika a Maui (the fish of Maui)- for the North Island
Te Wai Pounamu (the waters of greenstone) - for the South Island.
Why not just keep the names as they are? (I'd imagine this is what's going to happen anyway- I can't see people jumping aboard the notion of calling the North Island 'the fish of Maui.' But maybe that's just me.)
No word on the English possibilities- but in Maori, they're figuring:
Te Ika a Maui (the fish of Maui)- for the North Island
Te Wai Pounamu (the waters of greenstone) - for the South Island.
Why not just keep the names as they are? (I'd imagine this is what's going to happen anyway- I can't see people jumping aboard the notion of calling the North Island 'the fish of Maui.' But maybe that's just me.)
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
You're Fired
The Iowa City City Council fired City Manager Michael Lombardo last Friday with a unanimous vote behind closed doors last Friday. Once again, proving just how frustratingly incompetent they can be- no reason was apparently given. None whatsoever. Lombardo was an 'at-will' employee and they just upped and fired him. All this after an exhaustive search just to find him in the first place after Steve Atkins moved on from the post.
Now we're on the hook for $80,000 in severance pay and I think Iowa Citians have been left with an extremely bad taste in their mouths about the way this has been handled.
Now we're on the hook for $80,000 in severance pay and I think Iowa Citians have been left with an extremely bad taste in their mouths about the way this has been handled.
Monday, April 20, 2009
'Cuz I Got High!
Toke 'em if you got 'em, folks... it's 4/20! So to celebrate, I bring you the above musical celebration of all things weed related courtesy of Afroman. What 4/20 really means, courtesy of the Huffington Post... and, because the case for legalization or decriminalization is being more and more widely discussed, if it matters to ya, check out the following:
NORML
Iowans for Medical Marijuana
Don't just toke, vote! Write a letter and get involved! I think honestly that if we sit back and think about it, legalizing weed could pay off the debt, save the economy and well, I think it'd just be better for all concerned. Thirty years after we started the War on Drugs, we're getting our asses kicked.
Time for a change of strategy, perhaps? Time to stop wasting taxpayer dollars?
It's a good idea, but I don't think it's time has come just yet. But it's getting closer.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
On Racism and International Organizations
Why does the United Nations need to have a Conference on Racism? Isn't the fact that it, as an organization exists, a pretty shining example of what people of many cultures and colors can do together?
Plus, how do you create an international compact against racism? It varies from country to country. Racism in America is going to be different that racism in Cuba or Brazil. History is different across borders. Cultures are different across borders. How do you do it? Last time they tried this, it was just an excuse for a failed, lopsided attempt to get Zionism equated with racism. As a result, Germany, the United States and Australia are all boycotting.
The UN is of course, shocked by this. And the keynote address at the conference is of course, going to be given by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. So that should be a warm fuzzy speech about how we should all get along, right?
It'd be simpler just to get a piece of paper that says 'We All Agree Racism Is Bad and We Should Do Something About It' and have everyone sign. It would have about that much of an effect on things. Not to sound cynical or anything, but I just have a feeling that this is going to be another excuse for the countries who don't like Israel just to stand up and beat up on Israel.
Which won't get rid of Israel or stop racism. But this is the United Nations, so they're bravely forging ahead anyway.
Plus, how do you create an international compact against racism? It varies from country to country. Racism in America is going to be different that racism in Cuba or Brazil. History is different across borders. Cultures are different across borders. How do you do it? Last time they tried this, it was just an excuse for a failed, lopsided attempt to get Zionism equated with racism. As a result, Germany, the United States and Australia are all boycotting.
The UN is of course, shocked by this. And the keynote address at the conference is of course, going to be given by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. So that should be a warm fuzzy speech about how we should all get along, right?
It'd be simpler just to get a piece of paper that says 'We All Agree Racism Is Bad and We Should Do Something About It' and have everyone sign. It would have about that much of an effect on things. Not to sound cynical or anything, but I just have a feeling that this is going to be another excuse for the countries who don't like Israel just to stand up and beat up on Israel.
Which won't get rid of Israel or stop racism. But this is the United Nations, so they're bravely forging ahead anyway.
Iran or Pakistan?
The competition for 'greatest foreign policy challenge' to face the new administration has begun. Iran has sentenced a 28 year old Iranian-American Journalist to 8 years in prison behind closed doors- and Pakistan is close to either another military coup or out right implosion.
Roxana Saberi, who hails from North Dakota, I believe has been working in Iran for years doing journalistic work for a variety of places, including NPR now and again. Why she was arrested wasn't clear- but the Iranians, were, as usual, quick and efficient about getting a conviction. Her lawyer wasn't even allowed to mount a defense. (President Ahmadinejad has since said that her lawyer should be allowed to mount a defense during her appeal. Nice of him.)
I think it's laudable that President Obama wants to have a conversation with the Iranians. American policy has been stuck in 1979 for thirty years now and it's time we move it forward a bit. Ignoring them hasn't done much in the way of anything, but I think this is a case when the President makes it clear that until Saberi is released, any such conversations will involve short, one-syllable words that won't include the words 'pretty please.' The other side of this equation is Israel. Talking isn't a bad thing, provided we do it from a position of strength. But if we look too soft, then we risk Israel think we're not taking their security seriously enough and at that point, there's a real risk that they could do something, well, precipitous. And if they act unilaterally, then all we're gonna have is our dick in our hand while the Middle East flushes itself down the toilet.
It's a fine line to walk- and Obama might be able to do it. But Saberi should be released first.
Pakistan might nip Iran at the finish line for the title of 'biggest foreign policy disaster in the making.' There's a real worry that it could implode. Literally. Pakistan wasn't a very stable country to begin with, mainly being a concept that sprung from the mind of Jinnah before Partition in 1947. There's no historical basis for it whatsoever, it's boundaries are somewhat artificial and before 1947 there was no such thing as a Pakistani.
This (along with the too early death of Jinnah) left Pakistan with a problem. What does it mean to be Pakistani? Their leaders came up with a simple formula: national unity through the one uniting factor in Pakistan- Islam. Trust in the military to defend the country from the boogeyman of India- The Army. And with India firmly in the non-aligned camp during the Cold War, kissing the ass of the most powerful country in the world so they can get money to fund the Army to defend them against India. The United States.
It's been a nice little triumverate for five decades now, but we're getting to a point where the triangle may be breaking down. The Army may be suspect, Islam may be getting too powerful and the United States is starting to realize that it may not be in our best interests to fund an Army that isn't necessarily on our side. So what exactly does it mean to be Pakistani? What's Pakistan about?
The easy answer they've had since independence isn't working for them anymore. What do they get to replace it? Democracy is flawed. They keep trying it, but they keep effing up somewhere. Usually by electing politicians. With US Troops in Afghanistan, what happens across the border, where we assume Bin Laden is hiding under some dung heap is of great concern to us- but when it comes to the 'pain in the ass foreign policy problem' sweepstakes consider this:
We're freaking out because Iran mightget nuclear weapons. Pakistan actually has them.
Just sayin'
Roxana Saberi, who hails from North Dakota, I believe has been working in Iran for years doing journalistic work for a variety of places, including NPR now and again. Why she was arrested wasn't clear- but the Iranians, were, as usual, quick and efficient about getting a conviction. Her lawyer wasn't even allowed to mount a defense. (President Ahmadinejad has since said that her lawyer should be allowed to mount a defense during her appeal. Nice of him.)
I think it's laudable that President Obama wants to have a conversation with the Iranians. American policy has been stuck in 1979 for thirty years now and it's time we move it forward a bit. Ignoring them hasn't done much in the way of anything, but I think this is a case when the President makes it clear that until Saberi is released, any such conversations will involve short, one-syllable words that won't include the words 'pretty please.' The other side of this equation is Israel. Talking isn't a bad thing, provided we do it from a position of strength. But if we look too soft, then we risk Israel think we're not taking their security seriously enough and at that point, there's a real risk that they could do something, well, precipitous. And if they act unilaterally, then all we're gonna have is our dick in our hand while the Middle East flushes itself down the toilet.
It's a fine line to walk- and Obama might be able to do it. But Saberi should be released first.
Pakistan might nip Iran at the finish line for the title of 'biggest foreign policy disaster in the making.' There's a real worry that it could implode. Literally. Pakistan wasn't a very stable country to begin with, mainly being a concept that sprung from the mind of Jinnah before Partition in 1947. There's no historical basis for it whatsoever, it's boundaries are somewhat artificial and before 1947 there was no such thing as a Pakistani.
This (along with the too early death of Jinnah) left Pakistan with a problem. What does it mean to be Pakistani? Their leaders came up with a simple formula: national unity through the one uniting factor in Pakistan- Islam. Trust in the military to defend the country from the boogeyman of India- The Army. And with India firmly in the non-aligned camp during the Cold War, kissing the ass of the most powerful country in the world so they can get money to fund the Army to defend them against India. The United States.
It's been a nice little triumverate for five decades now, but we're getting to a point where the triangle may be breaking down. The Army may be suspect, Islam may be getting too powerful and the United States is starting to realize that it may not be in our best interests to fund an Army that isn't necessarily on our side. So what exactly does it mean to be Pakistani? What's Pakistan about?
The easy answer they've had since independence isn't working for them anymore. What do they get to replace it? Democracy is flawed. They keep trying it, but they keep effing up somewhere. Usually by electing politicians. With US Troops in Afghanistan, what happens across the border, where we assume Bin Laden is hiding under some dung heap is of great concern to us- but when it comes to the 'pain in the ass foreign policy problem' sweepstakes consider this:
We're freaking out because Iran mightget nuclear weapons. Pakistan actually has them.
Just sayin'
10 Years
It's been ten years since the Columbine Massacre. That I do remember in much greater detail- and I think my generation has been marked in ways that we can't understand, growing up and going to high school during the 1990s. Shooting after shooting and Columbine was the worst. It's a terrible thing, going to school, hanging out with your friends. High school in the United States is ultimately a social experience instead of an educational one. It's where you learn- or avoid social skills. It's the forge in which your personality is moulded. It's away from your parents, you can be independent- and more importantly, you feel practically immortal- in that special, arrogant kind of way that only teenagers can.
So imagine what that was like, growing up back there and back then, when suddenly school wasn't necessarily safe anymore. That's a shock to the national psyche to be sure, but to American high schoolers, it was a life-changing realization- an intrusion of the unremitting harshness of the 'real world' into our happy, safe little lives. People could get killed. Anger, could erupt into rage and explode into violence- and it could happen anywhere. Colorado, Arkansas, Kentucky... anywhere. Suburban schools, regular schools, big schools- even little schools... no one was safe. Innocence was shattered. I know that's an overused phrase, but it's true. What that experience will ultimately mean for my generation is still an open question. But I think we (generationally speaking) feel things like Columbine or Virginia Tech more deeply than most, as a result.
One of my most vivid memories in high school comes from later that year. The Bands and Choirs were out of town on their trip, so the school was sparsely populated to begin with- and, for reasons passing understanding, some people tried to stage a walkout because they thought the Assistant Principal was a dick. The walkout was pathetic (the students completely missing the point that the job description of an Assistant Principal usually includes 'being a dick.' They're in charge of discipline usually, which means they're not their to be your friend. The sooner high schoolers grasp this concept the better of they'll be.) And to top it all off, there were rumors flying that someone was going to bring a gun to school.
Nine times out of ten, teachers would have hushed it up, dismissed it as gossip and moved on. But that day, not too long after Columbine, no one knew what was going to happen. I remember sitting in English 10 Honors and listening to them telling us that. And the teachers were visibly on edge. And even though nothing happened that day, just the sight of teachers being visibly on edge was disconcerting enough.
Have we moved passed this? I'd like to think so. In the aftermath of VaTech there's been movement to let students and professors carry concealed weapons on campus. The argument being that armed, responsible adults could be in a position to prevent tragedies like this. Better parenting and less violent video games, less mayhem on television. Is it the culture? Is it the guns? Or is it just the fact that anger breeds resentment which builds up over time until it erupts into rage and violence?
I doubt we'll ever really know.
So imagine what that was like, growing up back there and back then, when suddenly school wasn't necessarily safe anymore. That's a shock to the national psyche to be sure, but to American high schoolers, it was a life-changing realization- an intrusion of the unremitting harshness of the 'real world' into our happy, safe little lives. People could get killed. Anger, could erupt into rage and explode into violence- and it could happen anywhere. Colorado, Arkansas, Kentucky... anywhere. Suburban schools, regular schools, big schools- even little schools... no one was safe. Innocence was shattered. I know that's an overused phrase, but it's true. What that experience will ultimately mean for my generation is still an open question. But I think we (generationally speaking) feel things like Columbine or Virginia Tech more deeply than most, as a result.
One of my most vivid memories in high school comes from later that year. The Bands and Choirs were out of town on their trip, so the school was sparsely populated to begin with- and, for reasons passing understanding, some people tried to stage a walkout because they thought the Assistant Principal was a dick. The walkout was pathetic (the students completely missing the point that the job description of an Assistant Principal usually includes 'being a dick.' They're in charge of discipline usually, which means they're not their to be your friend. The sooner high schoolers grasp this concept the better of they'll be.) And to top it all off, there were rumors flying that someone was going to bring a gun to school.
Nine times out of ten, teachers would have hushed it up, dismissed it as gossip and moved on. But that day, not too long after Columbine, no one knew what was going to happen. I remember sitting in English 10 Honors and listening to them telling us that. And the teachers were visibly on edge. And even though nothing happened that day, just the sight of teachers being visibly on edge was disconcerting enough.
Have we moved passed this? I'd like to think so. In the aftermath of VaTech there's been movement to let students and professors carry concealed weapons on campus. The argument being that armed, responsible adults could be in a position to prevent tragedies like this. Better parenting and less violent video games, less mayhem on television. Is it the culture? Is it the guns? Or is it just the fact that anger breeds resentment which builds up over time until it erupts into rage and violence?
I doubt we'll ever really know.
14 Years
It almost snuck by unnoticed, but it's been 14 years since the Oklahoma City bombing. I was 11, in about the 4th grade. I remember the Newsweek cover with a picture of the ruined remnants of the Federal Building on it. I remember the initial reaction thinking that it was foreign terrorism and then remembering how genuinely shocked people were when it turned out to be domestic terrorism.
The world has changed so much since then- it's tempting to move beyond Oklahoma City, consign it to history and forget about it entirely, but we need to remember things like this. We need not to forget. There is precisely zero in the way of historical memory in this country- and if we don't remember, we are condemned to relive and make our mistakes all over again.
So pause. And remember.
The world has changed so much since then- it's tempting to move beyond Oklahoma City, consign it to history and forget about it entirely, but we need to remember things like this. We need not to forget. There is precisely zero in the way of historical memory in this country- and if we don't remember, we are condemned to relive and make our mistakes all over again.
So pause. And remember.
On My Nightstand
South Asia has been on my mind and in the news lately, so it seems appropriate that my first two literary selections for the blog belong heart and soul to that region of the world. First up, is Shame by Salman Rushdie. A lyrical tale of two families at war in a country that's described as 'not quite Pakistan', Shame stands as a terse, to the point, beautifully constructed tale that, as one reviewer on the back cover noted- it is becoming more timely by the day.
I've always liked Rushdie's style of writing, so getting into this one wasn't hard. I knew what to expect. If Rushdie does anything well, it's that he takes a dollop of magic realism flings it into an epic poem and something beautiful results. The tone, the word choice, just the plain style- the only way I can describe it is 'lyrical.' Shame (along with Midnight's Children) won the Booker Prize- and there's a reason why. Rushdie can write and does it well. But as with Midnight's Children, with Shame, if you have dollop of knowledge about the history of Pakistan, you'll get more out of it. But if you don't, then you'll be intrigued, horrified, entranced- in short, you'll experience pretty much everything. Which is what makes Rushdie so brilliant to me- his writing is, after a fashion, a tiny encapsulation of the human experience itself. He explores Pakistan, he explores what makes it tick, why it works, why it doesn't- and he explores the idea of shame itself- and how it can be a powerful thing, especially in a country that's 'not quite Pakistan.'
As always, I'd recommend it highly- but then, I'm biased. I like Rushdie, I like Amado, I like Vargas Llosa and Marquez. I got sucked into the Latin Americans and Rushdie just kind of came along with them. It's almost heresy to say it, but I am woefully deficient when it comes to American literature itself. I've been tortured, as have so many others by high school English classes and it left me with a bad taste in my mouth. I need to read Hemingway again (back in the day, he struck me as 'no big deal.' I think it's time for a refresher course.) I need to read more Steinbeck (East of Eden quite literally blew my mind. If you haven't read it, you should.) And yea, verily I might well re-read The Great Gatsby. Which I couldn't stand. Along with Catcher in the Rye (Holden Caulfield is a whiny little bitch whom I would happily slap silly were I too meet him in real life.)
Can I just add to the heresy by saying that I didn't see the point of On The Road, either? I mean, all honor and glory to Kerouac (I guess), but really? Is that all? I know it's supposed to be the experience of wild youth in the America of 1950. And I have seen the actual manuscript (all typed on one, long roll of paper- which I saw unrolled at the University of Iowa Museum of Art, one of the few, if only places were it was displayed fully unrolled)- that was very cool. But to me, On The Road was a disappointment- a road trip with jazz music, drugs and booze? It was well-written enough, but was there supposed to be a larger point? (This too, I need to re-read.)
Plus, if you think the most beautiful girls in the entire world come from Des Moines, you've been doing waaaaaaaaay too much mescaline.
Book number 2 is a beautiful, exquisite translation of The Ramayana which I found years ago and have spent years reading on and off- finally, I made a serious push to finish it. What I can comprehend about Hinduism and how it works can be inscribed on the head of a pin- but if you're Hindu, then Ramesh Menon has done you proud. This is a compulsively readable translation that draws you into the story and to the world Menon draws beautifully. It's an epic poem- the world's first epic poem, which is going to make it tough to translate into prose, but somehow, painstakingly with delicate care, Menon pulls it off. What results is incredible.
The story of Prince Rama and his wife Sita, exiled into the jungle, where the demon King Ravana steal Sita and Rama goes to war to get her back. Ravana, who can only be killed by a mortal man, think he's invulnerable. Rama, of course, makes war on him with an army- it's all very grandiose and epic and of course, in the end, good triumphs over evil. Then- and this is my only issue with The Ramayana- he treats his wife like crap and gets away with it! (Because you see, Sita, held captive by Ravana for all those years while the war is going on has probably slept with the Demon King. After all, Rama's war took awhile , so he can't trust her. Literally all the Gods in the Hindu pantheon come down and prove him wrong- but when they get home, the people are talking! So HE SENDS HER AWAY!!!!)
Then of course, they see each other one more time, when Rama magnanimously has her prove herself again in front of everyone. But this time, she says that she's innocent and promptly ascends into heaven, her purpose fulfilled. Sita's treatment and walking into fires of course provides the theological basis for the practice of sutee which was where widow's would fling themselves into funeral pyres of their husbands in order to die with them. So generally, I disapprove- and if you do sit down and read this, I can assure you it's a spiritual experience- you can't help but be moved- a little. If one can fault Menon for anything, it's the fact that you need a glossary to follow along with some of the more untranslatable terms. But, it's too his credit that he actually provides you with one.
All in all though, I can give two solid thumbs up to both of these books. The Ramayana is just beautiful to read and Shame, well, given what's going on in Pakistan and in that part of the world, Shame could become very timely indeed in the next couple of years. Pakistan will be a- if not the foreign policy challenge of this administration and the next one. A sliver of understanding, even if you come by it via fiction, can only be helpful.
I've always liked Rushdie's style of writing, so getting into this one wasn't hard. I knew what to expect. If Rushdie does anything well, it's that he takes a dollop of magic realism flings it into an epic poem and something beautiful results. The tone, the word choice, just the plain style- the only way I can describe it is 'lyrical.' Shame (along with Midnight's Children) won the Booker Prize- and there's a reason why. Rushdie can write and does it well. But as with Midnight's Children, with Shame, if you have dollop of knowledge about the history of Pakistan, you'll get more out of it. But if you don't, then you'll be intrigued, horrified, entranced- in short, you'll experience pretty much everything. Which is what makes Rushdie so brilliant to me- his writing is, after a fashion, a tiny encapsulation of the human experience itself. He explores Pakistan, he explores what makes it tick, why it works, why it doesn't- and he explores the idea of shame itself- and how it can be a powerful thing, especially in a country that's 'not quite Pakistan.'
As always, I'd recommend it highly- but then, I'm biased. I like Rushdie, I like Amado, I like Vargas Llosa and Marquez. I got sucked into the Latin Americans and Rushdie just kind of came along with them. It's almost heresy to say it, but I am woefully deficient when it comes to American literature itself. I've been tortured, as have so many others by high school English classes and it left me with a bad taste in my mouth. I need to read Hemingway again (back in the day, he struck me as 'no big deal.' I think it's time for a refresher course.) I need to read more Steinbeck (East of Eden quite literally blew my mind. If you haven't read it, you should.) And yea, verily I might well re-read The Great Gatsby. Which I couldn't stand. Along with Catcher in the Rye (Holden Caulfield is a whiny little bitch whom I would happily slap silly were I too meet him in real life.)
Can I just add to the heresy by saying that I didn't see the point of On The Road, either? I mean, all honor and glory to Kerouac (I guess), but really? Is that all? I know it's supposed to be the experience of wild youth in the America of 1950. And I have seen the actual manuscript (all typed on one, long roll of paper- which I saw unrolled at the University of Iowa Museum of Art, one of the few, if only places were it was displayed fully unrolled)- that was very cool. But to me, On The Road was a disappointment- a road trip with jazz music, drugs and booze? It was well-written enough, but was there supposed to be a larger point? (This too, I need to re-read.)
Plus, if you think the most beautiful girls in the entire world come from Des Moines, you've been doing waaaaaaaaay too much mescaline.
Book number 2 is a beautiful, exquisite translation of The Ramayana which I found years ago and have spent years reading on and off- finally, I made a serious push to finish it. What I can comprehend about Hinduism and how it works can be inscribed on the head of a pin- but if you're Hindu, then Ramesh Menon has done you proud. This is a compulsively readable translation that draws you into the story and to the world Menon draws beautifully. It's an epic poem- the world's first epic poem, which is going to make it tough to translate into prose, but somehow, painstakingly with delicate care, Menon pulls it off. What results is incredible.
The story of Prince Rama and his wife Sita, exiled into the jungle, where the demon King Ravana steal Sita and Rama goes to war to get her back. Ravana, who can only be killed by a mortal man, think he's invulnerable. Rama, of course, makes war on him with an army- it's all very grandiose and epic and of course, in the end, good triumphs over evil. Then- and this is my only issue with The Ramayana- he treats his wife like crap and gets away with it! (Because you see, Sita, held captive by Ravana for all those years while the war is going on has probably slept with the Demon King. After all, Rama's war took awhile , so he can't trust her. Literally all the Gods in the Hindu pantheon come down and prove him wrong- but when they get home, the people are talking! So HE SENDS HER AWAY!!!!)
Then of course, they see each other one more time, when Rama magnanimously has her prove herself again in front of everyone. But this time, she says that she's innocent and promptly ascends into heaven, her purpose fulfilled. Sita's treatment and walking into fires of course provides the theological basis for the practice of sutee which was where widow's would fling themselves into funeral pyres of their husbands in order to die with them. So generally, I disapprove- and if you do sit down and read this, I can assure you it's a spiritual experience- you can't help but be moved- a little. If one can fault Menon for anything, it's the fact that you need a glossary to follow along with some of the more untranslatable terms. But, it's too his credit that he actually provides you with one.
All in all though, I can give two solid thumbs up to both of these books. The Ramayana is just beautiful to read and Shame, well, given what's going on in Pakistan and in that part of the world, Shame could become very timely indeed in the next couple of years. Pakistan will be a- if not the foreign policy challenge of this administration and the next one. A sliver of understanding, even if you come by it via fiction, can only be helpful.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Something Sensible
I'm surprised. The Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission has done something sensible. Having been a resident of Iowa City on and off for the majority of my life I can tell you that it is a rare occasion indeed when our moribund and frankly useless city government does something that makes sense.
So, I'm pleasantly surprised. The P and Z has decreed that any new bars downtown have be 500 feet apart and any new liquor stores have to be 1,000 feet apart. The general idea of this is to break up the density of the bars and liquor stores downtown and maybe let some actual businesses get some breathing room downtown. What practical effect it will have in the short term is probably minimal, however, in the long term, if we can get the right types of businesses downtown it might have a big effect.
It may not do much in the short term, but taking on the problems of downtown Iowa City is a herculean task at best. Sensible, practical baby steps are something I can get behind.
So, I'm pleasantly surprised. The P and Z has decreed that any new bars downtown have be 500 feet apart and any new liquor stores have to be 1,000 feet apart. The general idea of this is to break up the density of the bars and liquor stores downtown and maybe let some actual businesses get some breathing room downtown. What practical effect it will have in the short term is probably minimal, however, in the long term, if we can get the right types of businesses downtown it might have a big effect.
It may not do much in the short term, but taking on the problems of downtown Iowa City is a herculean task at best. Sensible, practical baby steps are something I can get behind.
Susan Boyle
So there was some buzz around the name of 'Susan Boyle' in the past few days. She was being billed as 'an internet sensation' and 'the next big thing' and so on and so forth. Being bored and at a loose end this Friday morning, I looked up the video on YouTube and watched it.
If you are having a crappy day, go watch this. If you just want to see one of the best moments on Reality Television EVER, go watch this. In general, if you just want your socks knocked off, go watch this: Here.
There are some people saying she's not that big of a deal. I would disagree- but don't want to spoil anything. Just go watch the video.
If you are having a crappy day, go watch this. If you just want to see one of the best moments on Reality Television EVER, go watch this. In general, if you just want your socks knocked off, go watch this: Here.
There are some people saying she's not that big of a deal. I would disagree- but don't want to spoil anything. Just go watch the video.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Red Dawn All Over Again
What's wrong with Hollywood these days? They're remaking Red Dawn and this time, China is going to invade us.
Yes, that's right, China. There's a review of the script here, if you care- which I don't. Plus, honestly, unless this is a futuristic sci-fi movie, it just doesn't make sense!
China is going to invade us? For real? Right now, China is making too much money off us to want to invade us and right now it doesn't have the naval capability to invade Taiwan, much less project power across the Pacific to invade us. Even with the help of the Russians it just couldn't be done. Plus, the nature of warfare has changed completely. States don't invade each other anymore- a more likely scenario would be the collapse of the United States itself. That would be more realistic- you could make it futuristic/sci-fi and it would actually be plausible.
Yes, that's right, China. There's a review of the script here, if you care- which I don't. Plus, honestly, unless this is a futuristic sci-fi movie, it just doesn't make sense!
China is going to invade us? For real? Right now, China is making too much money off us to want to invade us and right now it doesn't have the naval capability to invade Taiwan, much less project power across the Pacific to invade us. Even with the help of the Russians it just couldn't be done. Plus, the nature of warfare has changed completely. States don't invade each other anymore- a more likely scenario would be the collapse of the United States itself. That would be more realistic- you could make it futuristic/sci-fi and it would actually be plausible.
Sir Clement Freud: 1925-2009
British Broadcaster, Politician and Comedian Sir Clement Freud has died at the age of 84. My Mother was very surprised that he was just 84, because she remembers him looking old when she was young and growing up back in the UK. I remember Sir Clement because of my Grandmother's love for BBC quiz/comedy radio shows, namely 'Just A Minute.'
Basically, the point of 'Just A Minute' was to speak on a subject for one minute without hesitation, deviation or repetition. The other players had buzzers and could challenge you on any one of these points whenever they liked- a successful challenge would win them the subject and, of course, a point. Sir Clement was a top-notch player of the game, who could also be extremely funny in a very understated way.
All in all: very cool, funny guy- in a very British type of way. He will be missed.
Basically, the point of 'Just A Minute' was to speak on a subject for one minute without hesitation, deviation or repetition. The other players had buzzers and could challenge you on any one of these points whenever they liked- a successful challenge would win them the subject and, of course, a point. Sir Clement was a top-notch player of the game, who could also be extremely funny in a very understated way.
All in all: very cool, funny guy- in a very British type of way. He will be missed.
Democracy's Dance '09: Phase One
Phase One of voting has come and gone in the 2009 Indian Elections- here's a round-up of coverage:
The opening round of the poll was marred by attacked by Maoist guerillas that killed 17.
Varun Gandhi was released from jail.
Coverage of the Supreme Court decision releasing Varun Gandhi from jail.
Here's a general round-up from the BBC.
...a profile of Mayawati, head of the BSP (a caste-based party) and Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, who has real ambitions to be Prime Minister. Whether she'll do it this time is an open question- though estimates have her BSP doubling their seat tallies in the Lok Sabha this election, but either way, she's going to be a factor in these elections.
If you want more, check Times of India and the BBC.
The opening round of the poll was marred by attacked by Maoist guerillas that killed 17.
Varun Gandhi was released from jail.
Coverage of the Supreme Court decision releasing Varun Gandhi from jail.
Here's a general round-up from the BBC.
...a profile of Mayawati, head of the BSP (a caste-based party) and Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, who has real ambitions to be Prime Minister. Whether she'll do it this time is an open question- though estimates have her BSP doubling their seat tallies in the Lok Sabha this election, but either way, she's going to be a factor in these elections.
If you want more, check Times of India and the BBC.
FINALLY!
I've been waiting for this news story to come along for months now! Finally, some public discussion of the future of the University of Iowa Museum of Art!
Cup O'Tea!
Yesterday was Tax Day and if you were driving down Burlington St. around lunch time, you would have seen Iowa City's edition of what was a nationwide phenomenon of anti-tax 'Tea Parties.' Instapundit has a great round-up of the nationwide protests with estimated crowds of anywhere from a few hundred to 10-15,000... left-wing blogs ranging from Huffington Post to Talking Points Memo have taken up the meme that these protests are corporate sponsored 'tea bags', referring to the protesters, of course, as 'tea-baggers.'
This a shot (courtesy of the P-C) of the turnout in Iowa City:
To be honest, prior to yesterday I was somewhat neutral about this phenomenon. I liked the fact that it seemed to be fairly non-partisan (albeit right leaning.) People just seemed pissed off at the Government in general- which I could get behind, despite the fact I disapprove of populism in general. However, having seen the turnout yesterday here in Iowa City, I am now convinced that this is something that any politician ignores at their own peril.
Iowa City is the solid blue core of the state of Iowa- the words 'socialist paradise' would not be that far off the mark when it comes to I.C.- and if in this den of Democratic feeling you can get 300 people to turn out for one of these 'tea parties' then there's some real heft and anger behind them- and it doesn't come with corporate sponsorship either.
If I was President Obama right now, I'd do two things:
1. Abolish the payroll tax- or at least institute a payroll tax holiday (abolish it for one year and phase it back in 25% at a time over the course of the next four years.) Doing this would put more money directly into the hands of Americans right now. This would be solid economic stimulus, giving consumers more to spend- and it's good politics, but someday (who knows when, but someday) the Republicans will get their shit together and they'll lead with something like this- and if Democrats get their first, they'll score a solid take away from the Republicans and look good doing so.
2. Tax reform- having discovered the joys of having other people do my taxes, I am now convinced that the first President that can hold up one 8.5x11 sheet of paper and say, 'this is what we all get to use to file taxes' will be re-elected- if he can produce something smaller than that for everyone, he'll be re-elected in a landslide. The appetite is there and again, it's smart politics for Democrats. Taps into something people want badly (especially around April) and takes the Republicans out at the knees doing so, while pouring some salve on the very real anger that's out there.
But who am I kidding? Since when are the Democrats (or the Republicans for that matter) about playing smart politics?
This a shot (courtesy of the P-C) of the turnout in Iowa City:
To be honest, prior to yesterday I was somewhat neutral about this phenomenon. I liked the fact that it seemed to be fairly non-partisan (albeit right leaning.) People just seemed pissed off at the Government in general- which I could get behind, despite the fact I disapprove of populism in general. However, having seen the turnout yesterday here in Iowa City, I am now convinced that this is something that any politician ignores at their own peril.
Iowa City is the solid blue core of the state of Iowa- the words 'socialist paradise' would not be that far off the mark when it comes to I.C.- and if in this den of Democratic feeling you can get 300 people to turn out for one of these 'tea parties' then there's some real heft and anger behind them- and it doesn't come with corporate sponsorship either.
If I was President Obama right now, I'd do two things:
1. Abolish the payroll tax- or at least institute a payroll tax holiday (abolish it for one year and phase it back in 25% at a time over the course of the next four years.) Doing this would put more money directly into the hands of Americans right now. This would be solid economic stimulus, giving consumers more to spend- and it's good politics, but someday (who knows when, but someday) the Republicans will get their shit together and they'll lead with something like this- and if Democrats get their first, they'll score a solid take away from the Republicans and look good doing so.
2. Tax reform- having discovered the joys of having other people do my taxes, I am now convinced that the first President that can hold up one 8.5x11 sheet of paper and say, 'this is what we all get to use to file taxes' will be re-elected- if he can produce something smaller than that for everyone, he'll be re-elected in a landslide. The appetite is there and again, it's smart politics for Democrats. Taps into something people want badly (especially around April) and takes the Republicans out at the knees doing so, while pouring some salve on the very real anger that's out there.
But who am I kidding? Since when are the Democrats (or the Republicans for that matter) about playing smart politics?
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
On Cover Songs...
Normally, I disapprove of both remakes of movies (Stallone's festering turd of a remake of 'Get Carter', 'The Italian Job', et. al.) and also cover songs as well. (Sheryl Crow doing 'Sweet Child of Mine', The Counting Crows butchering Joni Mitchell's 'Big Yellow Taxi.') But I heard this on the radio and it kind of blew my mind:
Fans of George Michael and Wham! might find this to be the most evil, festering turd of a song they've ever heard. But strangely, this works on all levels for me. And it does what to me, a cover song is supposed to do- namely take the original great song and make it greater. Every band and artist alive indulges in the occasional cover song, but Seether scores a solid win with this one.
Fans of George Michael and Wham! might find this to be the most evil, festering turd of a song they've ever heard. But strangely, this works on all levels for me. And it does what to me, a cover song is supposed to do- namely take the original great song and make it greater. Every band and artist alive indulges in the occasional cover song, but Seether scores a solid win with this one.
The End. (Really, Really)
Just in case you've forgotten, Minnesota is still down a Senator- but not for long! A Minnesota Court has ruled that Franken got more votes, Coleman is going to appeal but the end, I think is pretty much nigh. Won't be long now.
Methinks They Doth Protest...
...too much! I think awhile back, I posted something from the CS Monitor about states passing sovereignty resolutions telling the Federal Government to back out- now Drudge is getting into the game with this. And I'd be fine with if it, if it didn't reek of bullshit. Texas is getting into the game now, decrying the 'intrusive and oppressive Federal government.'
Could I just point out the irony of Conservative, Republican Governors in states like Texas decrying the oppressive nature of the Federal Government while simultaneously wanting to shrink it down to a size that can fit into the closets of every American out there? I'd like both sides to get the heck out of my life- and the fact that these sovereignty resolutions are decrying this while simultaneously attacking individual rights on things like abortion, gay marriage, etc.
I call bullshit.
Could I just point out the irony of Conservative, Republican Governors in states like Texas decrying the oppressive nature of the Federal Government while simultaneously wanting to shrink it down to a size that can fit into the closets of every American out there? I'd like both sides to get the heck out of my life- and the fact that these sovereignty resolutions are decrying this while simultaneously attacking individual rights on things like abortion, gay marriage, etc.
I call bullshit.
Democracy's Dance '09: Pre-Game Round-Up
Preview!: This looks like a fairly comprehensive preview if you want to know what's what and who's who... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/india-the-worlds-most-remarkable-election-1667541.html
U.S. Implications: Obama's off to a bad start in regards to South Asia, via Instapundit. http://newledger.com/2009/04/obamas-india-pakistan-mess/
David v Goliath: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7989395.stm From the Beeb, a piece on the woman running to unseat BJP Opposition Leader and Prime Ministerial Front Runner LK Advani.
Family Feud: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103070161 From NPR this very morning, a piece you can listen to about the family feud brewing within the Nehru-Gandhi Dynasty- well, not exactly brewing, as it's been running for about twenty-five, thirty years now. But basically, Varun Gandhi (cousin to Rahul, Priyanka, nephew to Sonia and a big fan/candidate in the opposition BJP) gave an inflammatory speech full of pro-Hindu and anti-Muslim sentiments that got him thrown in prison. The Supreme Court of India is set to decide whether or not he can get out. (Pro-Hindu, Anti-Muslim speeches being bad news in the India- the state tends to frown on people who try and whip up communal violence.)
More On That: (Hate speeches/whipping up communal violence, not the Gandhi family) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Hate-speech-BJPs-candidate-from-Kandhamal-held/articleshow/4399948.cms?TOI_latestnews
Third Option?: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/No-personal-ambition-to-be-PM-Jayalalithaa/articleshow/4399577.cms?TOI_latestnews AIDMAK Party leader from Tamil Nadu claims she has 'no ambitions to be Prime Minister' but depending on how the election shakes out, her party could be a key player in any attempts to form a coalition.
Ain't Nothing But A Family Thing: Let's see here, um... I think this would be the fifth generation of Gandhis to hit the campaign trail? Proving that apparently, you can never start too early. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Early-start-Gandhi-Gen-Five-hits-the-campaign-trail/articleshow/4398205.cms
And finally: You know you have a vibrant, insanely complex democratic system when this happens.
This I think wins the award for Best Week EVER! Which I just made up and will be awarding once a week for the next month... I mean, you gotta love this guy. He's running around, campaigning like crazy for the BJP and goes to the wrong election rally. Where he starts to denounce the Congress-led government to, of course, Congress supporters!
Oops.
U.S. Implications: Obama's off to a bad start in regards to South Asia, via Instapundit. http://newledger.com/2009/04/obamas-india-pakistan-mess/
David v Goliath: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7989395.stm From the Beeb, a piece on the woman running to unseat BJP Opposition Leader and Prime Ministerial Front Runner LK Advani.
Family Feud: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103070161 From NPR this very morning, a piece you can listen to about the family feud brewing within the Nehru-Gandhi Dynasty- well, not exactly brewing, as it's been running for about twenty-five, thirty years now. But basically, Varun Gandhi (cousin to Rahul, Priyanka, nephew to Sonia and a big fan/candidate in the opposition BJP) gave an inflammatory speech full of pro-Hindu and anti-Muslim sentiments that got him thrown in prison. The Supreme Court of India is set to decide whether or not he can get out. (Pro-Hindu, Anti-Muslim speeches being bad news in the India- the state tends to frown on people who try and whip up communal violence.)
More On That: (Hate speeches/whipping up communal violence, not the Gandhi family) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Hate-speech-BJPs-candidate-from-Kandhamal-held/articleshow/4399948.cms?TOI_latestnews
Third Option?: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/No-personal-ambition-to-be-PM-Jayalalithaa/articleshow/4399577.cms?TOI_latestnews AIDMAK Party leader from Tamil Nadu claims she has 'no ambitions to be Prime Minister' but depending on how the election shakes out, her party could be a key player in any attempts to form a coalition.
Ain't Nothing But A Family Thing: Let's see here, um... I think this would be the fifth generation of Gandhis to hit the campaign trail? Proving that apparently, you can never start too early. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Early-start-Gandhi-Gen-Five-hits-the-campaign-trail/articleshow/4398205.cms
And finally: You know you have a vibrant, insanely complex democratic system when this happens.
This I think wins the award for Best Week EVER! Which I just made up and will be awarding once a week for the next month... I mean, you gotta love this guy. He's running around, campaigning like crazy for the BJP and goes to the wrong election rally. Where he starts to denounce the Congress-led government to, of course, Congress supporters!
Oops.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Seals 1, Pirates 0
Captain Richard Phillips- the American held hostage by Somali Pirates has been freed after a daring rescue by Navy SEALS.
Happy Easter!
Hope everyone had a very Happy Easter!
This gigantic five pound muffin lookin' thing is actually, really and truly 4.5 pounds or so... it's actually a Russian Easter Bread called something incomprehensible but very tasty. Even though fifteen minutes or so after this picture was taken, Mom started slicing it and started cussing a blue streak because it hadn't cooked all the way through.
But it still played a central role in the parents' annual Easter Brunch with goodies and scrumptious food galore.
This gigantic five pound muffin lookin' thing is actually, really and truly 4.5 pounds or so... it's actually a Russian Easter Bread called something incomprehensible but very tasty. Even though fifteen minutes or so after this picture was taken, Mom started slicing it and started cussing a blue streak because it hadn't cooked all the way through.
But it still played a central role in the parents' annual Easter Brunch with goodies and scrumptious food galore.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Beaver Miracle Ends
This was an incredible achievement, but sadly, Bemidji State's run in the NCAA Division I Hockey Tournament ended last night at the hands of Miami of Ohio, 4-1. The Beavers made a dream run to the 'Frozen Four'- starting out at the number 16 seed in a 16 team tournament!
Congrats to Bemidji State though- an incredible run!
Congrats to Bemidji State though- an incredible run!
OMG!
So, there's a case in Wyoming of a 13 year old girl that sent 20,000 text messages in one month.
I'm not sure whether that's impressive or sad. Certainly it's symptomatic of a generation that's going to be criminally deficient when it comes to basic spelling and grammar- not to mention over-reliance on technology. I'm not a Luddite by any stretch of the imagination, but can't you just call your friends on the phone? Or wait by their lockers during passing time?
Well, there's a kicker though (and this is the good part): the phone plan this girl was on? It didn't cover texting.
The bill: 5 grand.
The phone: Smashed, courtesy of Dad's hammer.
The girl: Grounded!
I'm not sure whether that's impressive or sad. Certainly it's symptomatic of a generation that's going to be criminally deficient when it comes to basic spelling and grammar- not to mention over-reliance on technology. I'm not a Luddite by any stretch of the imagination, but can't you just call your friends on the phone? Or wait by their lockers during passing time?
Well, there's a kicker though (and this is the good part): the phone plan this girl was on? It didn't cover texting.
The bill: 5 grand.
The phone: Smashed, courtesy of Dad's hammer.
The girl: Grounded!
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Saddle Up!
I'm becoming annoyed. I know that traditionally speaking, political conservatives are resistance to change, preferring piecemeal approaches to radical shifts in thinking. Broadly speaking, it's been that way since Edmund Burke, but what's unfolding in Iowa in reaction to Varnum is becoming something entirely different.
Maybe I'm overly optimistic. Last Friday was incredible to me- just watching status update after status update on Facebook was awesome. Everyone was happy, everyone was thrilled. I suppose, in hindsight, it wasn't going to last. Maybe I'm completely wrong- and maybe that there is an inherent conservatism in Iowa that's going to snap back into effect because 'people won't stand for this kind of thing.'
But to me, the tone, the rhetoric, the increasingly hateful opposition to the Court's decision is becoming frankly un-conservative and frankly distasteful. 'All Men Are Created Equal' is a founding principle of the United States- it's a basic freedom that Americans believe in that's lit the world for two centuries. The idea that in this country, everyone is equal under the eyes of the law is something that Americans have fought for, bled for, died for- it's been an inspiration to people struggling around the world for freedom- and it's one that's under attack by the very people who claim to cherish 'America' and 'the Founding Fathers.'
This principle doesn't require our approval, it doesn't require that we like it, but to me, it does require our fidelity. No one is asking anyone to approve or disapprove of anything- just to stand by the notion that we're all equal under the law. The fact that opponents of gay marriage seem to think that we have a right to vote on things like this disturbs me. We're a Republic, not a Democracy and we don't ask for a show of hands on things like this. It took Brown v. Board to take down segregation- imagine what would have happened if we would have taken a vote. Where would America be today? People may object to drawing parallels between the Civil Rights Movement and the Marriage Equality Movement, but it's the same basic idea: people didn't like the idea of segregation. In fact, they fought tooth and nail against it- but it happened, precisely because people put their faith in the courts to dispense impartial justice.
Anyone who's actually taken the time read Varnum would see that this is not judicial activism. This isn't reaching for or making precedent up out of thin air. This isn't judicial tyranny. We are all equal under the law. That's in the Constitution- and the traditional strict-constructionist view point, so beloved by many Conservatives in this country, means that the equal protection clause has to mean exactly what it says. It is, after all, right their in the State Constitution. And sometimes, when Constitutional principles clash with deeply held beliefs we have to do what's right: and hold fast to the Constitution. After all, there's the old maxim: 'what is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right.'
This is a perfect example of that if I've ever seen one.
Opposition to gay marriage and Varnum has, so far, no basis in fact and no Constitutional or legal basis whatsoever that I've seen. It's been one week and I still have a wedding ring on. I still love my wife. My family still loves each other and is talking to each other. Where is the apocalyptic collapse of traditional values that was forecast? I still have yet to see one fact that supports the idea that gay marriage will hurt 'traditional marriage.' Until I see some opposition with basis in fact, Constitutional, legal or statistical, I'm going to call this what this is: opponents have a problem with gay and lesbian people. And making laws or Constitutional amendments based on the fact that you don't like a certain group of people is beyond the pale.
So stand up for the Constitution! Stand up for equality! Saddle Up! Because I've read Varnum, it's a well-crafted, fair and balanced ruling and there's nothing wrong with it. And I'm going to fight for it.
You should too: http://www.oneiowa.org
Maybe I'm overly optimistic. Last Friday was incredible to me- just watching status update after status update on Facebook was awesome. Everyone was happy, everyone was thrilled. I suppose, in hindsight, it wasn't going to last. Maybe I'm completely wrong- and maybe that there is an inherent conservatism in Iowa that's going to snap back into effect because 'people won't stand for this kind of thing.'
But to me, the tone, the rhetoric, the increasingly hateful opposition to the Court's decision is becoming frankly un-conservative and frankly distasteful. 'All Men Are Created Equal' is a founding principle of the United States- it's a basic freedom that Americans believe in that's lit the world for two centuries. The idea that in this country, everyone is equal under the eyes of the law is something that Americans have fought for, bled for, died for- it's been an inspiration to people struggling around the world for freedom- and it's one that's under attack by the very people who claim to cherish 'America' and 'the Founding Fathers.'
This principle doesn't require our approval, it doesn't require that we like it, but to me, it does require our fidelity. No one is asking anyone to approve or disapprove of anything- just to stand by the notion that we're all equal under the law. The fact that opponents of gay marriage seem to think that we have a right to vote on things like this disturbs me. We're a Republic, not a Democracy and we don't ask for a show of hands on things like this. It took Brown v. Board to take down segregation- imagine what would have happened if we would have taken a vote. Where would America be today? People may object to drawing parallels between the Civil Rights Movement and the Marriage Equality Movement, but it's the same basic idea: people didn't like the idea of segregation. In fact, they fought tooth and nail against it- but it happened, precisely because people put their faith in the courts to dispense impartial justice.
Anyone who's actually taken the time read Varnum would see that this is not judicial activism. This isn't reaching for or making precedent up out of thin air. This isn't judicial tyranny. We are all equal under the law. That's in the Constitution- and the traditional strict-constructionist view point, so beloved by many Conservatives in this country, means that the equal protection clause has to mean exactly what it says. It is, after all, right their in the State Constitution. And sometimes, when Constitutional principles clash with deeply held beliefs we have to do what's right: and hold fast to the Constitution. After all, there's the old maxim: 'what is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right.'
This is a perfect example of that if I've ever seen one.
Opposition to gay marriage and Varnum has, so far, no basis in fact and no Constitutional or legal basis whatsoever that I've seen. It's been one week and I still have a wedding ring on. I still love my wife. My family still loves each other and is talking to each other. Where is the apocalyptic collapse of traditional values that was forecast? I still have yet to see one fact that supports the idea that gay marriage will hurt 'traditional marriage.' Until I see some opposition with basis in fact, Constitutional, legal or statistical, I'm going to call this what this is: opponents have a problem with gay and lesbian people. And making laws or Constitutional amendments based on the fact that you don't like a certain group of people is beyond the pale.
So stand up for the Constitution! Stand up for equality! Saddle Up! Because I've read Varnum, it's a well-crafted, fair and balanced ruling and there's nothing wrong with it. And I'm going to fight for it.
You should too: http://www.oneiowa.org
Democracy's Dance '09: Why India Matters
We're about a week away from the start of India's elections. It's going to be a month-long process of competing for 543 seats in India's Parliament, the Lok Sabha- scattered across 35 states and territories, most of whom far outstrip California in terms of population alone. It takes 6.1 million police and civil personnel to get it done- there are 828,804 polling stations and 1,368,430 electronic voting machines-- and here's the kicker: 1,055 political parties. (Stats from the BBC)
It terms of a simple exercise in basic political freedom, its inspirational. The fact that a country this big has such a vibrant- some would say chaotic political system is incredible and to me, in a shining example of the sheer possibilities of human potential. More than that though, it's India itself that matters. Being a political science major, you take class after class where you hear predictions and prognostications about which country will claim the mantle of 'new superpower' in the 21st Century. Conventional wisdom in Political Science likes to say China- and by and large, apart from the few theorists that predict the collapse of China, just to be contrary, that's where the betting money is.
I, on the other hand, have been anything but conventional during my journey through political science. I don't put all my money on China rising to the position of the new superpower- and I'll tell you why: yes, China will be incredibly important in the next century, but any predictions are predictions with a * attached to them. China's economic growth is explosive, but anything less than 8% annual growth is considered a slow year for them currently. My question is this: what happens when China experiences negative growth? The entire justification for the continued rule of the Communist Party is continued economic growth- the real test for China is what happens when their economy doesn't grow. If they can come through that unscathed, then they might well be the real deal.
But until they pass that test, my money is on India. India is being quietly and continually overlooked in the tiresome debate about who could possibly rise to be the next superpower- and I put more faith in India than China exactly because any economic or political reforms have to be put through the democratic process, messy and chaotic as it is in India. That to me, means that the process of negotiation and compromise makes their reforms more likely to gain wide acceptance across the political spectrum and thus have a longer shelf life.
Maybe that's crap, but to me China has a big test that it's yet to pass, but India can keep slowly but surely striding forward towards economic prosperity and increasing political power. I'm hoping too, that there's a shift coming in American policy-making towards South Asia. Since 1948, the United States has been pro-Pakistan and less than friendly towards India. Historically speaking, it was Nehru's founding of the Non-Aligned Movement at the Bandung Conference that lead to the split more than anything else. The United States viewed the NAM as being pro-communist and held India at arm's length throughout the Cold War.
That needs to change. India will be incredibly important throughout the next century, which is why I want to spend the next month dissecting the 2009 Elections, figuring out who's who, what's what and just how The Greatest Show on Earth works.
Stay tuned.
It terms of a simple exercise in basic political freedom, its inspirational. The fact that a country this big has such a vibrant- some would say chaotic political system is incredible and to me, in a shining example of the sheer possibilities of human potential. More than that though, it's India itself that matters. Being a political science major, you take class after class where you hear predictions and prognostications about which country will claim the mantle of 'new superpower' in the 21st Century. Conventional wisdom in Political Science likes to say China- and by and large, apart from the few theorists that predict the collapse of China, just to be contrary, that's where the betting money is.
I, on the other hand, have been anything but conventional during my journey through political science. I don't put all my money on China rising to the position of the new superpower- and I'll tell you why: yes, China will be incredibly important in the next century, but any predictions are predictions with a * attached to them. China's economic growth is explosive, but anything less than 8% annual growth is considered a slow year for them currently. My question is this: what happens when China experiences negative growth? The entire justification for the continued rule of the Communist Party is continued economic growth- the real test for China is what happens when their economy doesn't grow. If they can come through that unscathed, then they might well be the real deal.
But until they pass that test, my money is on India. India is being quietly and continually overlooked in the tiresome debate about who could possibly rise to be the next superpower- and I put more faith in India than China exactly because any economic or political reforms have to be put through the democratic process, messy and chaotic as it is in India. That to me, means that the process of negotiation and compromise makes their reforms more likely to gain wide acceptance across the political spectrum and thus have a longer shelf life.
Maybe that's crap, but to me China has a big test that it's yet to pass, but India can keep slowly but surely striding forward towards economic prosperity and increasing political power. I'm hoping too, that there's a shift coming in American policy-making towards South Asia. Since 1948, the United States has been pro-Pakistan and less than friendly towards India. Historically speaking, it was Nehru's founding of the Non-Aligned Movement at the Bandung Conference that lead to the split more than anything else. The United States viewed the NAM as being pro-communist and held India at arm's length throughout the Cold War.
That needs to change. India will be incredibly important throughout the next century, which is why I want to spend the next month dissecting the 2009 Elections, figuring out who's who, what's what and just how The Greatest Show on Earth works.
Stay tuned.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Varnum Reaction
So far, reaction is shaking out on the internet in two ways:
First, there's this. Just perfect.
Second, there's this. I don't get this. I really don't- watch the ad and it's like those people are from Mars or something. No one- and I do mean no one that I've seen has been able to elucidate one concrete legal reason to deny gay couples marriage equality. Of the ad, there's only one back-handed reference to something I disapprove of: there was a case in MA where Catholic Charities was sued because they refused (for religious reasons) to grant gay and lesbian couples the right to adopt.
I think that the state can't make laws denying gay couples the right to adopt. But private social services organizations set their own rules and their own standards and Catholic Charities would be considered a private, religious social service organization. Attempting to force them to do something that contravenes their religious beliefs is exactly what marriage equality proponents are fighting against! Anti-gay marriage people want to force their beliefs on everyone and yet proponents do stuff like this is MA. It undercuts their argument. If a state passes a law that bans gay adoptions, then yes, sue away. But if gay marriage opponents don't have the right to force their beliefs on anyone, then the obverse is true as well.
Plus, Catholic Charities has since stopped adoptions in MA. Incalculable damage done because of a lawsuit and wanting people to adhere to a narrow set of beliefs.
That's where I get off the bus. But broadly speaking, it's been almost a week now and I'm neither afraid nor seen any storm clouds on the horizon. And... yep, wedding ring is still on my finger. Again, if gay marriage opponents want me to take them seriously, then I need concrete, factual proof that gay marriage is going to hurt my marriage and my family. So far, it's done neither.
First, there's this. Just perfect.
Second, there's this. I don't get this. I really don't- watch the ad and it's like those people are from Mars or something. No one- and I do mean no one that I've seen has been able to elucidate one concrete legal reason to deny gay couples marriage equality. Of the ad, there's only one back-handed reference to something I disapprove of: there was a case in MA where Catholic Charities was sued because they refused (for religious reasons) to grant gay and lesbian couples the right to adopt.
I think that the state can't make laws denying gay couples the right to adopt. But private social services organizations set their own rules and their own standards and Catholic Charities would be considered a private, religious social service organization. Attempting to force them to do something that contravenes their religious beliefs is exactly what marriage equality proponents are fighting against! Anti-gay marriage people want to force their beliefs on everyone and yet proponents do stuff like this is MA. It undercuts their argument. If a state passes a law that bans gay adoptions, then yes, sue away. But if gay marriage opponents don't have the right to force their beliefs on anyone, then the obverse is true as well.
Plus, Catholic Charities has since stopped adoptions in MA. Incalculable damage done because of a lawsuit and wanting people to adhere to a narrow set of beliefs.
That's where I get off the bus. But broadly speaking, it's been almost a week now and I'm neither afraid nor seen any storm clouds on the horizon. And... yep, wedding ring is still on my finger. Again, if gay marriage opponents want me to take them seriously, then I need concrete, factual proof that gay marriage is going to hurt my marriage and my family. So far, it's done neither.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Love In Cyberspace
This has been around for a bit, but it's a kind of fascinating story, so I thought I'd link in. Basically, law blogger (and blogger in general) Ann Althouse is now engaged to one of the commentators on her site. They started talking in the wilds of cyberspace, one thing lead to another and now they're getting hitched.
It's a pretty cool story.
It's a pretty cool story.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Varnum v. Brien: An Analysis
Yep. I did it. I did it because I'm a huge poli-sci dork and I also did it because I'm tired of being told what's what with regards to any given issue. Gay marriage is an incredibly controversial issue in America today and I was tired of having it thrust through filter after filter and subjected to agenda after agenda. I wanted to find out for myself. Not enough people want to see for themselves in America today- they just blindly trust what people tell them. That should stop.
So I found a place to download the entire Varnum v. Brien decision and I printed it off (using up a fair amount of my mother's toner in the process) and over the weekend, I read it. So that you, all two of my readers don't have too. I'm approaching this analysis from two solid points of view:
1. I'm not a lawyer. If you want someone to parse the legalese, get your own lawyer. Just beware, they bill out at about $200 an hour. I do this for free.
2. I'm approaching this from a strictly legal point of view. I understand that many objections to gay marriage are religious in nature, but from the point of view of this analysis, they are, to me, irrelevant. I want to look solely at the law and the constitution of the state of Iowa. We can parse the Bible and religious objections until we're all blue in the face- and I want to take apart what the court says- and only that.
Right- now that's out of the way, let's get on with it:
To me, this wasn't a reach for the Supreme Court- plain and simple, the statute on the books that limited marriage to one man and one woman was an equal protection violation and thus, the plaintiffs were entitled to equal and free access to the institution of marriage. The County (in this case Polk County) failed to make a single significant argument stating why exactly same-sex couples should be denied access to the institution of marriage.
From the outset, the Court goes out of its way to acknowledge the fact that the plaintiffs are essentially just like ordinary Iowans, save for one small difference: they're attracted to members of the same sex. The list the occupations of all of the plaintiffs and they have everyday jobs just like all of us. These are not 'special people' in the eyes of the Court- merely ordinary Iowans, entitled to the protection of the law just like everyone else.
The plaintiffs provided a concrete record of the disadvantages they faced due to their lack of access to the institution of Civil Marriage- and the County offered up a fairly weak rebuttal that the statute in question limited marriage to one man and one woman because of the 'harm to the institution of marriage' and the 'harm to children raised by same sex couples.' Their evidence was weak at best- and the plaintiffs rebuffed this line of argument easily.
The court then takes the time to define it's role in the case. This I like, because the tone to me that was taken is one of pragmatic moderation:
This is beautiful because to me, this is the EXACT role of the courts. In a nutshell. And moreover:
In other words, they want to be as objective as possible and stay above the 'fray' attached to this issue- they say it from the outset and they stick to it like glue. The traditional shriek that we normally hear when decisions like this are handed down is that cry of 'judicial activism.' And that the people 'should be allowed to vote.' Implicitly and explicitly the court rejects both of those notions- implicitly, because it acknowledges that the Constitution belongs ultimately to the people- and makes a nod to the fact that the role of the Courts is to ultimately uphold the supremacy of the Constitution and protect our republican form of government. We may vote, but we tend to forget that we are in fact, not a democracy. We're a Republic. We don't ask for a show of hands, because if we did, we might still have things like segregation and a restricted franchise.
Explicitly, however, they take what to me is a moderate stance on 'activism.' It's not their job to change things, but they acknowledge explicitly that the Constitution does shift over time and that the people retain the ultimate right to do that:
And moreover, the State Supreme Court has a long historical tradition of upholding equal protection to draw on. This not only was an easy decision for them, they've got precedent to back it up. I never knew this, but reading this was an education- it blew my mind and made me incredibly proud to be Iowan- all over again: In 1839- before Iowa was even a state, they upheld the rights of a slave and refused to treat people as property. In 1868 and 1873 they ruled against segregation- before Dred Scott and long before Brown vs. Board. We were also the first state in the Union to admit a woman to the practice of law in 1869- 3 years before the US Supreme Court upheld Illinois' decision to bar women from law. There is a wealth of precedent and tradition on their side: absolute equality for all people under the law.
This was so easy for them.
At this point, they plunge into legalese. When dealing with equal protection questions, the court has to decide what level of scrutiny that the given class of persons is subject too. In other words, equal protection violations exist because a group of people is subject to a different standard under the law-- but legally (and this is where it gets fuzzy for me) I believe that they have to determine whether that particular group of people is subject to a higher level of scrutiny because they are suspect for discrimination and unequal treatment. (If anyone reading this is a lawyer, please correct me. I'm almost sure I got that wrong.)
Anyway, they ramble on through that for about twenty pages or so and it's boring. Massively, massively boring- and I didn't understand a lot of it. But it picks up towards the end-- where, little by little, the Supreme Court knocks down any case that Polk County might have had.
One line of argument that made me grin a little was the notion that the statute in question didn't explicitly deny marriage to gay and lesbian couples. They could, it was apparently argued still get married- just to members of the opposite sex. That, the Court said in a firm rebuff was no right at all.
Then there was the whole 'maintaining traditional marriage' thing: the Court rejects this line of argument as being fairly empty in nature. Tradition, it says, is not an excuse for discrimination. Furthermore:
In other words: from a legal point of view- the County didn't make its case. Or much of a case at all, for that matter.
The second line of argument was the idea that heterosexual marriage promoted the 'optimal conditions for raising children.' The Court acknowledges the fact that there are studies out there that seem to support this notion, but also points out that these studies aren't that reliable to begin with. And then, they go on to brush this argument aside entirely:
Basically, if this was about optimal parenting- it wouldn't just be gays and lesbians that would be excluded from the institution of marriage.
Promotion of procreation and stability in straight relationships were the last two gasps of the County. The Court knocked both of them aside- pointing out that gays and lesbians can have children- with a bit of difficulty to be sure, but it's possible. And to me, the 'stability of marriage' argument- which is the one most often put forward by proponents was the weakest of all. There's no evidence whatsoever that banning gay marriage strengthens heterosexual marriage.
The final point was that the state needed to conserve 'resources.' In other words, gay and lesbian couples might file joint tax returns and claim more exemptions from the state. Or something like that- and there's no evidence to suggest that gay and lesbian couples would use any more or any less resources than your average heterosexual couple.
Wisely, the Court wraps things up by underlining the importance of religious freedom- the implication being that from their point of view, purely civil marriage cannot discriminate in the eyes of the law. Which it can't. There's no purely legal reason that can be put forth against gay marriage- and purely legal reasons are exactly what I want my Courts making decisions on. They don't even touch the question of religious marriage and I like that. I think it's a nod to the deep-seated public feeling out there about this issue and I think if any lawsuits make their way to Des Moines asking that a certain Church be forced to perform a same sex marriage that flies in the face of religious beliefs, I think the implication is that they would look upon that very unfavorable. Civil marriage is in the realm of law. Which is what they deal with- and from that point of view, the legal tradition of the state of Iowa and the Constitution of the State of Iowa is crystal clear.
Everyone is deserving of equal treatment under the law.
Case closed.
So I found a place to download the entire Varnum v. Brien decision and I printed it off (using up a fair amount of my mother's toner in the process) and over the weekend, I read it. So that you, all two of my readers don't have too. I'm approaching this analysis from two solid points of view:
1. I'm not a lawyer. If you want someone to parse the legalese, get your own lawyer. Just beware, they bill out at about $200 an hour. I do this for free.
2. I'm approaching this from a strictly legal point of view. I understand that many objections to gay marriage are religious in nature, but from the point of view of this analysis, they are, to me, irrelevant. I want to look solely at the law and the constitution of the state of Iowa. We can parse the Bible and religious objections until we're all blue in the face- and I want to take apart what the court says- and only that.
Right- now that's out of the way, let's get on with it:
To me, this wasn't a reach for the Supreme Court- plain and simple, the statute on the books that limited marriage to one man and one woman was an equal protection violation and thus, the plaintiffs were entitled to equal and free access to the institution of marriage. The County (in this case Polk County) failed to make a single significant argument stating why exactly same-sex couples should be denied access to the institution of marriage.
From the outset, the Court goes out of its way to acknowledge the fact that the plaintiffs are essentially just like ordinary Iowans, save for one small difference: they're attracted to members of the same sex. The list the occupations of all of the plaintiffs and they have everyday jobs just like all of us. These are not 'special people' in the eyes of the Court- merely ordinary Iowans, entitled to the protection of the law just like everyone else.
The plaintiffs provided a concrete record of the disadvantages they faced due to their lack of access to the institution of Civil Marriage- and the County offered up a fairly weak rebuttal that the statute in question limited marriage to one man and one woman because of the 'harm to the institution of marriage' and the 'harm to children raised by same sex couples.' Their evidence was weak at best- and the plaintiffs rebuffed this line of argument easily.
The court then takes the time to define it's role in the case. This I like, because the tone to me that was taken is one of pragmatic moderation:
This court, consistent with its role to interpret the law and resolve disputes, now has the responsibility to determine if the law enacted by the legislative branch and enforced by the executive branch violates the Iowa Constitution.
This is beautiful because to me, this is the EXACT role of the courts. In a nutshell. And moreover:
A statue inconsistent with the Iowa Constitution must be declared void, even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion.
In other words, they want to be as objective as possible and stay above the 'fray' attached to this issue- they say it from the outset and they stick to it like glue. The traditional shriek that we normally hear when decisions like this are handed down is that cry of 'judicial activism.' And that the people 'should be allowed to vote.' Implicitly and explicitly the court rejects both of those notions- implicitly, because it acknowledges that the Constitution belongs ultimately to the people- and makes a nod to the fact that the role of the Courts is to ultimately uphold the supremacy of the Constitution and protect our republican form of government. We may vote, but we tend to forget that we are in fact, not a democracy. We're a Republic. We don't ask for a show of hands, because if we did, we might still have things like segregation and a restricted franchise.
Explicitly, however, they take what to me is a moderate stance on 'activism.' It's not their job to change things, but they acknowledge explicitly that the Constitution does shift over time and that the people retain the ultimate right to do that:
While the constitution is the supreme law and cannot be altered by the enactment of an ordinary statute, the power of the constitution flows from the people, and the people of Iowa to retain the ultimate power to shape it over time.(Italics mine, ed.)
And moreover, the State Supreme Court has a long historical tradition of upholding equal protection to draw on. This not only was an easy decision for them, they've got precedent to back it up. I never knew this, but reading this was an education- it blew my mind and made me incredibly proud to be Iowan- all over again: In 1839- before Iowa was even a state, they upheld the rights of a slave and refused to treat people as property. In 1868 and 1873 they ruled against segregation- before Dred Scott and long before Brown vs. Board. We were also the first state in the Union to admit a woman to the practice of law in 1869- 3 years before the US Supreme Court upheld Illinois' decision to bar women from law. There is a wealth of precedent and tradition on their side: absolute equality for all people under the law.
This was so easy for them.
At this point, they plunge into legalese. When dealing with equal protection questions, the court has to decide what level of scrutiny that the given class of persons is subject too. In other words, equal protection violations exist because a group of people is subject to a different standard under the law-- but legally (and this is where it gets fuzzy for me) I believe that they have to determine whether that particular group of people is subject to a higher level of scrutiny because they are suspect for discrimination and unequal treatment. (If anyone reading this is a lawyer, please correct me. I'm almost sure I got that wrong.)
Anyway, they ramble on through that for about twenty pages or so and it's boring. Massively, massively boring- and I didn't understand a lot of it. But it picks up towards the end-- where, little by little, the Supreme Court knocks down any case that Polk County might have had.
One line of argument that made me grin a little was the notion that the statute in question didn't explicitly deny marriage to gay and lesbian couples. They could, it was apparently argued still get married- just to members of the opposite sex. That, the Court said in a firm rebuff was no right at all.
Then there was the whole 'maintaining traditional marriage' thing: the Court rejects this line of argument as being fairly empty in nature. Tradition, it says, is not an excuse for discrimination. Furthermore:
Because the County offers no particular governmental reason underlying the tradition of limiting civil marriage to heterosexual couples, we press forward to consider other plausible reasons for the legislative classification.
In other words: from a legal point of view- the County didn't make its case. Or much of a case at all, for that matter.
The second line of argument was the idea that heterosexual marriage promoted the 'optimal conditions for raising children.' The Court acknowledges the fact that there are studies out there that seem to support this notion, but also points out that these studies aren't that reliable to begin with. And then, they go on to brush this argument aside entirely:
The civil marriage statute is under-inclusive because it does not exclude from marriage other groups of parents- such as child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to provide child support, and violent felons-- that are undeniably less than optimal parents.
Basically, if this was about optimal parenting- it wouldn't just be gays and lesbians that would be excluded from the institution of marriage.
Promotion of procreation and stability in straight relationships were the last two gasps of the County. The Court knocked both of them aside- pointing out that gays and lesbians can have children- with a bit of difficulty to be sure, but it's possible. And to me, the 'stability of marriage' argument- which is the one most often put forward by proponents was the weakest of all. There's no evidence whatsoever that banning gay marriage strengthens heterosexual marriage.
The final point was that the state needed to conserve 'resources.' In other words, gay and lesbian couples might file joint tax returns and claim more exemptions from the state. Or something like that- and there's no evidence to suggest that gay and lesbian couples would use any more or any less resources than your average heterosexual couple.
Wisely, the Court wraps things up by underlining the importance of religious freedom- the implication being that from their point of view, purely civil marriage cannot discriminate in the eyes of the law. Which it can't. There's no purely legal reason that can be put forth against gay marriage- and purely legal reasons are exactly what I want my Courts making decisions on. They don't even touch the question of religious marriage and I like that. I think it's a nod to the deep-seated public feeling out there about this issue and I think if any lawsuits make their way to Des Moines asking that a certain Church be forced to perform a same sex marriage that flies in the face of religious beliefs, I think the implication is that they would look upon that very unfavorable. Civil marriage is in the realm of law. Which is what they deal with- and from that point of view, the legal tradition of the state of Iowa and the Constitution of the State of Iowa is crystal clear.
Everyone is deserving of equal treatment under the law.
Case closed.
Thoughts on Sicko
I don't know about Michael Moore. I really don't... I remember watching 'Roger and Me' way, way back in the day and being impressed. He seemed like a passionate filmmaker who really cared about issues and wanted to tell stories and bring up important issues that mattered in contemporary America. I think Bush unhinged his brain.
We're watching 'Sicko' right now and as usual- it's an important issue masquerading as a polemic, designed to make you think certain things but withholding important pieces of information. I'm not going to speak to the validity of his points about the state of the American health care system, but I do take issue with his portrayal of the Canadian and British systems. He only shows the good parts of these systems- especially the British one.
He may interview Tony Benn (surely the most moderate, objective voice on any issue- please note the sarcasm in my writing!) and may talk to happy American ex-patriots, but the reality of the British and the Canadian systems is this:
1. They pay higher taxes- like significantly higher taxes than Americans do. In America, the idea is for the government to take as little as possible from us. In Europe and elsewhere, people are willing to give up more of their money, but they expect quality public services in return. The social contract is different- doesn't make it right, but it's just the facts. (To be fair- he just pointed that out and went to talk to 'an average French family' about their lack of debts and medical bills- neglecting to find out how much of their pay checks per year get taken by their government. He then goes on to say how much he 'loves the French.' Which makes me wonder just how many French people has he met?)
2. Can they sustain this over the long term? An interesting, controversial question that is very carefully avoided. If you think demographic pressures of an aging population are bad in America (especially where Social Security and Medicare are concerned) you should try Europe. It's worse. And the crisis that's going to break there within the next 20 years is going to make our crisis over the future of Social Security/Medicare look easy.
3. He's right about one thing. People should be pissed off. People in this country are inherently good. I trust local and state politicians more than I trust anyone who we send out to Washington, because your state and local politicians are people you see in your grocery stores, in your towns- they are, in a very real, everyday way, your neighbors. And it's hard to screw your neighbor over. Go to Washington, however and suddenly you fall into the travesty that our federal government has become- the nexus between the rich and the politicians, most of whom are rich themselves. I think Dwight D. Eisenhower was downright eerie- we should be careful about the military-industrial complex- and the political-industrial complex. Because they're getting richer and we're getting poorer. Socialism does exist in this country, but it's for the rich.
4. Cuba! ARGH! This is where he loses me entirely. Talk about exploitative film-making at it's worst. Of course when he takes them to the Cuban hospitals they get grade A treatment- I'm surprised the Cubans didn't roll out the red carpet for them- a camera crew and an American camera crew to boot? No way they'd get any special treatment at all. (Oh and there was an epidemic of blindness on the island in the mid-90s- because people were malnourished under this awesome, kick-ass health care system of theirs. And yes, they are generous with their doctors- which is to their credit, providing you don't mind a healthy dose of political indoctrination with your meds.)
However, I do have to agree with him- the embargo against Cuba is just stupid and is more about politicians wanting Florida's 25 electoral votes than about sensible foreign policy.
In the end, it's the per usual superficial look at an incredibly important issue.
We're watching 'Sicko' right now and as usual- it's an important issue masquerading as a polemic, designed to make you think certain things but withholding important pieces of information. I'm not going to speak to the validity of his points about the state of the American health care system, but I do take issue with his portrayal of the Canadian and British systems. He only shows the good parts of these systems- especially the British one.
He may interview Tony Benn (surely the most moderate, objective voice on any issue- please note the sarcasm in my writing!) and may talk to happy American ex-patriots, but the reality of the British and the Canadian systems is this:
1. They pay higher taxes- like significantly higher taxes than Americans do. In America, the idea is for the government to take as little as possible from us. In Europe and elsewhere, people are willing to give up more of their money, but they expect quality public services in return. The social contract is different- doesn't make it right, but it's just the facts. (To be fair- he just pointed that out and went to talk to 'an average French family' about their lack of debts and medical bills- neglecting to find out how much of their pay checks per year get taken by their government. He then goes on to say how much he 'loves the French.' Which makes me wonder just how many French people has he met?)
2. Can they sustain this over the long term? An interesting, controversial question that is very carefully avoided. If you think demographic pressures of an aging population are bad in America (especially where Social Security and Medicare are concerned) you should try Europe. It's worse. And the crisis that's going to break there within the next 20 years is going to make our crisis over the future of Social Security/Medicare look easy.
3. He's right about one thing. People should be pissed off. People in this country are inherently good. I trust local and state politicians more than I trust anyone who we send out to Washington, because your state and local politicians are people you see in your grocery stores, in your towns- they are, in a very real, everyday way, your neighbors. And it's hard to screw your neighbor over. Go to Washington, however and suddenly you fall into the travesty that our federal government has become- the nexus between the rich and the politicians, most of whom are rich themselves. I think Dwight D. Eisenhower was downright eerie- we should be careful about the military-industrial complex- and the political-industrial complex. Because they're getting richer and we're getting poorer. Socialism does exist in this country, but it's for the rich.
4. Cuba! ARGH! This is where he loses me entirely. Talk about exploitative film-making at it's worst. Of course when he takes them to the Cuban hospitals they get grade A treatment- I'm surprised the Cubans didn't roll out the red carpet for them- a camera crew and an American camera crew to boot? No way they'd get any special treatment at all. (Oh and there was an epidemic of blindness on the island in the mid-90s- because people were malnourished under this awesome, kick-ass health care system of theirs. And yes, they are generous with their doctors- which is to their credit, providing you don't mind a healthy dose of political indoctrination with your meds.)
However, I do have to agree with him- the embargo against Cuba is just stupid and is more about politicians wanting Florida's 25 electoral votes than about sensible foreign policy.
In the end, it's the per usual superficial look at an incredibly important issue.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Rewarding Failure
So they're helping firms avoid bailout pay restrictions!
You know what, I'm done. For real. This is just plain ridiculous- I mean, what's the point? What's the point of spouting off some crap about how you understand populist rage only to get caught two weeks later helping the crooked buggers squirm out of pay restrictions?
This is a very simple equation to me: first of all, Congress needs to READ the bills they pass- and maybe think for a second or two before they pass them instead of just vomiting up pieces of legislation like a drunk college kid whose had ten shots of Jaeger and still hasn't recovered from the hangover the next day at work. This never should have happened. Someone needs to sit Congress down and pass a very simple law based on the follow things:
1. If your company needs government help, you're in trouble. This means that if you're asking the government to interfere in the free market- you fucked up.
2. Therefore, because of this, until such time as any and all government help is fully paid back, all merit-based (i.e. things you get for success and not failure) bonuses are suspended. Government help to keep your company afloat trumps any and all contractual obligations you may have.
I don't consider myself a populist in any way, shape or form, but this is the rage inducing thing that I'm tired of: rewarding failure! Why should my tax dollars go to a company that's put itself on the rocks? And why should their executives continue to get bonuses? No one has yet to explain that to my satisfaction- and I'm tired of double-dealing from Washington- saying one thing and getting caught doing the other the very next week.
No more rewarding failure!
You know what, I'm done. For real. This is just plain ridiculous- I mean, what's the point? What's the point of spouting off some crap about how you understand populist rage only to get caught two weeks later helping the crooked buggers squirm out of pay restrictions?
This is a very simple equation to me: first of all, Congress needs to READ the bills they pass- and maybe think for a second or two before they pass them instead of just vomiting up pieces of legislation like a drunk college kid whose had ten shots of Jaeger and still hasn't recovered from the hangover the next day at work. This never should have happened. Someone needs to sit Congress down and pass a very simple law based on the follow things:
1. If your company needs government help, you're in trouble. This means that if you're asking the government to interfere in the free market- you fucked up.
2. Therefore, because of this, until such time as any and all government help is fully paid back, all merit-based (i.e. things you get for success and not failure) bonuses are suspended. Government help to keep your company afloat trumps any and all contractual obligations you may have.
I don't consider myself a populist in any way, shape or form, but this is the rage inducing thing that I'm tired of: rewarding failure! Why should my tax dollars go to a company that's put itself on the rocks? And why should their executives continue to get bonuses? No one has yet to explain that to my satisfaction- and I'm tired of double-dealing from Washington- saying one thing and getting caught doing the other the very next week.
No more rewarding failure!
Friday, April 3, 2009
Upcoming Events
As you can see, I'm playing around with different formats and templates. That'll continue for awhile, so get used to it... ;-) And there are a couple of upcoming features I'd like to make all two of my readers aware of:
1. Election 2009: India starts voting in a couple of weeks, so I'm going to try and do some comprehensive coverage for people. Voting takes a month! It's like the perfect storm of democracy and I'd like to unpack it a little and take the issues apart for both of my readers. India is incredibly important- now and for the future and I'd like to see some solid rapprochement and strengthening of ties between the United States and India- sadly, I'm not on the inner hallways of power in D.C. But stay tuned for that.
2. Gay Marriage in Iowa: I'll be following this story as well. In detail.
3. My Life and Where It's Going: History, social studies, education, my thesis, my job, my desire for a better job.
4. Pictures: I'm gonna get some up in here.
Stay tuned!!!
1. Election 2009: India starts voting in a couple of weeks, so I'm going to try and do some comprehensive coverage for people. Voting takes a month! It's like the perfect storm of democracy and I'd like to unpack it a little and take the issues apart for both of my readers. India is incredibly important- now and for the future and I'd like to see some solid rapprochement and strengthening of ties between the United States and India- sadly, I'm not on the inner hallways of power in D.C. But stay tuned for that.
2. Gay Marriage in Iowa: I'll be following this story as well. In detail.
3. My Life and Where It's Going: History, social studies, education, my thesis, my job, my desire for a better job.
4. Pictures: I'm gonna get some up in here.
Stay tuned!!!
What Now?
The ink is barely dry on the State Supreme Court's ruling and already opponents are mobilizing. A group went to try and talk to Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy's office to lobby for him to start the process on a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman, but the Speaker was gone for the week, as was the rest of the legislature-- and Conservatives seem to be (at least in the very, very early going) taking the position that Iowans should be allowed to vote.
Unfortunately, I think the wording of the decision kind of flies in the face of that. Seems like (and I want to see the text of the decision before I say for sure) but it seems like the State Supreme Court looked at the text of the Constitution and came to the conclusion that the equal protection clause had been violated and despite the deep and controversial opinions about this, they had no choice but to do what the law said.
I like that- but like I said, I want to find some text of the decision before I analyze it in depth. And I also think it's a little too early to gauge reaction on this. I think just going on Facebook, it's incredible to see- positive reactions, certainly from everyone I know. Young people will drive this debate and win the day- my generation will do it, slowly but surely. A pragmatic Conservative should be encouraging loving, two parent families instead of fighting a losing battle they can't possibly win in the long term. Demographics is destiny- and even young Christians have different attitudes from their elders. (I also think pot will be legal in the next 20-30 years and maybe soon because of this generation gap, but that's a different blog post.)
My forecast is this:
First of all, don't read comments on the internet. I think they're full of crazy people on both sides anyway- so it's not an accurate gauge of public mood. Listen to conversations in your local diner, in your grocery store- that'll give you a better idea. Iowa always, always surprises me- which is part of the reason why I love this state- and I think in the Midwest in general, there's a quiet undercurrent of independence in the politics of the region which makes stances on social issues hard to pick out.
Opponents have a high bar to clear- 2 consecutive sessions of the legislature followed by a vote. The earliest they can do this- presuming the legislature takes this up right now, this year- is going to be 2011. More like 2012. If it doesn't get through ONE time, it's pushed back ONE more year. If PROponents have learned their lessons from the Prop 8 debacle in California, they will put the stories of some of these couples front and center. Iowans, if they can be defined, are at their hearts, a practical lot. 'If they've been together this long, why can't they get married?' I think that's the attitude PROponents will have to aim for... and they have 2-3 years to get this in the public eye, to get people used to the idea that gay marriage won't make the social fabric of their lives fall apart. I don't think many people buy into that, but if Conservatives say 'the sky will fall if this happens' and it happens- and the sky DOESN'T fall, then they've lost a big part of the argument right there.
I think this will hold in the long term. And if it comes down to a vote, then I will be out there, working my butt off to make sure that it does hold.
Unfortunately, I think the wording of the decision kind of flies in the face of that. Seems like (and I want to see the text of the decision before I say for sure) but it seems like the State Supreme Court looked at the text of the Constitution and came to the conclusion that the equal protection clause had been violated and despite the deep and controversial opinions about this, they had no choice but to do what the law said.
I like that- but like I said, I want to find some text of the decision before I analyze it in depth. And I also think it's a little too early to gauge reaction on this. I think just going on Facebook, it's incredible to see- positive reactions, certainly from everyone I know. Young people will drive this debate and win the day- my generation will do it, slowly but surely. A pragmatic Conservative should be encouraging loving, two parent families instead of fighting a losing battle they can't possibly win in the long term. Demographics is destiny- and even young Christians have different attitudes from their elders. (I also think pot will be legal in the next 20-30 years and maybe soon because of this generation gap, but that's a different blog post.)
My forecast is this:
First of all, don't read comments on the internet. I think they're full of crazy people on both sides anyway- so it's not an accurate gauge of public mood. Listen to conversations in your local diner, in your grocery store- that'll give you a better idea. Iowa always, always surprises me- which is part of the reason why I love this state- and I think in the Midwest in general, there's a quiet undercurrent of independence in the politics of the region which makes stances on social issues hard to pick out.
Opponents have a high bar to clear- 2 consecutive sessions of the legislature followed by a vote. The earliest they can do this- presuming the legislature takes this up right now, this year- is going to be 2011. More like 2012. If it doesn't get through ONE time, it's pushed back ONE more year. If PROponents have learned their lessons from the Prop 8 debacle in California, they will put the stories of some of these couples front and center. Iowans, if they can be defined, are at their hearts, a practical lot. 'If they've been together this long, why can't they get married?' I think that's the attitude PROponents will have to aim for... and they have 2-3 years to get this in the public eye, to get people used to the idea that gay marriage won't make the social fabric of their lives fall apart. I don't think many people buy into that, but if Conservatives say 'the sky will fall if this happens' and it happens- and the sky DOESN'T fall, then they've lost a big part of the argument right there.
I think this will hold in the long term. And if it comes down to a vote, then I will be out there, working my butt off to make sure that it does hold.
UNANIMOUS!
KICK ASS! The Iowa State Supreme Court struck down a 1998 state law this morning which limited marriage to one man and one woman. Starting April 24th, gay marriage will be legal in the state of Iowa!
I have lived in Iowa for the majority of my life and I LOVE this state to death. Just when you think you have it figured out, this state will always, always, always surprise you. As a political scientist, it irritates me that Iowans keep the same people in office for decades at a time and take a laid back 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' attitude to many things they shouldn't, but gosh darn it, every once in awhile, this state does something that blows that assumption of mine to pieces.
Such as this.
As Iowans, I think we walk past our state flag every day and don't take a second look at it. After all, it's a state flag- and really, state flags in the United States aren't that interesting a lot of the time. But if you take a second look at it, you'll find a sentiment that captures this state perfectly- our motto: 'Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.'
That's right. Us farmers and dirt-worshipers PRIZE our liberties and we EXTEND them to others. All those snotty coastal elites who think we're just flyover states, well let me ask you this: is gay marriage legal in YOUR state? Because the Jesus worshipping, dirt-loving hicks you sneer at just made it legal in THEIRS! So suck it.
Now, there are going to be pessimists who will argue that this is going to be short-lived and that the 'natural conservatism' of the Midwest will turn this thing over right away- but not so! Recent polling shows that a majority of Iowans support some form of recognition for same-sex couples and- and here's the good part- they can't just throw a constitutional amendment on the ballot right away! The state legislature wants to get out of town, so they probably won't touch it this session- which means this:
They have to pass the Amendment in 2 consecutive sessions of the legislature ('10 and '11) before it goes to a public vote (2012!) That's three years at the earliest before they can overturn this thing! If they can do that!
Marriage starts April 24th. And I have never been prouder to be Iowan than I am today.
I have lived in Iowa for the majority of my life and I LOVE this state to death. Just when you think you have it figured out, this state will always, always, always surprise you. As a political scientist, it irritates me that Iowans keep the same people in office for decades at a time and take a laid back 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' attitude to many things they shouldn't, but gosh darn it, every once in awhile, this state does something that blows that assumption of mine to pieces.
Such as this.
As Iowans, I think we walk past our state flag every day and don't take a second look at it. After all, it's a state flag- and really, state flags in the United States aren't that interesting a lot of the time. But if you take a second look at it, you'll find a sentiment that captures this state perfectly- our motto: 'Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.'
That's right. Us farmers and dirt-worshipers PRIZE our liberties and we EXTEND them to others. All those snotty coastal elites who think we're just flyover states, well let me ask you this: is gay marriage legal in YOUR state? Because the Jesus worshipping, dirt-loving hicks you sneer at just made it legal in THEIRS! So suck it.
Now, there are going to be pessimists who will argue that this is going to be short-lived and that the 'natural conservatism' of the Midwest will turn this thing over right away- but not so! Recent polling shows that a majority of Iowans support some form of recognition for same-sex couples and- and here's the good part- they can't just throw a constitutional amendment on the ballot right away! The state legislature wants to get out of town, so they probably won't touch it this session- which means this:
They have to pass the Amendment in 2 consecutive sessions of the legislature ('10 and '11) before it goes to a public vote (2012!) That's three years at the earliest before they can overturn this thing! If they can do that!
Marriage starts April 24th. And I have never been prouder to be Iowan than I am today.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Finding My Voice
The hardest part about doing this is finding your own specific voice. So much of blogging on the internet these days really does appear to be nothing more than narcissism run amuck, but on the other hand, there are shining examples of individual and compulsively readable blogs that are worth visiting. My problem continues to be that I am scattershot and don't have my own voice when it comes to blogging yet.
I love the world. The World interests me- I think I'm on a gigantic hunk of rock that's full of incredibly fascinating cultures, history and stories- all of which are unfolding every day around us and they're totally cool. Most people don't think so, but I do. So the stories that interest me end up peppering my blog and most people just blow right by them. Politics interests me. The world interests me-- but most of what's going on out there doesn't really tell people all that much about me and what I'm like and what's going on in my life.
But that's getting back into the narcissism run amuck thing again- and I'm not sure I'm that kind of a blogger. I don't know. It's a tough question, but I want to overcome the fact that when it comes to writing/blogging or whatever, I am my most damning critic.
As you've probably noticed, we've got a new look going on, here at Churchill's Cigar. In the coming weeks and months, I'm going to be doing some hard thinking about what this should look like- and how, more importantly to make it my own. New features, new writing, new everything. I want to make this work and put some effort into this- because believe it or not, I do enjoy writing, I enjoy reading, I enjoy the world and the life that I'm slowly beginning to pull together. And I want to share that in a more coherent way with the like 2 people who probably read this on a regular basis.
So, to the two of you- Thank You! Hopefully, I can work my butt off to make this thing (whatever it is) more interesting for everyone concerned.
I love the world. The World interests me- I think I'm on a gigantic hunk of rock that's full of incredibly fascinating cultures, history and stories- all of which are unfolding every day around us and they're totally cool. Most people don't think so, but I do. So the stories that interest me end up peppering my blog and most people just blow right by them. Politics interests me. The world interests me-- but most of what's going on out there doesn't really tell people all that much about me and what I'm like and what's going on in my life.
But that's getting back into the narcissism run amuck thing again- and I'm not sure I'm that kind of a blogger. I don't know. It's a tough question, but I want to overcome the fact that when it comes to writing/blogging or whatever, I am my most damning critic.
As you've probably noticed, we've got a new look going on, here at Churchill's Cigar. In the coming weeks and months, I'm going to be doing some hard thinking about what this should look like- and how, more importantly to make it my own. New features, new writing, new everything. I want to make this work and put some effort into this- because believe it or not, I do enjoy writing, I enjoy reading, I enjoy the world and the life that I'm slowly beginning to pull together. And I want to share that in a more coherent way with the like 2 people who probably read this on a regular basis.
So, to the two of you- Thank You! Hopefully, I can work my butt off to make this thing (whatever it is) more interesting for everyone concerned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)