Monday, May 31, 2010
Why doesn't Iowa City have...
...something like this? (I totally want to work for one of these schools, by the way. Think it might be my new dream job. Behind, of course, landing in the social studies department at City High.)
German President Horst Köhler Resigns
...after criticizing German military deployments overseas. Der Spiegel has some thoughts here.
Not sure what this means for Chancellor Angela Merkel, but she's not having a good week- that's for sure. Bits and bobs of German political coverage that I can get (such as it is, here in the land of the superficial and completely pointless news coverage) seems to point towards an unhappy German electorate. With her understandable reluctance to bailout Greece from its own debt-ridden folly collapsing under pressure from her fellow Eurozone Members that essentially seemed to have railroaded Germany into ponying up the lion's share of the bailout package, it's easy to see why the German electorate might be unhappy with her. (Also: speculation on what a collapse of the Euro would mean for the USA, here.)
The recent state elections in North Rhine-Westphalia seem to have produced a hung parliament which has been read as a defeat for the governing coalition of the CDU and Free Democrats and seems to have been hailed as the start of a comeback for the SDP and the German Left. Time will tell which way the German electorate is going to turn- and if the elections in Britain are any indication, it may be that Germany in its next Federal elections gets handed a 'tie' to force a coalition government to make the tough compromises to do what needs to be done to clean up budgets and right the economy.
But we'll see how it goes. Worth keeping an eye open for, anyway.
Not sure what this means for Chancellor Angela Merkel, but she's not having a good week- that's for sure. Bits and bobs of German political coverage that I can get (such as it is, here in the land of the superficial and completely pointless news coverage) seems to point towards an unhappy German electorate. With her understandable reluctance to bailout Greece from its own debt-ridden folly collapsing under pressure from her fellow Eurozone Members that essentially seemed to have railroaded Germany into ponying up the lion's share of the bailout package, it's easy to see why the German electorate might be unhappy with her. (Also: speculation on what a collapse of the Euro would mean for the USA, here.)
The recent state elections in North Rhine-Westphalia seem to have produced a hung parliament which has been read as a defeat for the governing coalition of the CDU and Free Democrats and seems to have been hailed as the start of a comeback for the SDP and the German Left. Time will tell which way the German electorate is going to turn- and if the elections in Britain are any indication, it may be that Germany in its next Federal elections gets handed a 'tie' to force a coalition government to make the tough compromises to do what needs to be done to clean up budgets and right the economy.
But we'll see how it goes. Worth keeping an eye open for, anyway.
Flotilla Raid
Overnight, the Israeli military stormed ships attempting to break their blockade of the Gaza Strip. Already, it's devolved into the usual finger-pointing and accusations and counter-accusations with Israel saying that they were attacked before they even got onto the ships and the international community generally decrying a military raid on a ship full of international aid for the Gaza Strip. 10 were killed... the Beeb has coverage here.
I'm not sure what to think or say about this except this: the two-state solution is rapidly slipping away from both sides and peace is far, far away right now with a right-wing Israeli government that has no reason to make concessions to the Palestinians and a divided Palestine that can't rein in or control extremist elements on their end of things. Nothing will change anytime soon and as a result, senseless deaths and incidents like this will keep happening on both sides.
I'm not sure what to think or say about this except this: the two-state solution is rapidly slipping away from both sides and peace is far, far away right now with a right-wing Israeli government that has no reason to make concessions to the Palestinians and a divided Palestine that can't rein in or control extremist elements on their end of things. Nothing will change anytime soon and as a result, senseless deaths and incidents like this will keep happening on both sides.
Remember...
...those who died for our country today. Interesting reflection on Memorial Day via HuffPost- here.
Roman Catholic Womenpriests FTW!
I'd be hearing about this on and off from my mother for some weeks now, but hadn't actually noticed any coverage in the local media until today-- namely that an Iowa City Woman is seeking ordination to the priesthood within the Roman Catholic Church. Now, as any 'good' Catholic knows, women technically aren't allowed to be priests, for various sexist reasons that I complete disagree with. (Conveniently ignoring the history of the early Church, where women played an active role in the liturgy and were, in fact, priests.)
However, where things become absolutely brilliant is that the organization that is ordaining women within the Catholic church (Roman Catholic Womenpriests) is doing so in, from what I can tell, a totally legal and valid way under Church law. Consider: 7 women were ordained on the Danube River in 2002 by a Bishop (or Bishops.) This is totally awesome for a couple of reasons: first of all, the middle of a river isn't technically within a Diocese- and second of all, no one (including the Vatican) has figured out who these Bishops were. So, in other words, unless someone blabs or figures it out- the ordinations stand at completely valid under Church law, because the Vatican doesn't know who to excommunicate to invalidate the ordinations.
And even more brilliant: because the original ordinations were valid, the people that were ordained can in turn ordain more women and do so in a perfectly valid way under Church law!
At least, that's my understanding of Church theology. I could have missed something somewhere, but I don't think I did. Either way, a nice bit of subversive eye-poking to the Church Hierarchy that I enjoy immensely... Roman Catholic Womenpriests FTW!
P.S. If I'm not quite right on the theology, please tell me... it's complicated and not exactly my department.
However, where things become absolutely brilliant is that the organization that is ordaining women within the Catholic church (Roman Catholic Womenpriests) is doing so in, from what I can tell, a totally legal and valid way under Church law. Consider: 7 women were ordained on the Danube River in 2002 by a Bishop (or Bishops.) This is totally awesome for a couple of reasons: first of all, the middle of a river isn't technically within a Diocese- and second of all, no one (including the Vatican) has figured out who these Bishops were. So, in other words, unless someone blabs or figures it out- the ordinations stand at completely valid under Church law, because the Vatican doesn't know who to excommunicate to invalidate the ordinations.
And even more brilliant: because the original ordinations were valid, the people that were ordained can in turn ordain more women and do so in a perfectly valid way under Church law!
At least, that's my understanding of Church theology. I could have missed something somewhere, but I don't think I did. Either way, a nice bit of subversive eye-poking to the Church Hierarchy that I enjoy immensely... Roman Catholic Womenpriests FTW!
P.S. If I'm not quite right on the theology, please tell me... it's complicated and not exactly my department.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Hole NOT Plugged
Hooray. Apparently BP has plugged the leak and oil is no longer gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, per the Chicago Tribune. The Beeb has further coverage, here. (And seems to strike a more cautious note saying that BP has 'slowed' the leak. Hmmmm...)
UPDATED, 6/30/2010: Apparently, everyone spoke too soon. Hole NOT plugged, oil still gushing. What a mess.
UPDATED, 6/30/2010: Apparently, everyone spoke too soon. Hole NOT plugged, oil still gushing. What a mess.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Tense Korea
Tensions are high on the Korean Peninsula right now as North and South Korea are engaging in a fairly public spat (following the torpedoing and sinking of a South Korean naval vessel last month) that's escalating rapidly. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton paid South Korea a visit to talk to peeps about it.
UPDATED, 8:02 AM: She'd like an international response to the growing tensions, please.
UPDATED, 8:02 AM: She'd like an international response to the growing tensions, please.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Late Night Chronicles 68: Oil
Published just seconds ago on Facebook.
Oil is penetrating deeper into the Louisiana coastline as we speak, oil is still gushing, BP is still making little to no progress in clean up and the government is doing its best to sound mean and scary about 'what they might do.'
Awesome.
I haven't really known what to write, think or say about the oil mess in the Gulf of Mexico other than 'shit, that's really bad' and 'damn, that sucks' but the pictures of pelicans covered with oil and the little baby pelicans covered with oil have pretty much changed all that. I'm not a huge bird person, but there's something about seeing poor, innocent wildlife covered in petroleum that just pisses me off more than usual. These pelicans, herons and sundry other furred creatures are just after a place to live, nest and bits of fish- and what do they get? Oh, that's right, they get to dive into what they think is water only to come out covered in oil.
Awesome. Totally awesome.
Delicate marshes are under threat- and they're not sure they can ever get them totally clean again. The clean-up chemicals they're using? Oh that's right- they cause environmental damage as well! There's just good news pouring in from all directions when it comes to this mess and there's good news and bad news to be had as a result. The good news (at least from my radical political point of view) is that the political mess that's underway because of this mess is one more piece of mounting evidence that the neo-corporatist anti-democratic duopoly of political power that allegedly runs this country is heading rapidly towards a very high cliff of some kind. Let's consider: Conservatives (well, Republicans) have spent years trying to convince everyone they can that federal regulation of business is bad juju. Major bad juju and there should be a lot less of it. Principled capitalists all, it's a prototypical laissez faire economic point of view that's predicated on the notion that business will take care of themselves and if they've been bad, the invisible hand of the market and proactive consumers will excise bad, bad corporations from existence.
Which all nice in theory, but in practice? Eh, not so much- but as a result of some heavy sermonizing and deregulation while they were in power, the government's power to check on things like, oh, say, safety regulations on oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico ain't what it used to be. (For that matter, you can say the same thing about mines in West Virginia as well.) However- far be it from me to blame everything on Republicans, because as it turns out, the people who are supposed to be regulating the oil industry aren't exactly doing a swell job either.
Yes, the President's administration in its wisdom gave the rig that's now all over the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico a safety award. Oh, the irony. Like giving the Titanic certification that it'll stop all known forms of icebergs. And of course, the federal agency that's supposed to regulate the oil industry? Oh me oh my- it's totally in the pocket of the oil industry. Happily the former head of that agency has now resigned and vague promises of reform are forthcoming and of course, the biggest strike against the government of all: they're still letting BP take the lead in cleaning up what I'm sure is going to be the biggest ecological disaster of my lifetime.
So where does this leave us? The pro-business party in Washington D.C. would have us believe that corporations like BP will take care of themselves free of governmental interference and regulation and if they don't police themselves, then the invisible hand of the market will do the rest. The people who question this, say that some regulation is necessary, but like with everything in Washington D.C. a good idea like this one inevitably runs into money, which scums up everything it touches. I don't think I'm in favor of crushing governmental regulation on business, but it's obvious when there is regulation it's completely and utterly toothless which undermines both the efficacy and the point of regulation.
I have stopped trusting the federal government completely. I didn't exactly have a high degree of faith in it before, but now? Eh, I'm done- it's proved in the past couple of months to be completely and utterly useless and a titanic waste of money. What's the point? If the Federal government can't be bothered to take on the tough issues that need to be solved (like, say, immigration) and if they're just going to sit back and let the corporation that made the mess clean it up in what's increasingly seeming to be a very half-assed sort of way then let me ask again: what's the point? Why are we funding this massive turd sucking the life out of our economy that seems to have a mission in life to be as wasteful and as inefficient as it possible can be?
Until we can create a government that's on the side of individuals and not the side of entrenched power structures like corporations, for instant- and more importantly a government that's not in the pocket of said corporations like ours currently is, nothing is going to change. I want a government that's going to fight for ordinary people like me. I want a government that's going to be on my side and not the side of every special interest group out there that has an agenda that's not necessarily all that good for the country. In short, I'd like the money out of politics. But getting money out of politics? That's gotta be a bigger pain in the ass than getting oil out of water.
But something's got to be done. If not for the general health of our democracy, then let's at least think of the poor baby pelicans.
Oil is penetrating deeper into the Louisiana coastline as we speak, oil is still gushing, BP is still making little to no progress in clean up and the government is doing its best to sound mean and scary about 'what they might do.'
Awesome.
I haven't really known what to write, think or say about the oil mess in the Gulf of Mexico other than 'shit, that's really bad' and 'damn, that sucks' but the pictures of pelicans covered with oil and the little baby pelicans covered with oil have pretty much changed all that. I'm not a huge bird person, but there's something about seeing poor, innocent wildlife covered in petroleum that just pisses me off more than usual. These pelicans, herons and sundry other furred creatures are just after a place to live, nest and bits of fish- and what do they get? Oh, that's right, they get to dive into what they think is water only to come out covered in oil.
Awesome. Totally awesome.
Delicate marshes are under threat- and they're not sure they can ever get them totally clean again. The clean-up chemicals they're using? Oh that's right- they cause environmental damage as well! There's just good news pouring in from all directions when it comes to this mess and there's good news and bad news to be had as a result. The good news (at least from my radical political point of view) is that the political mess that's underway because of this mess is one more piece of mounting evidence that the neo-corporatist anti-democratic duopoly of political power that allegedly runs this country is heading rapidly towards a very high cliff of some kind. Let's consider: Conservatives (well, Republicans) have spent years trying to convince everyone they can that federal regulation of business is bad juju. Major bad juju and there should be a lot less of it. Principled capitalists all, it's a prototypical laissez faire economic point of view that's predicated on the notion that business will take care of themselves and if they've been bad, the invisible hand of the market and proactive consumers will excise bad, bad corporations from existence.
Which all nice in theory, but in practice? Eh, not so much- but as a result of some heavy sermonizing and deregulation while they were in power, the government's power to check on things like, oh, say, safety regulations on oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico ain't what it used to be. (For that matter, you can say the same thing about mines in West Virginia as well.) However- far be it from me to blame everything on Republicans, because as it turns out, the people who are supposed to be regulating the oil industry aren't exactly doing a swell job either.
Yes, the President's administration in its wisdom gave the rig that's now all over the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico a safety award. Oh, the irony. Like giving the Titanic certification that it'll stop all known forms of icebergs. And of course, the federal agency that's supposed to regulate the oil industry? Oh me oh my- it's totally in the pocket of the oil industry. Happily the former head of that agency has now resigned and vague promises of reform are forthcoming and of course, the biggest strike against the government of all: they're still letting BP take the lead in cleaning up what I'm sure is going to be the biggest ecological disaster of my lifetime.
So where does this leave us? The pro-business party in Washington D.C. would have us believe that corporations like BP will take care of themselves free of governmental interference and regulation and if they don't police themselves, then the invisible hand of the market will do the rest. The people who question this, say that some regulation is necessary, but like with everything in Washington D.C. a good idea like this one inevitably runs into money, which scums up everything it touches. I don't think I'm in favor of crushing governmental regulation on business, but it's obvious when there is regulation it's completely and utterly toothless which undermines both the efficacy and the point of regulation.
I have stopped trusting the federal government completely. I didn't exactly have a high degree of faith in it before, but now? Eh, I'm done- it's proved in the past couple of months to be completely and utterly useless and a titanic waste of money. What's the point? If the Federal government can't be bothered to take on the tough issues that need to be solved (like, say, immigration) and if they're just going to sit back and let the corporation that made the mess clean it up in what's increasingly seeming to be a very half-assed sort of way then let me ask again: what's the point? Why are we funding this massive turd sucking the life out of our economy that seems to have a mission in life to be as wasteful and as inefficient as it possible can be?
Until we can create a government that's on the side of individuals and not the side of entrenched power structures like corporations, for instant- and more importantly a government that's not in the pocket of said corporations like ours currently is, nothing is going to change. I want a government that's going to fight for ordinary people like me. I want a government that's going to be on my side and not the side of every special interest group out there that has an agenda that's not necessarily all that good for the country. In short, I'd like the money out of politics. But getting money out of politics? That's gotta be a bigger pain in the ass than getting oil out of water.
But something's got to be done. If not for the general health of our democracy, then let's at least think of the poor baby pelicans.
Paul Gray 1972-2010
Paul Gray, bassist for Slipknot has been found dead in a hotel in Urbandale. Police are still investigating.
Can't say I follow Slipknot or metal music in general, but props to any band that comes from Iowa and doesn't hide that fact or change their story to make themselves from somewhere more interesting than suburban Des Moines.
UPDATED 6/26/10: Surviving members of Slipknot held a press conference today paying tribute to their fellow bandmate Paul Gray- DM Register has coverage.
--Looking like it might have been an overdose. DM Register has audio of the 911 call and a few more details, here.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Tangerine Dream
Blackpool FC is back at the top of English Football for the first time in nearly four decades, beating Cardiff 3-2 (bidding again to be the first Welsh club to play in the Premiership) to win promotion to the top. By all accounts, it's been a rocky season for Blackpool- who has the second lowest average attendance in the Championship (Division II soccer) League averaging out at around 8,611.
Blackpool is a smaller club, compared with some of the others, but they're game to give these Premier League thing a try- and hopefully stay up top for longer than fellow Northern Clubbers Burnley- who looked to be headed back down to the Championship League after this season. The size and the money disparity will make it hard for them to compete with the really big boys, but the longer you stay up top, the more cash you can get, so it seems to be just a matter of surviving the first couple of seasons and maintaining yourself before trying to inch up to the very top top. (The relegation-promotion system can be quite punishing: both Newcastle and Middlesborough were in the top flight on a regular basis in my youth, but no longer- and if you fall out of the top tier, it can take you a long time to get back up there.)
But Blackpool is happy and looking to capitalize on the best in English Football coming to town next season! Congrats to Blackpool- welcome back to the top of the heap!
John Locke Went To Iowa
Television actor Terry O'Quinn, one of the stars of Lost went to Iowa for three whole semesters. Who knew? But apparently, it rates him an interview ahead of the Lost finale tonight.
Lost is one of those shows that I'm going to sit down and work my way through at some point, but given the fact that I didn't get interested in it until later on in the series I've always thought that I'd wait until it was all done and then work my way through everything. Now that it's finally wrapping up, it looks like I'll have to do just that. So nobody spoil anything for me, ok?
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Aloha!
Hawaii is sending a Republican to Congress for the first time in 20 years. OK, so he's got to run again for a full term in November- but still. A Republican win? In Hawaii?
Friday, May 21, 2010
Bookshot #4: Slaughterhouse Five
Slaughterhouse Five, Kurt Vonnegut
The vaguely auto-biographical story of Vonnegut's experiences during World War II, when, as a prisoner of war he lived through and witnessed the aftermath of the firebombing of Dresden, Germany Slaughterhouse Five is deceptive in that it doesn't seem like it would be a book to send a powerful message against the senseless destruction of human life until it actually does so.
This was not a difficult book to read by any stretch of the imagination, but it is damned difficult to characterize just exactly what this book is. There's touches of auto-biography here and there, as Vonnegut's introduction blends into the story at points, with the author breaking the 'fourth wall' here and there to communicate directly with the reader as well being present in his now famous alter-ego, the science fiction author Kilgore Trout. But there are also flying saucers and time travel and history all mixed together and it seemed like a recipe for total disaster, but it's not. This book works amazingly well- there's something sparse and simple about Vonnegut's style of writing that sucks the reader in and keeps the reader reading until the last pages and chapters describing the horror of Dresden and the aftermath almost leap out of the page at you. At that point, all the time traveling and flying saucers fall away and the story becomes all too real.
But: Slaughterhouse Five is the story of Billy Pilgrim, who has come unstuck in time. Relieving the moments of his life, leading from his birth, to his time in World War II (where he is captured behind the lines and witnesses the firebombing of Dresden), his marriage, a few escapes with death and eventual kidnapping by aliens, in no particular order, he flips through in a fractured journey through time that encompasses the whole book. An optometrist by trade, Billy loses his father during basic training for World War II- he eventually loses his wife to carbon monoxide poisoning and further still, he himself is killed in New York- fulfilling a promise that a fellow soldier makes to have him killed after the war. Along the way, weaving in between the moments of Billy's life, the pieces of his experience in World War II gradually emerge- how he was captured behind enemy lines sometime after the Battle of the Bulge, eventually winding up in Dresden, where he and his fellow POWs work in a slaughterhouse that really is called Slaughterhouse Five.
So where do the flying saucers come into the picture? Well, the back of the book says this:
Centering on the infamous firebombing of Dreseden, Billy Pilgrim's odyssey through time reflects the mythic journey of our own fractured lives as we search for meaning in what we fear most.
I'm not sure I buy into that, but what I do think is that involving aliens (the Trafamaldorians) who have a non-linear view of time allows Vonnegut to play with the notion of time throughout the course of his book. So to me, I came to see them more as a plot device rather than an integral or important part of the book- but I could be totally wrong on that analysis. As for Billy's journey through time: well, upon further reflection, I'd say that it could be emblematic of the struggles that many veterans of all wars deal with when they come home. How do you witness the horrors of war and then try and get on with your life as best you can? Some people manage it better than others, but I would guess that the one thing you can never really escape is the memories leaping out at you at random points- not unlike Billy Pilgrim's fractured journey through time. But again, that may just be me talking out my ass.
Overall: a deceptively powerful book. An easy read, with Vonnegut's sparse writing style not challenging the reader overly much, but building to a powerful climax which propels Slaughterhouse Five into the category of being, as the back of the book also says, 'one of the world's great antiwar books.'
Everybody's New Favorite Game
Where is star basketball player for the Cleveland Cavaliers LeBron James going to end up now that he's going into free agency?
Well, word is, he'd like to win a title. Which to me, axes New York and New Jersey right off the bat. (The Knicks do have cash to spend, but they'd need to spend enough to get a team around him that could contend, which is unlikely. Same with New Jersey.) The Clippers? I don't think he'd want to play second fiddle to Kobe. Chicago, to me, would be interesting- they're a hot young team and the ingredients could be pretty much there for a good title run in short order if he signs with them.
But, there's an obvious choice I like: staying with Cleveland. They've consistently been one of the best teams in the NBA with him onboard, so why ruin a good thing? The Celtics are getting older- so I'd say the Eastern Conference is looking better and better for 'em. The right player here, the right player there and suddenly you go from a good team to a great team.
Well, word is, he'd like to win a title. Which to me, axes New York and New Jersey right off the bat. (The Knicks do have cash to spend, but they'd need to spend enough to get a team around him that could contend, which is unlikely. Same with New Jersey.) The Clippers? I don't think he'd want to play second fiddle to Kobe. Chicago, to me, would be interesting- they're a hot young team and the ingredients could be pretty much there for a good title run in short order if he signs with them.
But, there's an obvious choice I like: staying with Cleveland. They've consistently been one of the best teams in the NBA with him onboard, so why ruin a good thing? The Celtics are getting older- so I'd say the Eastern Conference is looking better and better for 'em. The right player here, the right player there and suddenly you go from a good team to a great team.
No New Taxes...
...for the Vikings to get a new stadium, says a new poll from Minnesota. Now this could get interesting over the course of the next year or so: the Vikings' lease at the Metrodome runs out after the 2011 season and they both want and really do need a new set of digs. While I don't approve of spending gobs of public money on stadiums, the economic benefits to having a professional sports franchise are undeniable.
The question is: will owner Zygi Wilf take this all the way to the edge and threaten to move the team somewhere else? Like say, Los Angeles?
The question is: will owner Zygi Wilf take this all the way to the edge and threaten to move the team somewhere else? Like say, Los Angeles?
Holy S--t!
God, Grey's Anatomy can be annoying sometimes (how do those Doctors get anything done? They seem to hump more than they heal...) but the finale last night: pretty damn good. I was hoping McDreamy's secret dependency on toxic hair gel chemicals would finally come back to haunt him by dissolving part of his skull, but no, it was just a shooter in the hospital. Bullets and drama fly. Good end to their season.
The Problem With Orthodoxy
The GOP's senatorial candidate in Kentucky Rand Paul has gotten himself into a wee bit of trouble over the past couple of days, first with remarks about the Civil Rights Act that he's had to walk back and now with criticism of the Obama Administration's tough stance on BP.
I get it: the guy's a libertarian through and through and he's committed to his principles, even if they don't always play well in the 24 hour media grist mill of contemporary America. And you have to admire the guy for having some bedrock principles and sticking to them, but at the same time, this only underlines a problem with politics that America's libertarians have yet to learn: orthodoxy is fine, ideological purity is fine, but it doesn't win you a lot of elections.
I know, I know- it seems like I'm selling out to the forces that say we should just do and say what we have to in order to win an election, but at the same time, there's not an ideology out there that you can name that when applied in its purest form into the real world as either a. remained 'pure' or b. worked all that well. Pragmatic allowances have to made in order to tailor your ideology and beliefs to the world we live in today. It also helps you win elections now and again.
Of course, Rand Paul could prove me wrong, stick to his guns and win the race in Kentucky. But one would hope as a guy who seems to be pretty smart, intelligent and genuinely interested in making a positive impact in Washington, he'd have the intellectual flexibility not to be rigid in his adherence to libertarian orthodoxy.
UPDATED 6:18 PM: Ann Althouse weighs in with some nice analysis that's worth reading, here.
I get it: the guy's a libertarian through and through and he's committed to his principles, even if they don't always play well in the 24 hour media grist mill of contemporary America. And you have to admire the guy for having some bedrock principles and sticking to them, but at the same time, this only underlines a problem with politics that America's libertarians have yet to learn: orthodoxy is fine, ideological purity is fine, but it doesn't win you a lot of elections.
I know, I know- it seems like I'm selling out to the forces that say we should just do and say what we have to in order to win an election, but at the same time, there's not an ideology out there that you can name that when applied in its purest form into the real world as either a. remained 'pure' or b. worked all that well. Pragmatic allowances have to made in order to tailor your ideology and beliefs to the world we live in today. It also helps you win elections now and again.
Of course, Rand Paul could prove me wrong, stick to his guns and win the race in Kentucky. But one would hope as a guy who seems to be pretty smart, intelligent and genuinely interested in making a positive impact in Washington, he'd have the intellectual flexibility not to be rigid in his adherence to libertarian orthodoxy.
UPDATED 6:18 PM: Ann Althouse weighs in with some nice analysis that's worth reading, here.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Landfall
Oil has come ashore in SE Louisiana.
I don't know why I haven't written more about what's probably going to end up being one of the worst- if not the worst ecological disaster in my lifetime, but I haven't. It's hard not to dismiss this as a 'shit happens, pass me some oil booms' type of moment, yet the regulatory failures on the part of the Obama Administration and the lax safety record of BP make that all but impossible.
This is a perfect example of why we need to disentangle, once and for all the government from business. When corporations bankroll politicians and pay for their re-election campaigns, politicians are beholden to the corporations and special interests, not to the voters. And sweetheart deals and lax regulation leads to disasters such as this one. Until we learn, until we demand that the government be on the side of all the people- not groups of people, not rich people, not corporations- but all the people, then disasters like this will occur and inevitably, there will be a twin failure of business and government lurking somewhere beneath the surface waiting to be revealed.
Money and politics is a lot like oil and water- damned difficult to separate, but doable, if you really want too. The pictures I've seen thus far... unbelievable. Just unbelievable.
I don't know why I haven't written more about what's probably going to end up being one of the worst- if not the worst ecological disaster in my lifetime, but I haven't. It's hard not to dismiss this as a 'shit happens, pass me some oil booms' type of moment, yet the regulatory failures on the part of the Obama Administration and the lax safety record of BP make that all but impossible.
This is a perfect example of why we need to disentangle, once and for all the government from business. When corporations bankroll politicians and pay for their re-election campaigns, politicians are beholden to the corporations and special interests, not to the voters. And sweetheart deals and lax regulation leads to disasters such as this one. Until we learn, until we demand that the government be on the side of all the people- not groups of people, not rich people, not corporations- but all the people, then disasters like this will occur and inevitably, there will be a twin failure of business and government lurking somewhere beneath the surface waiting to be revealed.
Money and politics is a lot like oil and water- damned difficult to separate, but doable, if you really want too. The pictures I've seen thus far... unbelievable. Just unbelievable.
Albums2010 Project
Some months ago, the Missus and I were in Iowa Falls and I needed a new t-shirt for reasons passing understanding. So we ran into the Wal-Mart and I found this shirt:
Pretty cool shirt, huh? Anyway, one of the bonuses for buying this shirt was that you got a subscription to Rolling Stone for a few months absolutely free. I did my free stint with Rolling Stone and was going to cancel, but got lazy and never sent off the notice and so they keep right on coming and I keep right on reading them. When I read this week's voluminous cover story on the making of the Rolling Stones' epic album Exile On Main Street, I got to thinking. Whatever happened to the album?
Not just any old album, but the concept of the album. We live in an increasingly digital age, where more and more, the music business is moving away from albums and towards singles. We are becoming a society where instant gratification is the norm, so we don't care about the rest of the songs on the hot new CD. We just want that one sexy single we heard on the radio when we were driving to work the other day. iTunes, here we come!
The more I thought about it, the more it bothered me. I too was becoming part of the digitized, lazy generation. I too had stopped looking for and buying actual real-live albums and to me, that seemed such a shame. Looking back on my experience with the world of music- my first radio, my first cassettes, I was surprised to see that there were a large number of very good albums from my childhood that I remember listening to and enjoying a great deal- so I thought I should spend sometime listening to them and seeing how well they've done with age and remembering what exactly they meant to me way back in the day.
So, the Albums2010 Project was born. From June 1st, 2010 to June 1st, 2011 I'm going to make it my goal to find, listen to and review 100 albums that have impacted my life and my love of music- and the lives of the people I know. I'll do this in no particular order with no rankings at all. Just whatever I feel like listening to at the time.
I'm hoping some of y'all out there will join me on this venture (or make a suggestion or two), but it's cool if you don't. Either way, hopefully I can listen to some really good music, re-discover old favorites and maybe find some new kick-ass music that I can enjoy.
P.S. I've decided not to count Greatest Hits Albums. There's only one that I can think of worthy of including on a list like this and that's Bob Marley's Legend album. But if peeps out there want to pitch me a Hits collection, feel free. I'm not without feelings and always willing to listen. :-)
Pretty cool shirt, huh? Anyway, one of the bonuses for buying this shirt was that you got a subscription to Rolling Stone for a few months absolutely free. I did my free stint with Rolling Stone and was going to cancel, but got lazy and never sent off the notice and so they keep right on coming and I keep right on reading them. When I read this week's voluminous cover story on the making of the Rolling Stones' epic album Exile On Main Street, I got to thinking. Whatever happened to the album?
Not just any old album, but the concept of the album. We live in an increasingly digital age, where more and more, the music business is moving away from albums and towards singles. We are becoming a society where instant gratification is the norm, so we don't care about the rest of the songs on the hot new CD. We just want that one sexy single we heard on the radio when we were driving to work the other day. iTunes, here we come!
The more I thought about it, the more it bothered me. I too was becoming part of the digitized, lazy generation. I too had stopped looking for and buying actual real-live albums and to me, that seemed such a shame. Looking back on my experience with the world of music- my first radio, my first cassettes, I was surprised to see that there were a large number of very good albums from my childhood that I remember listening to and enjoying a great deal- so I thought I should spend sometime listening to them and seeing how well they've done with age and remembering what exactly they meant to me way back in the day.
So, the Albums2010 Project was born. From June 1st, 2010 to June 1st, 2011 I'm going to make it my goal to find, listen to and review 100 albums that have impacted my life and my love of music- and the lives of the people I know. I'll do this in no particular order with no rankings at all. Just whatever I feel like listening to at the time.
I'm hoping some of y'all out there will join me on this venture (or make a suggestion or two), but it's cool if you don't. Either way, hopefully I can listen to some really good music, re-discover old favorites and maybe find some new kick-ass music that I can enjoy.
P.S. I've decided not to count Greatest Hits Albums. There's only one that I can think of worthy of including on a list like this and that's Bob Marley's Legend album. But if peeps out there want to pitch me a Hits collection, feel free. I'm not without feelings and always willing to listen. :-)
Bookshot #3: World War Z
World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War, Max Brooks
Is it just me, or are zombies everywhere you look these days? There are zombie walks, zombie movies (such as the truly brilliant 'Zombieland' or 'Shaun of the Dead'), there are silly games on Facebook which involve killing Zombies. Speaking of Facebook, I was invited to participate in 'Zombie Awareness Month' which I guess is this month- so, in the spirit of that, and, coincidentally, completely by accident, I picked up 'World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War' while the Missus and I were house sitting for my parents and read it without stopping over the course of about two and a half days.
A simple concept, mainly a series of interviews with the survivors of a zombie apocalypse, aiming to tell the story of what really happened during the terrible plague years when the undead ravaged the Earth, World War Z draws a frighteningly realistic world quickly, sucks you into it and keeps you hooked through every single page. From frantic governments isolating themselves and whomever they could save where they could, to the people who took to the sea to save themselves, there's a gritty, almost journalistic realism that leaps out of the page at you. That, I think, is what makes this book so damn readable, as well as so damn spooky- it feels real. It feels like what would actually happen, should the undead really start to rise and sweep across the world. Eventually, humanity decides they're going to go on the offensive- but the world that Brooks' narrator describes is a shattered, far different world from what it had been before. The United States is no longer the economic engine of the world- that honor falls to newly democratic Cuba. Russia has fallen back to a quasi-fundamentalist Tsarist regime and China has gone through Civil War and out the other side. Civilization is slowly making a comeback and Brooks' narrator weaves a deceptively simple path across the globe, conducting 'interviews' with the survivors, hoping to preserve their stories for future generations to come.
Brilliant concept when you think about it: telling a completely fictional story through a series of interviews. It seems like something that's doomed to fall flat on its face- but doesn't- and I think that's because Brooks really does set this up as an actual oral history. Oral histories in real life are nothing more than a series of interviews with the people who were there, saw it all and remember everything and so it is with World War Z. Where the real genius of the concept comes to light is how Brooks managed to create such a detailed, vivid post-apocalyptic world without reliance on massive amounts of prose. When you're dealing with 'genre' fiction, world creation is probably the most important part of the entire writing process. After all, if people don't buy the post-apocalyptic world or even the fairy kingdom you've created for your characters to play in, why would they buy into your story?
There are good examples of this- and then there are lazy examples of this- some of Harry Turtledove's later works seem nothing more than retreads of recent history with the names flipped around. ('In The Presence of Mine Enemies' is a particularly egregious example of this.) Rare is it that you find a genre writer that's content with the perfect gem, like this one. Some of them go on for so long they die before finishing their story (Robert Jordan and 'The Wheel of Time') and some of them just spend the rest of their careers producing pale replicas of what they first wrote. (David Eddings, I'm looking at you.) But Brooks has apparently kept his eyes firmly on the horizon and it works brilliantly for him: he doesn't try and get crazy ambitious, he doesn't reach to high or too far- he just tells the story of a world where the undead come to life and wreck up the place. And the devastating war the followed to push them back.
Zombies... people seem to be talking about them more and more these days- probably due to the profusion of pale, emo looking vampires everywhere you look. Zombies are the perfect cultural response to annoyance of 'Twilight.' After all, what's Edward going to do when a horde of zombies catch up with him? They have no blood to suck...
Overall: I went right through this book. It's a brilliant post-apocalyptic vision of a world almost destroyed by the ravaging undead and the fact that Brooks manages to create a creepily believable world and pull of this concept of an oral history quite nicely, only serves to underline what an excellent read this book really is.
Tool
Bar owner Mike Porter has weighed in: the 21 only ordinance is a human rights violation and he'll be filing a complaint against the City alleging that it violates Iowa City's human rights ordinance as that ordinance makes it 'illegal for him to discriminate against anybody.'
Whoa there, Mike. Let's be clear here: the bars you run are essentially warehouses for getting college kids as drunk as possible as quickly as possible. As this opinion piece points out, if you want to dodge the ordinance, all you gotta do is diversify your business. But you don't want to do that, do you? You want your soapbox and to rail against the unjust human rights violation being visited upon you by the evil City Council. So, let's review:
Having electrodes attached to your genitals and being subjected to electric currents running through said electrodes: human rights violation.
Not being able to go into such fine establishments as Jake's to get wasted on cheap beer and Jaeger-bombs: human rights violation? You see where I'm having trouble with that, don't you, Mike? There is no god-given right for college kids to go into your shitheap of a bar to get wasted. You just want to make a buck.
Tool.
P.S. What your proposing, by the by, is actually unconstitutional. (If I'm reading it right, which I probably am.) State and federal laws trump local and municipal ordinances, I'm afraid. It's a little something called 'the Supremacy Clause.' Enjoy:
Whoa there, Mike. Let's be clear here: the bars you run are essentially warehouses for getting college kids as drunk as possible as quickly as possible. As this opinion piece points out, if you want to dodge the ordinance, all you gotta do is diversify your business. But you don't want to do that, do you? You want your soapbox and to rail against the unjust human rights violation being visited upon you by the evil City Council. So, let's review:
Having electrodes attached to your genitals and being subjected to electric currents running through said electrodes: human rights violation.
Not being able to go into such fine establishments as Jake's to get wasted on cheap beer and Jaeger-bombs: human rights violation? You see where I'm having trouble with that, don't you, Mike? There is no god-given right for college kids to go into your shitheap of a bar to get wasted. You just want to make a buck.
Tool.
P.S. What your proposing, by the by, is actually unconstitutional. (If I'm reading it right, which I probably am.) State and federal laws trump local and municipal ordinances, I'm afraid. It's a little something called 'the Supremacy Clause.' Enjoy:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
2,000 Gay Marriages
...and I'm still waiting for my marriage to collapse, society to collapse and the apocalypse to begin. On an interesting side note: the majority of the marriage thus far have been from non-residents. That's people coming here, renting venues here, having receptions here, booking hotels here and more importantly: spending money here. OK, so the overall economic impact is probably negligible, but anyone who wants to come to Iowa and put some dollars into our economy as a posed to some other state's is all right by me.
I'd like to think I understand the generational unease with gay marriage, but I probably don't. I mean, I get the whole 'slippery slope' thing- what's next, anal sex techniques in school? Teaching that the evil promiscuous homosexual lifestyle is OK? What will our children do? But, at the same time- that's where we need politicians who respect the Constitution of the State of Iowa and- (Hint: not the Republican candidate that rhymes with 'Blander Spats') in our state and in our nation, we need leaders who want to bring us back to a balance between the tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of the minority.
I'm still waiting for that leader.
I'd like to think I understand the generational unease with gay marriage, but I probably don't. I mean, I get the whole 'slippery slope' thing- what's next, anal sex techniques in school? Teaching that the evil promiscuous homosexual lifestyle is OK? What will our children do? But, at the same time- that's where we need politicians who respect the Constitution of the State of Iowa and- (Hint: not the Republican candidate that rhymes with 'Blander Spats') in our state and in our nation, we need leaders who want to bring us back to a balance between the tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of the minority.
I'm still waiting for that leader.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Didn't Think This One All The Way Through, Huh?
Los Angeles may want to re-think it's righteous indignation at Arizona's immigration law- because the Arizona Utility Board would be extremely happy to sell power to someone else, apparently. (HotAir via, of course, Instapundit.)
Everybody's Favorite Game
Big 10 Commish Jim Delaney spoke cryptically about what might go into possibly conference expansion discussions, here.
While fun to think about, Big 10 Expansion has become everybody's favorite game to play these days- I honestly wonder if Delaney has been dropping these broad hints just to keep sportswriters across the nation slobbering in anticipation of what and when an announcement will come as well as trying to guess just who's going to be invited to be in the Big 10. My updated thoughts are as follows: (I like to play this game too, from time to time.)
1. More Than One School. If they can get Notre Dame, I think it'll only be one school, but I don't think they're going to get Notre Dame. If they can get to 14 schools and have two more waiting in the wings to get to 16, they might make Notre Dame an offer they shouldn't refuse, but I still don't think they're going to get Notre Dame.
2. Go West, Young Man: I know JoePa is all hot to go east, but I think getting the Conference to 14 is best accomplished by a daring raid on the Big 12 North. With the exception of Nebraska it's a massively uneven division that can barely hold its weight against the Big 12 South. Nebraska and Mizzou would the likeliest candidates, but Iowa State is not out of the question, for the sake of geographical continuity. If they wanted to just go west, they could pick up Kansas and K-State to get the conference up to 16 and really f**k the Big 12 up good.
3. Look To The East: if television networks are driving this, then Rutgers is a fairly safe bet. Though how much it will open up the NYC television market is questionable to me. And Pitt could be another choice.
4. What The Hell, Let's Go All East: Rutgers, Pitt, Syracuse, Maryland and (if ND says no at that point) West Virginia.
What Do I Think As Of Today: Nebraska, Mizzou, ISU, Pitt, Rutgers.
While fun to think about, Big 10 Expansion has become everybody's favorite game to play these days- I honestly wonder if Delaney has been dropping these broad hints just to keep sportswriters across the nation slobbering in anticipation of what and when an announcement will come as well as trying to guess just who's going to be invited to be in the Big 10. My updated thoughts are as follows: (I like to play this game too, from time to time.)
1. More Than One School. If they can get Notre Dame, I think it'll only be one school, but I don't think they're going to get Notre Dame. If they can get to 14 schools and have two more waiting in the wings to get to 16, they might make Notre Dame an offer they shouldn't refuse, but I still don't think they're going to get Notre Dame.
2. Go West, Young Man: I know JoePa is all hot to go east, but I think getting the Conference to 14 is best accomplished by a daring raid on the Big 12 North. With the exception of Nebraska it's a massively uneven division that can barely hold its weight against the Big 12 South. Nebraska and Mizzou would the likeliest candidates, but Iowa State is not out of the question, for the sake of geographical continuity. If they wanted to just go west, they could pick up Kansas and K-State to get the conference up to 16 and really f**k the Big 12 up good.
3. Look To The East: if television networks are driving this, then Rutgers is a fairly safe bet. Though how much it will open up the NYC television market is questionable to me. And Pitt could be another choice.
4. What The Hell, Let's Go All East: Rutgers, Pitt, Syracuse, Maryland and (if ND says no at that point) West Virginia.
What Do I Think As Of Today: Nebraska, Mizzou, ISU, Pitt, Rutgers.
Really?
In the 'I couldn't care less' category, you can file this gem:
Why Does Justice Antonin Scalia have nine children?
How the f**k should I know? And more to the point why is this relevant to anything at all? Same with Elena Kagan possibly being a Lesbian. Who cares?
Why Does Justice Antonin Scalia have nine children?
How the f**k should I know? And more to the point why is this relevant to anything at all? Same with Elena Kagan possibly being a Lesbian. Who cares?
Primaries... (Yaaaawn!)
Several primaries around the country have results in, most none-to-earth shattering:
In Pennsylvania, party-switcher Arlen Specter lost his senatorial primary to younger, hipper, more consistently Democratic Joe Sestak. (Not unexpected.)
The special election to fill former Rep. John Murtha's seat in Southwestern Pennsylvania was also won by a Democrat. (Sort of a surprise. Think the GOP was hoping for a pick-up here- but there's always the fall.)
In Arkansas, Senator Blanche Lincoln won her primary, beating off Lt. Governor Bill Halter, but it wasn't enough to avoid a runoff in three weeks. (This could get interesting.)
In Kentucky, Rand Paul (son of Ron Paul) won the Senatorial Primary, a stinging bitch-slap to mild manner coma inducing GOP Leader Mitch McConnell, who muscled out former Senator Jim Bunning and recruited the other dude in this race to run. While I haven't read much about the younger Paul, if he's anything like his Dad, he's OK by me. (I want more Libertarian Republicans concerned with shrinking our government and less Big-Government Republicans who express concern about where I may or may not put my penis. This is a good thing.)
There were a smattering of others I don't really care about... and all the primaries were sort of eclipsed by the news that Republican Congressman Mark Souder (IN) is resigning after admitting an affair and Democratic Senatorial Candidate Richard Blumenthal (CT) had a really bad case of foot in mouth disease after claiming he served in Vietnam. (To be fair, unlike many people this dude was actually in a uniform. Just nowhere near Vietnam- he didn't even leave the U.S.)
Throw all the bums out, that's what I say!
In Pennsylvania, party-switcher Arlen Specter lost his senatorial primary to younger, hipper, more consistently Democratic Joe Sestak. (Not unexpected.)
The special election to fill former Rep. John Murtha's seat in Southwestern Pennsylvania was also won by a Democrat. (Sort of a surprise. Think the GOP was hoping for a pick-up here- but there's always the fall.)
In Arkansas, Senator Blanche Lincoln won her primary, beating off Lt. Governor Bill Halter, but it wasn't enough to avoid a runoff in three weeks. (This could get interesting.)
In Kentucky, Rand Paul (son of Ron Paul) won the Senatorial Primary, a stinging bitch-slap to mild manner coma inducing GOP Leader Mitch McConnell, who muscled out former Senator Jim Bunning and recruited the other dude in this race to run. While I haven't read much about the younger Paul, if he's anything like his Dad, he's OK by me. (I want more Libertarian Republicans concerned with shrinking our government and less Big-Government Republicans who express concern about where I may or may not put my penis. This is a good thing.)
There were a smattering of others I don't really care about... and all the primaries were sort of eclipsed by the news that Republican Congressman Mark Souder (IN) is resigning after admitting an affair and Democratic Senatorial Candidate Richard Blumenthal (CT) had a really bad case of foot in mouth disease after claiming he served in Vietnam. (To be fair, unlike many people this dude was actually in a uniform. Just nowhere near Vietnam- he didn't even leave the U.S.)
Throw all the bums out, that's what I say!
State Politics Round-Up
--Bob Vander Plaats drew a crowd of 10 at the Hamburg Inn this morning. I was toying with the idea of going and asking him why he wants a government small enough to fit into my bedroom and tell me whom I can and can't marry, but it started at 8 AM and there's no conceivable way I'm going to vote for him anyway.
--Mitt Romney endorsed Terry Branstad. There's no way I'm voting for Mitt in 2012 either, but Branstad I may well vote for. We'll have to see. (It worth noting that if Newt decides to run in 2012, Mitt won't have much of a chance. At least not from where I'm standing, but it's insanely early right now.) Also, Branstad has raised $3.2 million dollars so far in the race.
--Governor Chet Culver and his 'heart of a lion' have launched their re-election campaign today. I guess he and Vice President Joe Biden will be in Cedar Rapids today, if anyone's interested.
--Mitt Romney endorsed Terry Branstad. There's no way I'm voting for Mitt in 2012 either, but Branstad I may well vote for. We'll have to see. (It worth noting that if Newt decides to run in 2012, Mitt won't have much of a chance. At least not from where I'm standing, but it's insanely early right now.) Also, Branstad has raised $3.2 million dollars so far in the race.
--Governor Chet Culver and his 'heart of a lion' have launched their re-election campaign today. I guess he and Vice President Joe Biden will be in Cedar Rapids today, if anyone's interested.
Mt. St. Helens, 30 Years Later...
30 years ago today, Mt. St. Helens blew its top clean off! And three decades later, the area is still recovering and scientists are still studying what happened. It was the last major volcanic eruption in the continental United States (come to that, it's probably been the only volcanic eruptions in the continental United States) and it's fascinated me ever since.
My parents have a big, huge, faded yellow book from National Geographic, celebrating 100 years of that magazine- and in it, they devoted a lot of time to St. Helens, including the last words of geologist David Johnson. I don't know what it was about reading that article and seeing that 57 people (including an old man who lived on the mountain in a cabin called, I kid you not, Harry Truman) but I cranked out a pretty good short story set on the morning of the eruption. And for the life of me, I don't know where it is today, which makes me a little sad.
Monday, May 17, 2010
'We Are All Arizonans Now'
Oh Sarah Palin. What are we going to do with you? It seems that you cycle back and forth between conservative wet dream candidate for 2012 and higher office and complete buffoonery destined for a short-lived talk show on cable sometime in the next couple of years. And now, of course, like a moth to a flame or a vulture to a really juicy carcass, you've waded into this mess over the Arizona immigration law saying that you support it, blah, blah, blah, stop boycotting Arizona, blah, blah, blah, the media is getting it wrong, blah, blah, bla- wait, what did you say?
The media is getting it wrong? Let's go to actual news copy:
The former Alaska governor also blamed the news media for its coverage of the immigration issue in Arizona, saying what the measure does often is not reported accurately.
"The media is not doing its job on this," Palin said.
The scary part about this: she's actually half-right on that point. And believe me, it's not often I find myself agreeing with the things that come out of Sarah Palin's mouth. And some weeks thinking of her as President is irritating, but survivable, while other weeks, it's downright terrifying. So this is a development to say the least.
Because she is right. The media is getting it wrong on this story and more to the point, they're letting the federal government off the hook! They're the bastards we should be boycotting, in all fairness. I don't care where you stand on immigration- whether it be for total amnesty, a worker program, easier path to legalization or a wall between us and Mexico, we should all be able to come together around the idea that we have absolutely no coherent immigration policy on the Federal Level. Not even a smidgen of one- and the federal government is doing nothing to change that!
OF COURSE, crazy laws like Arizona's are going to get passed! There's a drug war going on in Northern Mexico, like a real actual war and its spilling across the extremely porous border bit by bit while the federal government does nothing at all about it. OF COURSE, they were going to do something like this. What realistic choice did they have?
Now, don't get me wrong: I have real concerns about this law. First of all, we'll leave aside the fact that if you are legal, you should be carrying a green card with ya at all times anyway- sort of like a Driver's License in that regard (another law that's never enforced, surprise, surprise.) But when you get right down to it there's this: what constitutes a legal stop is a very wide spectrum of things (if Arizona is anything like Iowa is)- so that, to me, leaves the door open to abuse. How easy it would be for cops to figure out what skin color the driver of any given car is at three in the morning is another thing entirely- but the flimsy term: 'in the course of a legal stop' covers all manner of things, to nebulous to be fully sure of protecting citizens from abuse and racial profiling.
Secondly, there's the skin test. I'm a legal immigrant, believe it or not. Are they going to be stopping people like me and asking for my papers? Nope. And therein lies another failure of the law. When they talk about the 'immigration problem' they're not talking about all illegals, they're talking about the ones with brown skin. Epic racist fail on that one Arizona. Sorry.
Finally, there's the law enforcement argument. I saw awhile back that a cop in Tucson sued the state already asking that local law enforcement be exempt from enforcing the immigration law. There's an argument to be made that if you're trying to tackle gangs, drugs and other crimes, fear of deportation is going to make it that much harder to get the cooperation needed to tackle these problems. Domestic violence will go unpunished, rapes will go unreported. The ripple effects from this law will for sure have an impact on law enforcement- but how much of an impact is still an open question- but I do think it's a valid concern to bring up.
But at the end of the day: The Feds need to DO SOMETHING! Wherever you stand on the issue, it's well past time for all of us to stand together with Arizona and demand that Washington D.C. gets off its ass and does its damn job for once. Otherwise, what are we paying them for?
The media is getting it wrong? Let's go to actual news copy:
The former Alaska governor also blamed the news media for its coverage of the immigration issue in Arizona, saying what the measure does often is not reported accurately.
"The media is not doing its job on this," Palin said.
The scary part about this: she's actually half-right on that point. And believe me, it's not often I find myself agreeing with the things that come out of Sarah Palin's mouth. And some weeks thinking of her as President is irritating, but survivable, while other weeks, it's downright terrifying. So this is a development to say the least.
Because she is right. The media is getting it wrong on this story and more to the point, they're letting the federal government off the hook! They're the bastards we should be boycotting, in all fairness. I don't care where you stand on immigration- whether it be for total amnesty, a worker program, easier path to legalization or a wall between us and Mexico, we should all be able to come together around the idea that we have absolutely no coherent immigration policy on the Federal Level. Not even a smidgen of one- and the federal government is doing nothing to change that!
OF COURSE, crazy laws like Arizona's are going to get passed! There's a drug war going on in Northern Mexico, like a real actual war and its spilling across the extremely porous border bit by bit while the federal government does nothing at all about it. OF COURSE, they were going to do something like this. What realistic choice did they have?
Now, don't get me wrong: I have real concerns about this law. First of all, we'll leave aside the fact that if you are legal, you should be carrying a green card with ya at all times anyway- sort of like a Driver's License in that regard (another law that's never enforced, surprise, surprise.) But when you get right down to it there's this: what constitutes a legal stop is a very wide spectrum of things (if Arizona is anything like Iowa is)- so that, to me, leaves the door open to abuse. How easy it would be for cops to figure out what skin color the driver of any given car is at three in the morning is another thing entirely- but the flimsy term: 'in the course of a legal stop' covers all manner of things, to nebulous to be fully sure of protecting citizens from abuse and racial profiling.
Secondly, there's the skin test. I'm a legal immigrant, believe it or not. Are they going to be stopping people like me and asking for my papers? Nope. And therein lies another failure of the law. When they talk about the 'immigration problem' they're not talking about all illegals, they're talking about the ones with brown skin. Epic racist fail on that one Arizona. Sorry.
Finally, there's the law enforcement argument. I saw awhile back that a cop in Tucson sued the state already asking that local law enforcement be exempt from enforcing the immigration law. There's an argument to be made that if you're trying to tackle gangs, drugs and other crimes, fear of deportation is going to make it that much harder to get the cooperation needed to tackle these problems. Domestic violence will go unpunished, rapes will go unreported. The ripple effects from this law will for sure have an impact on law enforcement- but how much of an impact is still an open question- but I do think it's a valid concern to bring up.
But at the end of the day: The Feds need to DO SOMETHING! Wherever you stand on the issue, it's well past time for all of us to stand together with Arizona and demand that Washington D.C. gets off its ass and does its damn job for once. Otherwise, what are we paying them for?
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Dispatches From Studio Arts #4
Shout out to the Brockster for this one, but I thought I'd take a moment to mourn the decline of really interesting music videos by offering one of my faves:
Behold, OK Go's 'Here It Goes Again'
I was gonna get Fatboy Slim's 'Weapon of Choice' but couldn't find a version with an embed code. Apologies. But, dear readers, weigh in: what's your favorite music video?
Behold, OK Go's 'Here It Goes Again'
I was gonna get Fatboy Slim's 'Weapon of Choice' but couldn't find a version with an embed code. Apologies. But, dear readers, weigh in: what's your favorite music video?
Late Night Chronicles 67: 31%
Published just minutes ago on Facebook...
I was in 4th Grade in 1992. It was my very first Presidential election and it was exciting. I understood pretty much none of it, but in the spirit of fighting the apathy infecting the American electorate, the school I was attending at the time decided it was going to participate in KidsVote! And I was a super enthusiastic participant. The choices were, as all the world knows: Clinton, Bush or Perot. Bush seemed really, really old to me. Everyone around me seemed to want Clinton, so naturally, I decided that I was going to poke everyone in the eye and proudly cast my fake ballot for Ross Perot. I dimly understood in my 4th Grade way what happened with Gennifer Flowers and when Perot dropped out, I was pissed beyond belief. My guy had quit. He was a quitter. He gave up and the old guy and the super popular guy that everyone wanted were going to fight to the finish for it. It didn't seem right to me, even then. This country was so big, it just seemed like there should be more than two choices.
Flash forward nearly two decades later and a recent poll indicates that 31% of Americans think there should be a third party in this country. Looking at the news these days, it's a wonder that number isn't a lot higher- especially given the moment in history we're coming too. This may sound like a grand theorem of political science worthy of such notables as Huntington or Fukayama, but I'm gonna put it out there for y'all, see if that cat licks it up: right now, we're at the start of the terminal crisis of the 20th Century Liberal Welfare State. Unfortunately for the true Socialist believers out there, it's not the terminal crisis of global capitalism- at least not yet, but one thing is for sure: the concept of the state, the government and what those two august bodies should do needs to be subjected to vigorous debate as we enter the 21st Century, because unless we radically change the way we do business, the services and the benefits our government provides us- indeed, large portions of our government itself will no longer be affordable.
Are our two parties up to the task ahead? Forgive my cynicism, but the answer seems to be 'no.' Democrats are still married to the dessicated remnants of the Great Society and the New Deal and Republicans, well, they're a bunch of useless sellouts in my book. In 1994 we were promised smaller government, we were promised lower taxes and OK, so they got welfare reform done, but under Republicans, our surplus vanished, our government expanded, we're fighting two very expensive wars and our deficit has never been bigger. They have precisely zero credibility in my book. No, instead, we seem to be hell bent on choking the life out of our democracy at every turn. Politicians do the bidding of the corporations and uber-rich that bankroll their re-election campaigns. And their allegiance, not to their constituents, but to their donor base is evident in policies of bailout, refusal to break up the big banks that almost crashed our economy and insistence on limiting a proposed audit of the Federal Reserve. Because transparency, well, that can't be a good thing. Letting people find out just how corrupt the government is? No, no, we can't be having that. Evidence seems to suggest that our political system is broken, perhaps irretrievably.
So what are we going to do about it? Well, 31% of the people in this poll seemed to think that a 3rd Party is the answer. I'm not going to argue that's a silver bullet, but a real, mainstream political party advocating a real, clearly delineated agenda that differs from the other parties is something that America has never had before. If offered a real, genuine choice it'd be interesting indeed to see how many people would take that choice. Due respect to the MoveOn.org, Tea Party crowds, but change from the inside? Primary every candidate you want too- run all the ads you want too, but the elite superstructure that governs this country can't be undermined from within. It needs to be drowned from without- a rising tide sinks all ships, so they say.
And an actual Third Party? Never been done. Ever. Oh, there are 3rd Parties out there- but the current crop is so far removed from the mainstream as to be completely unpalatable or unelectable and if we're going to have a Third Party, it should win something now and again. But even historically speaking, there's never been a third party that's had a place in the mainstream political spectrum. Free Soilers, Bull Moosers, Farmer-Laborers were either regionally based parties that were absorbed into other parties or parties centered around one candidate that didn't last without the candidate in question. No one has given independents a voice ever before. No one has kept the ball rolling before. No one has tried to tilt at that ultimate windmill and get something going, harnass some outrage and bring down the system that's intent on driving this country right over the edge of the cliff.
(Interesting aside: the Progressive Movement was actually an offshot of the Republican Party originally. No one tell DailyKos.com.)
Now, political scientists everywhere are already shaking their heads. 'Can't be done, Tom. We sat through American politics- we know all about it.' The two parties want to keep themselves in charge- they make the rules of the game and they don't want to play with others. DuVerger has his law that states that plurality election systems like ours tend to favor two parties. The former is most definately true, which again underlines why we need another party: someone needs to stand up and call bullshit on the control of our democracy by the two incompetent parties that try and run this place. But DuVerger? As a political scientist, I have to admit that he's not entirely wrong. It's not a hard and fast 100% rule, but an electoral system like ours is guaranteed to keep the number of parties low, even without the bullshit controls imposed on us by the two parties. Yet both Britain and Canada stand as examples of 3, even 4 party systems. OK, so in most places it's some combination of those 3 parties fighting for the top two spots instead of a truly 3 party race across these respective countries, but it's something. It's more open, it's more fair than what we have know. So, Monsieur DuVerger, I blow a raspberry at you and your law, I fart in its general direction. Education in this country teaches us to conform, conform, conform, whatever the cost may be- and there's a dangerous lack of independent thought that blinds a lot of people to just how corrupt the government is or what the possibilities of a third party actually are.
Let's be clear: the only wasted vote is the one you don't take and its our vote. It's not their vote, its ours. And if you and your neighbors all vote for someone else and get all their neighbors to vote for someone else and so on and so forth, then we've got the numbers to do whatever the hardwork of a lifetime can get us. And make no mistake- the job of forming and building a political party up so it's big enough to make a breakthrough nationally and really change things? That could well take a lifetime. Taking on every elite powerstructure in this country- it's scary as shit. Hell, is it even worth doing at all?
I'd like to think so. I'm not going to say that the American government speaks for me or even represents what I believe at all, but I do have, much to my surprise, a deep and abiding faith in the possibility of America, in the ideal of America. I believe we can do better and however you choose to do it, everyone should roll up their sleeves get out there and find ways to make American better, be they big or big they small. The very notion of founding and organizing another political party designed to make a serious run at the center of power probably seems completely insane to everyone that really stops to think about it a little bit. But not to me- like in 1992, I believe there's joy in non-conformity and trying to be yourself and holding out hope that someone will stand up and speak to what you believe.
America was founded by a group of people who decided they were going to breakaway from the most powerful empire on the face of the planet at the time and form their own, independent country. If that's not an insane notion when you stop and think about it, I don't know what is- but they went ahead and did it anyway. So when people present me with logical, well-reasoned arguments about why third parties won't work in the United States, I shake my head. It's not about logic- it's about the rest of us. It's about a country that has forgotten ambition, forgotten craziness, forgotten that this, much more than Spain really is the land of Don Quixote. Tilting at windmills is a fundamental part of the American national character- and the fight for a better, more open, more representative democracy (which should begin now, by the way) is perhaps the biggest windmill left to tilt at. It may seem crazy, it may seem like complete madness, but that doesn't mean it won't work.
The fight for a better democracy... a third party... they may be dreams, they may be windmills, they may be crazy notions from a sleep-deprived brain that haven't a hope in hell of success, but even if they turn out to be dreams or windmills even, to me, it's worth trying. Because if by chance, you happen to hit something when you're tilting at that windmill, well, wouldn't that be a helluva thing?
After all, 31% of the people can't be wrong, can they?
I was in 4th Grade in 1992. It was my very first Presidential election and it was exciting. I understood pretty much none of it, but in the spirit of fighting the apathy infecting the American electorate, the school I was attending at the time decided it was going to participate in KidsVote! And I was a super enthusiastic participant. The choices were, as all the world knows: Clinton, Bush or Perot. Bush seemed really, really old to me. Everyone around me seemed to want Clinton, so naturally, I decided that I was going to poke everyone in the eye and proudly cast my fake ballot for Ross Perot. I dimly understood in my 4th Grade way what happened with Gennifer Flowers and when Perot dropped out, I was pissed beyond belief. My guy had quit. He was a quitter. He gave up and the old guy and the super popular guy that everyone wanted were going to fight to the finish for it. It didn't seem right to me, even then. This country was so big, it just seemed like there should be more than two choices.
Flash forward nearly two decades later and a recent poll indicates that 31% of Americans think there should be a third party in this country. Looking at the news these days, it's a wonder that number isn't a lot higher- especially given the moment in history we're coming too. This may sound like a grand theorem of political science worthy of such notables as Huntington or Fukayama, but I'm gonna put it out there for y'all, see if that cat licks it up: right now, we're at the start of the terminal crisis of the 20th Century Liberal Welfare State. Unfortunately for the true Socialist believers out there, it's not the terminal crisis of global capitalism- at least not yet, but one thing is for sure: the concept of the state, the government and what those two august bodies should do needs to be subjected to vigorous debate as we enter the 21st Century, because unless we radically change the way we do business, the services and the benefits our government provides us- indeed, large portions of our government itself will no longer be affordable.
Are our two parties up to the task ahead? Forgive my cynicism, but the answer seems to be 'no.' Democrats are still married to the dessicated remnants of the Great Society and the New Deal and Republicans, well, they're a bunch of useless sellouts in my book. In 1994 we were promised smaller government, we were promised lower taxes and OK, so they got welfare reform done, but under Republicans, our surplus vanished, our government expanded, we're fighting two very expensive wars and our deficit has never been bigger. They have precisely zero credibility in my book. No, instead, we seem to be hell bent on choking the life out of our democracy at every turn. Politicians do the bidding of the corporations and uber-rich that bankroll their re-election campaigns. And their allegiance, not to their constituents, but to their donor base is evident in policies of bailout, refusal to break up the big banks that almost crashed our economy and insistence on limiting a proposed audit of the Federal Reserve. Because transparency, well, that can't be a good thing. Letting people find out just how corrupt the government is? No, no, we can't be having that. Evidence seems to suggest that our political system is broken, perhaps irretrievably.
So what are we going to do about it? Well, 31% of the people in this poll seemed to think that a 3rd Party is the answer. I'm not going to argue that's a silver bullet, but a real, mainstream political party advocating a real, clearly delineated agenda that differs from the other parties is something that America has never had before. If offered a real, genuine choice it'd be interesting indeed to see how many people would take that choice. Due respect to the MoveOn.org, Tea Party crowds, but change from the inside? Primary every candidate you want too- run all the ads you want too, but the elite superstructure that governs this country can't be undermined from within. It needs to be drowned from without- a rising tide sinks all ships, so they say.
And an actual Third Party? Never been done. Ever. Oh, there are 3rd Parties out there- but the current crop is so far removed from the mainstream as to be completely unpalatable or unelectable and if we're going to have a Third Party, it should win something now and again. But even historically speaking, there's never been a third party that's had a place in the mainstream political spectrum. Free Soilers, Bull Moosers, Farmer-Laborers were either regionally based parties that were absorbed into other parties or parties centered around one candidate that didn't last without the candidate in question. No one has given independents a voice ever before. No one has kept the ball rolling before. No one has tried to tilt at that ultimate windmill and get something going, harnass some outrage and bring down the system that's intent on driving this country right over the edge of the cliff.
(Interesting aside: the Progressive Movement was actually an offshot of the Republican Party originally. No one tell DailyKos.com.)
Now, political scientists everywhere are already shaking their heads. 'Can't be done, Tom. We sat through American politics- we know all about it.' The two parties want to keep themselves in charge- they make the rules of the game and they don't want to play with others. DuVerger has his law that states that plurality election systems like ours tend to favor two parties. The former is most definately true, which again underlines why we need another party: someone needs to stand up and call bullshit on the control of our democracy by the two incompetent parties that try and run this place. But DuVerger? As a political scientist, I have to admit that he's not entirely wrong. It's not a hard and fast 100% rule, but an electoral system like ours is guaranteed to keep the number of parties low, even without the bullshit controls imposed on us by the two parties. Yet both Britain and Canada stand as examples of 3, even 4 party systems. OK, so in most places it's some combination of those 3 parties fighting for the top two spots instead of a truly 3 party race across these respective countries, but it's something. It's more open, it's more fair than what we have know. So, Monsieur DuVerger, I blow a raspberry at you and your law, I fart in its general direction. Education in this country teaches us to conform, conform, conform, whatever the cost may be- and there's a dangerous lack of independent thought that blinds a lot of people to just how corrupt the government is or what the possibilities of a third party actually are.
Let's be clear: the only wasted vote is the one you don't take and its our vote. It's not their vote, its ours. And if you and your neighbors all vote for someone else and get all their neighbors to vote for someone else and so on and so forth, then we've got the numbers to do whatever the hardwork of a lifetime can get us. And make no mistake- the job of forming and building a political party up so it's big enough to make a breakthrough nationally and really change things? That could well take a lifetime. Taking on every elite powerstructure in this country- it's scary as shit. Hell, is it even worth doing at all?
I'd like to think so. I'm not going to say that the American government speaks for me or even represents what I believe at all, but I do have, much to my surprise, a deep and abiding faith in the possibility of America, in the ideal of America. I believe we can do better and however you choose to do it, everyone should roll up their sleeves get out there and find ways to make American better, be they big or big they small. The very notion of founding and organizing another political party designed to make a serious run at the center of power probably seems completely insane to everyone that really stops to think about it a little bit. But not to me- like in 1992, I believe there's joy in non-conformity and trying to be yourself and holding out hope that someone will stand up and speak to what you believe.
America was founded by a group of people who decided they were going to breakaway from the most powerful empire on the face of the planet at the time and form their own, independent country. If that's not an insane notion when you stop and think about it, I don't know what is- but they went ahead and did it anyway. So when people present me with logical, well-reasoned arguments about why third parties won't work in the United States, I shake my head. It's not about logic- it's about the rest of us. It's about a country that has forgotten ambition, forgotten craziness, forgotten that this, much more than Spain really is the land of Don Quixote. Tilting at windmills is a fundamental part of the American national character- and the fight for a better, more open, more representative democracy (which should begin now, by the way) is perhaps the biggest windmill left to tilt at. It may seem crazy, it may seem like complete madness, but that doesn't mean it won't work.
The fight for a better democracy... a third party... they may be dreams, they may be windmills, they may be crazy notions from a sleep-deprived brain that haven't a hope in hell of success, but even if they turn out to be dreams or windmills even, to me, it's worth trying. Because if by chance, you happen to hit something when you're tilting at that windmill, well, wouldn't that be a helluva thing?
After all, 31% of the people can't be wrong, can they?
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Late Night Chronicles 66: Goodbye, Mr. Chips
Published on Facebook in the wee hours of the morning of 5/13/2010
Old friend, it's time to say goodbye. You were a novelty of my youth- causing indigestion with your overindulgence of the nacho cheese- tantalizing me with the sweet tangy taste of cool ranch. You went well with sour cream dip and were always a pleasant surprise to see at family picnics. As I grew older, I avoided you at first- but once I hit college, I did what all college kids do: I found an appaulingly bad staple for my diet and I stuck to it. Yes, college was where our love affair truly began. Do you remember? Do you remember when I first found you- those semesters in Apartment #12 on Burlington St, where I subsisted off of orange chicken and crab rangoons from the now departed genius chinese culinary emporium Easy Place Chinese Food?
But, like The Byrds sang, for everything there is a season, turn, turn, turn. (But don't turn too much- you might throw up.) Or something like that, so it's time to let you go once and for all. It's time for me to do what I should have done a long time ago. Go to that pale meeting room in a church basement somewhere, stand up in front of everyone and admit: 'Hi, my name's Tom and I'm addicted to Doritos.'
Yes, it's sad but true- but somewhere along the way in college, I did develop a little bit of a problem when it comes to Doritos. They used to have these salsa Doritos that were damn near as close to perfection as you could get in a chip. They had the right balance of spiciness and flavor and there was a good two, three semester stretch where I would go through a bag of the damn things every single day. I miss that aspect of college sometimes: just eating whatever was lying around in the fridge, regardless of nutritional value. There's a beer garden at Joe's Place where it was now, but it used to be Easy Place Chinese Food- and it was the first Chinese food place I came across that delivered- and it was pretty cheap. So there were a couple of semesters where I lived off of their orange chicken and their crab rangoons. God, I miss that place! Those crab rangoons were perfection- the perfect balance of crab and cream cheese and that orange chicken? (In fact, the way I judge Chinese restaurants now is based solely on their crab rangoons. So far, few, if any have measured up to Easy Place.) So. Damn. Good.
But even after it burned down: there were always the Doritos. I can't remember what I did after the salsa flavored ones went away- but suddenly, there were a flood of flavors that were intriguing to say the least. Mystery flavors that might have been cheeseburger, but just tasted plumb weird- the Smokey Cheddar BBQ and the Spicy Sweet Chilli flavors... wow. Almost as good as those salsa flavored ones, but not quite... combo flavors of pizza and ranch, enchilada and sour cream. Weirder combinations still of Tacos At Midnight or Jalapeno Popper or even Cheesebugers All Nite or some odd homage to noir films that I haven't quite wrapped my head around. Doritos seemed to be on top of the world, this risk-taking, edgy chip company that was willing to dump whatever weird flavorings on pieces of chip and put in a bag and market it to the eager American consumer- namely me, who went on to eat most of those weird-ass flavors.
Ah, Doritos. Throughout college, you've been my constant culinary companion. Even though there's no IMU Food Court in the basement anymore- I miss those bacon cheeseburgers they used to make. There are good cheeseburgers and there are bad cheeseburgers- and these were the best of the latter quality. I don't know what it was about them- probably the fact that they were made by students paid minimum wages and that uncaring, 'I hate my job' mentality made it into the burgers somehow. The squashed bun, the straight out of the freezer bit of cooked meat slipped in between them- melted cheese and a circular slip of bacon all combined into the most pathetic bacon cheeseburger ever made. They had all the appeal of masking tape- and some days, they really tasted like it, but damn, were they good. I ate a lot of those too, back in the day...
One grease fire took the best Chinese food I ever tasted away. A flood of apocalyptic proportions denies me the pleasure of some truly delicious bad bacon cheeseburgers. But Doritos remained- until now. The time has come, my friends, to say Goodbye to Mr. Chips...
I'm getting older. I'm exercising less. I'm trying to be a super-fertile specimen of a man, so the Missus and I can start shucking out kids at some point. I bought some Asics and should the weather actually start acting like its May and stop raining at some point, I'll be using them to actually start running again. They say the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step- and this is an important step that's a long time in coming. Eating healthier is a concious choice and it begins with saying goodbye to Doritos once and for all.
So I've made a healthier choice. It's a choice that can be chocolatey, sweet, savory or spicy depending on my mood. A choice that's got 60% less fat than the chips I used to like. A choice that... hang on a sec. [Insert crunching noises here] Just tastes so damn good...
Yes, Goodbye Doritos... hello Chex Mix.
Old friend, it's time to say goodbye. You were a novelty of my youth- causing indigestion with your overindulgence of the nacho cheese- tantalizing me with the sweet tangy taste of cool ranch. You went well with sour cream dip and were always a pleasant surprise to see at family picnics. As I grew older, I avoided you at first- but once I hit college, I did what all college kids do: I found an appaulingly bad staple for my diet and I stuck to it. Yes, college was where our love affair truly began. Do you remember? Do you remember when I first found you- those semesters in Apartment #12 on Burlington St, where I subsisted off of orange chicken and crab rangoons from the now departed genius chinese culinary emporium Easy Place Chinese Food?
But, like The Byrds sang, for everything there is a season, turn, turn, turn. (But don't turn too much- you might throw up.) Or something like that, so it's time to let you go once and for all. It's time for me to do what I should have done a long time ago. Go to that pale meeting room in a church basement somewhere, stand up in front of everyone and admit: 'Hi, my name's Tom and I'm addicted to Doritos.'
Yes, it's sad but true- but somewhere along the way in college, I did develop a little bit of a problem when it comes to Doritos. They used to have these salsa Doritos that were damn near as close to perfection as you could get in a chip. They had the right balance of spiciness and flavor and there was a good two, three semester stretch where I would go through a bag of the damn things every single day. I miss that aspect of college sometimes: just eating whatever was lying around in the fridge, regardless of nutritional value. There's a beer garden at Joe's Place where it was now, but it used to be Easy Place Chinese Food- and it was the first Chinese food place I came across that delivered- and it was pretty cheap. So there were a couple of semesters where I lived off of their orange chicken and their crab rangoons. God, I miss that place! Those crab rangoons were perfection- the perfect balance of crab and cream cheese and that orange chicken? (In fact, the way I judge Chinese restaurants now is based solely on their crab rangoons. So far, few, if any have measured up to Easy Place.) So. Damn. Good.
But even after it burned down: there were always the Doritos. I can't remember what I did after the salsa flavored ones went away- but suddenly, there were a flood of flavors that were intriguing to say the least. Mystery flavors that might have been cheeseburger, but just tasted plumb weird- the Smokey Cheddar BBQ and the Spicy Sweet Chilli flavors... wow. Almost as good as those salsa flavored ones, but not quite... combo flavors of pizza and ranch, enchilada and sour cream. Weirder combinations still of Tacos At Midnight or Jalapeno Popper or even Cheesebugers All Nite or some odd homage to noir films that I haven't quite wrapped my head around. Doritos seemed to be on top of the world, this risk-taking, edgy chip company that was willing to dump whatever weird flavorings on pieces of chip and put in a bag and market it to the eager American consumer- namely me, who went on to eat most of those weird-ass flavors.
Ah, Doritos. Throughout college, you've been my constant culinary companion. Even though there's no IMU Food Court in the basement anymore- I miss those bacon cheeseburgers they used to make. There are good cheeseburgers and there are bad cheeseburgers- and these were the best of the latter quality. I don't know what it was about them- probably the fact that they were made by students paid minimum wages and that uncaring, 'I hate my job' mentality made it into the burgers somehow. The squashed bun, the straight out of the freezer bit of cooked meat slipped in between them- melted cheese and a circular slip of bacon all combined into the most pathetic bacon cheeseburger ever made. They had all the appeal of masking tape- and some days, they really tasted like it, but damn, were they good. I ate a lot of those too, back in the day...
One grease fire took the best Chinese food I ever tasted away. A flood of apocalyptic proportions denies me the pleasure of some truly delicious bad bacon cheeseburgers. But Doritos remained- until now. The time has come, my friends, to say Goodbye to Mr. Chips...
I'm getting older. I'm exercising less. I'm trying to be a super-fertile specimen of a man, so the Missus and I can start shucking out kids at some point. I bought some Asics and should the weather actually start acting like its May and stop raining at some point, I'll be using them to actually start running again. They say the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step- and this is an important step that's a long time in coming. Eating healthier is a concious choice and it begins with saying goodbye to Doritos once and for all.
So I've made a healthier choice. It's a choice that can be chocolatey, sweet, savory or spicy depending on my mood. A choice that's got 60% less fat than the chips I used to like. A choice that... hang on a sec. [Insert crunching noises here] Just tastes so damn good...
Yes, Goodbye Doritos... hello Chex Mix.
Late Night Chronicles 65: Opstad's New Folly
Published on Facebook tonight...
The headline on the Press-Citizen website today was crystal clear. The Iowa City School Board, thumbing its nose at the City Council had voted to build a third high school when 'enrollment and finances allow for it' whatever exactly that means. The mess of redistricting that seemed to have consumed the headlines for weeks now had calmed down, now that plans to shift Wickham and Lincoln Elementaries to City High and Twain and Lake Ridge to West High had also been voted down. Yet people remain uneasy over the idea of a third high school- especially one that's being built out in the northwest coridoor area of North Liberty and Coralville.
I suppose there are a number of reasons for this- mainly that yet another high school on that side of town will only serve to exacerbate the growing socio-economic divide between the east and west sides of town that's been thrown into sharp relief by this redistricting mess. Maintaining some semblance of balance is a valid concern, but like many, I have to jump on the bandwagon and say that the idea of a high school out near North Liberty doesn't really appeal to me that much. Not because I think that a third high school isn't going to be necessity at some point, because it surely will be, but because it lacks imagination, ambition and a clarity of vision. The School Board is voting with its feet: the NW Coridoor is where the growth is, it's where the money is- power and influence are shifting over in that direction all the time, so why not give the rich folks what they want and give them another high school over there? After all, then they won't have to truck their kids to the ghettos of the eastside of Iowa City where they'll have to go to that school. (The school in question, being City High of course.)
So I'll just come right out and say it: ok, build a new high school. But build it in the right place- and the right place, I'm here to tell you, is nowhere near North Liberty, instead it's firmly on the Southwest side of Iowa City- probably somewhere along that new extension of Mormon Trek that they eventually want to creep up and around to Scott Boulevard someday.
Let me explain myself a little bit: West High is always, always, always going to be the preppy school. That's not to say that City High is a bad school in any way- in fact, all of Iowa City's schools are something to be damn proud of, because let's face it: there are schools much worse out there that your kids could be going to. But West is always going to be a preppy school- and if maintaining some semblance of socio-economic balance between the high schools is a primary concern, then building a new high school out near North Liberty is going to make maintaining a balance- or even redressing an imbalance that much harder to accomplish. And then we get precisely what a lot of people in the community don't seem to want: a rich kid's school and a poor kid's school and the mistaken belief that one is better than the other, when one may in fact, be about the same quality as the other. It depends on how you look at it.
Now, let's say we do what I want (because I'm awesome and other such reasons) and build the new high school out on the southwest side. It'll start as a 9th Grade Center at first: taking a broad mix of kids from South of Melrose and West of the River and a good chunk of the neighborhoods of the SE side. This initial move allows for two things to take place: first, West High frees up some room to absorb additional growth from the NW coridoor- and City High moves to redress the socio-economic imbalance that's plagued that particular school for sometime now.
As growth accelerates in the NW coridoor, that's when our 9th Grade Center would blossom into a full high school- the goal being that broadly speaking, everyone south of Melrose and West of the River and south of highway 6 only would be going to the new high school. West would absorb new growth from the NW Coridoor and City would pick up growth along the far east side of town and maybe some neighborhoods in the Manville Heights area, depending on how enrollment figures go. Ideally what we would want to evolve to is this: West High looking firmly North of Melrose towards Coralville, North Liberty and the new areas of growth and development along the Coridoor- City High stabilizing its enrollment figures and maybe even absorbing new students at a more natural rate- and our new high school taking a good mix of lower incomes from the SE, middle incomes from the UHeights SW side and upper incomes from the west side. A high school on the SW side of town would make achieving a better socio-economic balance between all three school easier to achieve. Let West High be West High and let City High be City High- preserving their identities within the community is an important goal and getting a better socio-economic balance in all of our schools should be the primary driving force when looking at a third high school.
There's another reason too- one that the City Council should see the wisdom of and sign up to right away, at least if they're thinking straight, which is an open question on their best days. 70 years ago, Iowa City's superintendent Ivor Opstad purchased a tract of farmland on the eastside of town in order to build a new high school and everyone thought he had lost his mind. Why, people asked, would anyone want to build a high school in the middle of nowhere? (Which is where the land was at the time.) Opstad's Folly they called it- and 70 years later, it's become clear that Ivor Opstad was a man thinking far, far ahead of his time- as Iowa City expanded, surrounded and grew up around Opstad's Folly: City High School. A new high school on the SW side could not only help achieve a better socio-economic balance between our schools, but it could also help spur residential and commercial development on that side of town. Sure, North Liberty is where all the action is right now, but once upon a time, an Iowa City School Board took a chance on what everyone thought was an absolutely crazy mistake. And look how well that's worked out for the School District and the Community as a whole.
We don't need pedestrian solutions or inside the box thinking when it comes to building a new high school. If and when it's built, it's probably going to be one of the more important decisions that the community makes for decades to come. All options, all locations should be on the table. Every idea- even the crazy ones- hell, especially the crazy ones should be open to debate and discourse. We need a School Board willing to be more ambitious, think in terms of decades and not just in terms of the next 5-10 years. We need a School Board that's willing to take a leap of faith- and maybe, just maybe, do something that seems totally and utterly foolish.
After all, it's worked for Iowa City once before. Who says it can't work the same way again?
The headline on the Press-Citizen website today was crystal clear. The Iowa City School Board, thumbing its nose at the City Council had voted to build a third high school when 'enrollment and finances allow for it' whatever exactly that means. The mess of redistricting that seemed to have consumed the headlines for weeks now had calmed down, now that plans to shift Wickham and Lincoln Elementaries to City High and Twain and Lake Ridge to West High had also been voted down. Yet people remain uneasy over the idea of a third high school- especially one that's being built out in the northwest coridoor area of North Liberty and Coralville.
I suppose there are a number of reasons for this- mainly that yet another high school on that side of town will only serve to exacerbate the growing socio-economic divide between the east and west sides of town that's been thrown into sharp relief by this redistricting mess. Maintaining some semblance of balance is a valid concern, but like many, I have to jump on the bandwagon and say that the idea of a high school out near North Liberty doesn't really appeal to me that much. Not because I think that a third high school isn't going to be necessity at some point, because it surely will be, but because it lacks imagination, ambition and a clarity of vision. The School Board is voting with its feet: the NW Coridoor is where the growth is, it's where the money is- power and influence are shifting over in that direction all the time, so why not give the rich folks what they want and give them another high school over there? After all, then they won't have to truck their kids to the ghettos of the eastside of Iowa City where they'll have to go to that school. (The school in question, being City High of course.)
So I'll just come right out and say it: ok, build a new high school. But build it in the right place- and the right place, I'm here to tell you, is nowhere near North Liberty, instead it's firmly on the Southwest side of Iowa City- probably somewhere along that new extension of Mormon Trek that they eventually want to creep up and around to Scott Boulevard someday.
Let me explain myself a little bit: West High is always, always, always going to be the preppy school. That's not to say that City High is a bad school in any way- in fact, all of Iowa City's schools are something to be damn proud of, because let's face it: there are schools much worse out there that your kids could be going to. But West is always going to be a preppy school- and if maintaining some semblance of socio-economic balance between the high schools is a primary concern, then building a new high school out near North Liberty is going to make maintaining a balance- or even redressing an imbalance that much harder to accomplish. And then we get precisely what a lot of people in the community don't seem to want: a rich kid's school and a poor kid's school and the mistaken belief that one is better than the other, when one may in fact, be about the same quality as the other. It depends on how you look at it.
Now, let's say we do what I want (because I'm awesome and other such reasons) and build the new high school out on the southwest side. It'll start as a 9th Grade Center at first: taking a broad mix of kids from South of Melrose and West of the River and a good chunk of the neighborhoods of the SE side. This initial move allows for two things to take place: first, West High frees up some room to absorb additional growth from the NW coridoor- and City High moves to redress the socio-economic imbalance that's plagued that particular school for sometime now.
As growth accelerates in the NW coridoor, that's when our 9th Grade Center would blossom into a full high school- the goal being that broadly speaking, everyone south of Melrose and West of the River and south of highway 6 only would be going to the new high school. West would absorb new growth from the NW Coridoor and City would pick up growth along the far east side of town and maybe some neighborhoods in the Manville Heights area, depending on how enrollment figures go. Ideally what we would want to evolve to is this: West High looking firmly North of Melrose towards Coralville, North Liberty and the new areas of growth and development along the Coridoor- City High stabilizing its enrollment figures and maybe even absorbing new students at a more natural rate- and our new high school taking a good mix of lower incomes from the SE, middle incomes from the UHeights SW side and upper incomes from the west side. A high school on the SW side of town would make achieving a better socio-economic balance between all three school easier to achieve. Let West High be West High and let City High be City High- preserving their identities within the community is an important goal and getting a better socio-economic balance in all of our schools should be the primary driving force when looking at a third high school.
There's another reason too- one that the City Council should see the wisdom of and sign up to right away, at least if they're thinking straight, which is an open question on their best days. 70 years ago, Iowa City's superintendent Ivor Opstad purchased a tract of farmland on the eastside of town in order to build a new high school and everyone thought he had lost his mind. Why, people asked, would anyone want to build a high school in the middle of nowhere? (Which is where the land was at the time.) Opstad's Folly they called it- and 70 years later, it's become clear that Ivor Opstad was a man thinking far, far ahead of his time- as Iowa City expanded, surrounded and grew up around Opstad's Folly: City High School. A new high school on the SW side could not only help achieve a better socio-economic balance between our schools, but it could also help spur residential and commercial development on that side of town. Sure, North Liberty is where all the action is right now, but once upon a time, an Iowa City School Board took a chance on what everyone thought was an absolutely crazy mistake. And look how well that's worked out for the School District and the Community as a whole.
We don't need pedestrian solutions or inside the box thinking when it comes to building a new high school. If and when it's built, it's probably going to be one of the more important decisions that the community makes for decades to come. All options, all locations should be on the table. Every idea- even the crazy ones- hell, especially the crazy ones should be open to debate and discourse. We need a School Board willing to be more ambitious, think in terms of decades and not just in terms of the next 5-10 years. We need a School Board that's willing to take a leap of faith- and maybe, just maybe, do something that seems totally and utterly foolish.
After all, it's worked for Iowa City once before. Who says it can't work the same way again?
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Sold!
Gordon Brown is out as PM. The Tories and the LibDems appear to be on the verge of a deal. Details, pontification to follow.
UPDATED, 11:27 PM: Well, there's a deal and a new Prime Minister in Great Britain. Kids, meet the new man in charge across the pond:
David Cameron, head of the Conservative Party. The first Conservative Prime Minister in 13 years, the first truly upper crust 'Etonian' Prime Minister (the very essence of old school 'Establishment') since the 60s and the youngest Prime Minister since this guy:
Lord Liverpool! Prime Minister from 1812 to 1827, making Cameron the youngest Prime Minister in about 200 years, all of which are pretty impressive milestones for your first day running a country.
But kids, it gets better! David Cameron secured a deal with the Liberal Democrats to form the first coalition government since 1945 and the for the first time in 70 years, there will be Liberals in the Cabinet- Nick Clegg and four other LibDems will be given seats in the Cabinet. All the nitty gritty is summarized neatly by the Guardian, here.
All in all, it's been a pretty extraordinary day across the pond- and it's certainly a day full of milestone, some of which haven't been seen for nearly a century- but it's not all good news- there are dangers ahead. Rumblings on the left of the Liberal Democrats, the same on the Tory right- Britain hasn't had a lot of experience with coalition governments. At least not in the past six decades or so. They might be a little out of practice, but the situation, as with all coalition government demands something of a tight-rope walk. He's barely 24 hours on the job and David Cameron is presenting all the signs that he might just have the magic touch to walk that line- at least for now.
UPDATED, 11:27 PM: Well, there's a deal and a new Prime Minister in Great Britain. Kids, meet the new man in charge across the pond:
David Cameron, head of the Conservative Party. The first Conservative Prime Minister in 13 years, the first truly upper crust 'Etonian' Prime Minister (the very essence of old school 'Establishment') since the 60s and the youngest Prime Minister since this guy:
Lord Liverpool! Prime Minister from 1812 to 1827, making Cameron the youngest Prime Minister in about 200 years, all of which are pretty impressive milestones for your first day running a country.
But kids, it gets better! David Cameron secured a deal with the Liberal Democrats to form the first coalition government since 1945 and the for the first time in 70 years, there will be Liberals in the Cabinet- Nick Clegg and four other LibDems will be given seats in the Cabinet. All the nitty gritty is summarized neatly by the Guardian, here.
All in all, it's been a pretty extraordinary day across the pond- and it's certainly a day full of milestone, some of which haven't been seen for nearly a century- but it's not all good news- there are dangers ahead. Rumblings on the left of the Liberal Democrats, the same on the Tory right- Britain hasn't had a lot of experience with coalition governments. At least not in the past six decades or so. They might be a little out of practice, but the situation, as with all coalition government demands something of a tight-rope walk. He's barely 24 hours on the job and David Cameron is presenting all the signs that he might just have the magic touch to walk that line- at least for now.
Book Shot #2: Redemption Song
Redemption Song: The Ballad of Joe Strummer, Chris Salewicz
I was on the M3 Motorway in England when I learned the Joe Strummer had died, courtesy of The Daily Mail. It was 2002 and we were in England for the winter for a change- for Christmas and so that Dad could teach a course in London and Paris over the winter break. Newspapers were still buzzing about the benefit concert for striking firefighters that Strummer had played some weeks before. He had been joined onstage by fellow Clash member Mick Jones, marking the first time they had played together since 1983. 2002 was when I was just discovering The Clash, exploring their singles and learning about their music. They were more complex than the Ramones, politically angry, not just plain angry like the Sex Pistols and they wanted to explore different types of music. Boiling anger, driving chords and deeply political, they made quite the impression on me. Stummer's death made me melancholy because there went another band I'd never get to see live on stage...
What I didn't realize then and what I know now was the depth of Strummer's musical explorations and sheer genius. Thanks to longtime Strummer confidante and British music journalist Chris Salewicz's definitive portrait of the lead singer of the Clash, I now know a lot more than I did before. Salewicz offers what amounts to an almost 'double-biography'- telling the story of John Graham Mellor (Strummer's real name) as well as the chronicling both the rise and fall of The Clash and then the formation of Strummer's new band, the Mescaleros which marked a triumphant return to form that was cut short by his death in 2002.
Strummer was born in Ankara, son of a British foreign office diplomat and went through the usual succession of public schools in the 60s and 70s before drifting into punk in the late 70s, first in the band the 101ers then eventually joining up with Mick Jones and forming The Clash. Strummer carried a lot of baggage with him, namely the tragic death of his older brother. You could make an argument that Strummer's wider view of the world could have helped drive his interest in such a wide variety of music. Rockabilly, Latin, Reggae- all of which and more can be heard throughout the Clash's discography.
My experience with biographies has been mixed at best. Some can be compulsive readable, others can be so interesting and so packed with details as to be exhausting. Salewicz has managed to produce a voluminous, heavily detailed portrait of a musical icon that manages to be compulsively readable as well as full of details that reveal new depths to The Clash as well as Strummer himself. I listened to more of their music because of this book and, more to the point, I appreciated more of their music and their lyrics because of this book. I discovered the joys of Joe Strummer and the Mescaleros (recognizable for providing the music to Brangelina's steamy tango in 'Mr. and Mrs. Smith')- 'Johnny Appleseed' is one of those tracks that you can tap your toes to automatically and is just drenched with sheer joy. 'Bhindi Bagee' actually happened and the line 'vaccuum cleaner sucks up budgie' from the Clash track 'Magnificent Seven' also ripped from the headlines.
Strummer jumped feet first into both America and Spain- we get to hear about how he went on a quest to find the grave of murdered Spanish poet Frederico Garcia Lorca and actually met and wrote lyrics with famous American poet Alan Ginsberg. We meet John Cusack, get Strummer into the studio with Johnny Cash- a veritable who's who of the major icons of music, art and culture over the course of the past quarter century. Adrift after The Clash broke up, Strummer would eventually find love, happiness and mount a successful comeback to music with the Mescaleros that was tragically cut short by his sudden death. The best part about this book is discovering everything you thought you knew about The Clash, but didn't- and the saddest part about this book is wondering what might have been, had Strummer not shuffled off this mortal coil so suddenly.
Overall: I love The Clash more for reading this book. I love their music, want all their albums, want a London Calling poster for my burgeoning man-cave and want to eat junk food and listen to their music with a beer in hand, loving life. I want to go Glastonbury and sit around a campfire and tell stories and talk about life. Although I didn't need a lot of convincing before, this book sealed the deal: Joe Strummer is, was and always will be the man.
Monday, May 10, 2010
SCOTUS Games
Elena Kagan (as expected) has been tapped by President Obama to be Justice Stevens replacement on the Supreme Court. If confirmed, she would help form the first Supreme Court in US History with 3 females. (Which given the fact that three decades ago, there were precisely 0 females on the High Court, I'd consider progress of sorts.)
More rumblings when I get a chance...
UPDATED, 5/11/10 9:45 AM: It's hard for me to get excited about the Supreme Court sometimes. At this point in our political history, a President could nominate Gandhi, hell, he could nominate the Lord Almighty him/herself and the opposition party in Congress, be they Republican or Democrat would get their collective undergarments in a massive knot and generally go absolutely ape-poo about it. The hyper-partisanism surrounding confirmations to the High Court is tiresome, especially since in this particular case, it doesn't really matter all that much...
Let me qualify that: lifetime appointments to the Supreme are always important, but in this particular case, politically speaking, it couldn't be less important. Kagan has been cast as a Liberal (though what she believes is still an open question) and she is replacing a Liberal Justice, John Paul Stevens. So in essence, the overall balance of the court remains the same. Kagan isn't making a lot of people on the Left or the Right that happy as of this morning however, so beware, beware, beware the David Souter effect. (A supposedly reliable 'conservative' who turns out to be Liberal.) The questions continue to swirl: is she a (gasp) lesbian? There won't be any (gasp) Protestants on the Court if she's appointed? NPR has a profile here. Despite all the usual heavy breathing and massive freakouts that usually accompany high court nominations, this one, I just can't get all that worked up about. It has the potential, as do all the new Justices to affect the balance of the court, but I only have one question:
Will Kagan adhere to her own standard?
Um, guess not. And Mother Jones wonders why so many people think Kagan is a lesbian. (I myself wonder why so many people give a shit. Other than it being the knee jerk reaction of sexist men doing what they always do when confronted with a powerful, confident and successful woman. Namely, getting their collective underpants in a tangle and screaming "LESBIAN" as loud as they can.)
More rumblings when I get a chance...
UPDATED, 5/11/10 9:45 AM: It's hard for me to get excited about the Supreme Court sometimes. At this point in our political history, a President could nominate Gandhi, hell, he could nominate the Lord Almighty him/herself and the opposition party in Congress, be they Republican or Democrat would get their collective undergarments in a massive knot and generally go absolutely ape-poo about it. The hyper-partisanism surrounding confirmations to the High Court is tiresome, especially since in this particular case, it doesn't really matter all that much...
Let me qualify that: lifetime appointments to the Supreme are always important, but in this particular case, politically speaking, it couldn't be less important. Kagan has been cast as a Liberal (though what she believes is still an open question) and she is replacing a Liberal Justice, John Paul Stevens. So in essence, the overall balance of the court remains the same. Kagan isn't making a lot of people on the Left or the Right that happy as of this morning however, so beware, beware, beware the David Souter effect. (A supposedly reliable 'conservative' who turns out to be Liberal.) The questions continue to swirl: is she a (gasp) lesbian? There won't be any (gasp) Protestants on the Court if she's appointed? NPR has a profile here. Despite all the usual heavy breathing and massive freakouts that usually accompany high court nominations, this one, I just can't get all that worked up about. It has the potential, as do all the new Justices to affect the balance of the court, but I only have one question:
Will Kagan adhere to her own standard?
Um, guess not. And Mother Jones wonders why so many people think Kagan is a lesbian. (I myself wonder why so many people give a shit. Other than it being the knee jerk reaction of sexist men doing what they always do when confronted with a powerful, confident and successful woman. Namely, getting their collective underpants in a tangle and screaming "LESBIAN" as loud as they can.)
Let's Make A Deal
Gordon Brown is out as Labour leader. This throws everything up in the air, because Brown was the very large, Scottish stumbling block to a LibDem-Labour deal. I'd expect to see the LibDems tendering offers from Labour shortly- how serious they're going to be about it, I don't know, but at the very least, it could move the Tories a little more on voting reform.
It's finals week, so analysis, pontification will occur when I have time.
UPDATED, 11:36 PM: Well kids, I've done some perusing around the British press and have come to this conclusion. Somewhere, this man...
...is very, very happy. Who is that man? Well, none other than the Welsh Wizard himself, Mr. David Lloyd George, Prime Minister of Great Britain during the First World War. And coincidentally, the last Liberal Prime Minister to hold office. And somewhere, he's probably drinking a good draught of his favorite tipple in celebration, because after nearly a century, its looking increasingly likely that if they play their cards right, the Liberals (this time in the form of the Liberal Democrats) might be on their way out of the opposition and heading back, perhaps, towards circumstances that could see them propelled into power someday.
You have to hand it to Gordon Brown. The man hung on for awhile, but then read the writing on the wall and did the one thing he could do to turn what seemed like an inevitable LibDem-Tory marriage of very reluctant convenience into an out and out bidding war between Labour and the Tories for the right to partner up with the LibDems to form the next government- he quit.
With Brown still in the picture, the LibDems may have been ideologically nauseous about getting into bed with the Tories, but a deal with Labour was out of the question as long as Brown remained where he was. With him out of the picture, the LibDems are in position to accept whichever offer will get them what they want- namely a long dreamed of vote on electoral reform in the UK. Crunch time is approaching and a deal of some kind might well be struck in the next 24 hours or so, but there are problems ahead for the Liberal Democrats that could spoil the party.
The first is math: if they jump in with the Tories, a relatively stable coalition could follow with ease, since the two parties together get to 363 seats. Where it gets complicated is if they jump in with the Labour party- together they only get 315 seats which is still short of the magic number of 326. However, SNP Leader Alex Salmond has been making noises about a 'rainbow' coalition of the nationalist parties, which could net Lab-LibDems 9 more seats and if you throw in 3 from the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) and the newly elected Green MP then you get a very slender majority of 328 seats. A majority of 2 in other words. Hardly a recipe for stability.
However, in the case of a Lab-LibDem deal, then the Tories don't really have a lot of options either. Their natural allies are the Democratic Unionists in Northern Ireland and together their two parties net 314 seats- one short of a Lab-LibDem marriage.
The second is the Liberal Democratic Party itself: ideologically a marriage of cast offs from the Labour Party (the Gang of Four that formed the SDP in the late 70s) and the old Liberal Party, there's always been a quiet ideological split in the LDP that risks getting exacerbated, depending on which way Clegg goes. Jumping in with the Tories risks angering the old school Left of the party (Paddy Ashdown and company) that jumped into bed with Tony Blair and New Labour only to see their grand project go down the drain. Likewise, jumping in with Labour risks angering the so-called 'Orange Block' of free marketeers that represent the old Liberal remnants within the party. It's a fine line for the best politician to walk, but I'm increasingly impressed with Clegg: I think he can walk it. But the danger of it exploding in his face is real.
Finally, we come to the obvious problem: Labour and the LibDems didn't win a majority of seats in Parliament. As in the American system, this sometimes happens- Presidents can win the electoral vote, but lose the popular vote and it should only convert the Tories to the cause of voting reform, or at least get them to think seriously about it. It's worth noting though, that in terms of votes cast, no one can claim a mandate, especially not the Tories. The majority of people in the UK did, after all, vote for someone else- so that particular objection will undoubtedly play out in the press. The real minefield however, is what to do about a Prime Minister that won't, after all, be chosen by the people. If there is a deal betwixt LibDem and Labour, that will be the trickiest question of them all.
But crunch time is upon us! I'd say Britain will have a government by Wednesday at the latest...
It's finals week, so analysis, pontification will occur when I have time.
UPDATED, 11:36 PM: Well kids, I've done some perusing around the British press and have come to this conclusion. Somewhere, this man...
...is very, very happy. Who is that man? Well, none other than the Welsh Wizard himself, Mr. David Lloyd George, Prime Minister of Great Britain during the First World War. And coincidentally, the last Liberal Prime Minister to hold office. And somewhere, he's probably drinking a good draught of his favorite tipple in celebration, because after nearly a century, its looking increasingly likely that if they play their cards right, the Liberals (this time in the form of the Liberal Democrats) might be on their way out of the opposition and heading back, perhaps, towards circumstances that could see them propelled into power someday.
You have to hand it to Gordon Brown. The man hung on for awhile, but then read the writing on the wall and did the one thing he could do to turn what seemed like an inevitable LibDem-Tory marriage of very reluctant convenience into an out and out bidding war between Labour and the Tories for the right to partner up with the LibDems to form the next government- he quit.
With Brown still in the picture, the LibDems may have been ideologically nauseous about getting into bed with the Tories, but a deal with Labour was out of the question as long as Brown remained where he was. With him out of the picture, the LibDems are in position to accept whichever offer will get them what they want- namely a long dreamed of vote on electoral reform in the UK. Crunch time is approaching and a deal of some kind might well be struck in the next 24 hours or so, but there are problems ahead for the Liberal Democrats that could spoil the party.
The first is math: if they jump in with the Tories, a relatively stable coalition could follow with ease, since the two parties together get to 363 seats. Where it gets complicated is if they jump in with the Labour party- together they only get 315 seats which is still short of the magic number of 326. However, SNP Leader Alex Salmond has been making noises about a 'rainbow' coalition of the nationalist parties, which could net Lab-LibDems 9 more seats and if you throw in 3 from the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) and the newly elected Green MP then you get a very slender majority of 328 seats. A majority of 2 in other words. Hardly a recipe for stability.
However, in the case of a Lab-LibDem deal, then the Tories don't really have a lot of options either. Their natural allies are the Democratic Unionists in Northern Ireland and together their two parties net 314 seats- one short of a Lab-LibDem marriage.
The second is the Liberal Democratic Party itself: ideologically a marriage of cast offs from the Labour Party (the Gang of Four that formed the SDP in the late 70s) and the old Liberal Party, there's always been a quiet ideological split in the LDP that risks getting exacerbated, depending on which way Clegg goes. Jumping in with the Tories risks angering the old school Left of the party (Paddy Ashdown and company) that jumped into bed with Tony Blair and New Labour only to see their grand project go down the drain. Likewise, jumping in with Labour risks angering the so-called 'Orange Block' of free marketeers that represent the old Liberal remnants within the party. It's a fine line for the best politician to walk, but I'm increasingly impressed with Clegg: I think he can walk it. But the danger of it exploding in his face is real.
Finally, we come to the obvious problem: Labour and the LibDems didn't win a majority of seats in Parliament. As in the American system, this sometimes happens- Presidents can win the electoral vote, but lose the popular vote and it should only convert the Tories to the cause of voting reform, or at least get them to think seriously about it. It's worth noting though, that in terms of votes cast, no one can claim a mandate, especially not the Tories. The majority of people in the UK did, after all, vote for someone else- so that particular objection will undoubtedly play out in the press. The real minefield however, is what to do about a Prime Minister that won't, after all, be chosen by the people. If there is a deal betwixt LibDem and Labour, that will be the trickiest question of them all.
But crunch time is upon us! I'd say Britain will have a government by Wednesday at the latest...
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Look What Happened...
...while I was dorking out over election results from the UK. The United States Senate in its wisdom decided to vote against breaking up the megabanks. In every day, in every way, the marriage of the business and political elites is steering this country towards the edge of a cliff. We're turning into a corporatist paradise- and of course meaningful reform will never happen. As long as the political and business elites in this country keep making money somehow, they'll keep ignoring the problem.
This is why the Tea Party won't work. Change from the inside isn't going to happen- we need a third party to bring down the elite superstructure from the outside and decentralize, decentralize, decentralize.
Yes, that's right. I'm not conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, I'm a radical. Tea Parties? You can keep 'em.
This is why the Tea Party won't work. Change from the inside isn't going to happen- we need a third party to bring down the elite superstructure from the outside and decentralize, decentralize, decentralize.
Yes, that's right. I'm not conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, I'm a radical. Tea Parties? You can keep 'em.
Book Shot #1: The Peshawar Lancers
The Peshawar Lancers, S.M. Stirling
At the start of 2010, I made a resolution to try and clear some of the backlog of books that has accumulated on my bookshelves over the years- and this is my opening salvo of that quest. I've been more or less successful so far, but having lost my copy of The Peshawar Lancers, I had to go out and get a new one, especially since my Civilizations of South Asia gave me a hankering for all things South Asia. (Be warned, both fiction and non-fiction with a South Asian flavor is coming down the pipe.)
The Peshawar Lancers is a rip-roaring, swashbuckling tale of Alternate History rooted firmly in the tradition of Rudyard Kipling and other 19th Century 'adventure' writers such as H. Rider Haggard and Edgar Rice Burroughs. Set in a world where the planet was devastated by a spray of comets in the mid-1870s, the world of The Peshawar Lancers is a far different one from ours today. Empires still rule the world, with the British Empire, now centered in Delhi being the major power. Our hero, Captain Athelstane King is drawn into a far-reaching conspiracy that threatens the survival of his family, his country and the very planet itself. Against him, are the agents of the now Satan worshipping, human eating Czar of All the Russias and our protagonists and antagonists collide in an adventure that echoes back to the spy-games and derring-do that characterized the rivalry between Britain and Russia at the end of the 19th Century, a period known as 'The Great Game.'
As a genre, alternate history can be pretty tricky to master. Everyone always mentions the guru of alternate history, the man himself, Harry Turtledove- and for sure, Turtledove has pulled off some brilliant speculative fiction in his time. He's also disappointed me greatly as he's transplanted contemporary history and changed some times, places and names in other cases, which to me, smacks of laziness. Phillip K. Dick of 'Blade Runner' and 'Total Recall' fame probably owns the title of best around with his masterpiece 'The Man in High Castle' which depicts a truly creep-tastic vision of a history where the Axis won World War II.
So how does Stirling measure up? Extremely well, as a matter of fact. It's obvious that he's done his research on the colonial and imperial periods of British history and his scenario of civilization desperately trying to piece itself back together after a catastrophe is plausible enough. The British Empire and French Empires would have had the resources to evacuate themselves and their governments to their overseas possessions and with civilization collapsing all around humanity, it's hard not to imagine that some crazy, Satan worshiping cannibalism could spring up.
Even more impressive is that the political structure of this new British Empire is plausible as well. Surviving a Second Mutiny after the comets impact throughout the Northern Hemisphere, the ruling British elites survive by relying on the loyalty of the aristocracy already in place and out of necessity, surrendering a lot of imperial arrogance and recognizing whom exactly they were now ruling. This 'partnership' instead of 'overlordship' hearkens back to the very earliest days of the East India Company, where British officers and soldiers won the respect of indigenous allies and soldiers by leading from the front and not directing from the back.
Overall: Stirling has produced a fascinating vision of what might have been that is plausible, interesting and easy for the reader to buy into. Taking that vision and adding an adventure worthy of the very best of Rudyard Kipling or H. Rider Haggard produces a readable, exciting book that's the perfect beach book for science fiction fans heading out for their summer vacation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)