Can You Thrive Without Growth?

Interesting headline in the NYT today: Vibrant Cities Find One Thing Missing: Children

At first I thought it was just going to be about how no one can afford to raise children in Manhattan, but surprisingly, it focused a lot on Portland, Oregon. And more interesting figures were brought up

Nationally, the birthrate has been dropping while the overall population is aging as life expectancy increases. The problem is not just in cities. New figures released this month showed North Dakota losing more children than any other state.

By "losing more children", they mean that the population is aging, and new children are not being born at the same rates as they have in the past.

The article goes on to talk about how having children in a city really improves the quality of life there, but my mind wandered elsewhere. I was thinking of the concept of a United States that was not growing. Have we reached critical USA mass? Can we continue to prosper as a world superpower if we're not getting bigger? Without growth, will we lose our status? It seems possible to me, but I'm pretty pessimistic, lately.

Pink vs. Blue

The discussion about boys and girls being different continues over at Running Scared. The comments carry the discussion a little further.

So what am I on about? The idea that men and women aren't the same. The original impetus was a statement by Lawrence Summers of Harvard that women's and men's brains have fundamental differences. The other of the Herald's article jumps right from there to point out immediate physical differences. OK, the physical differences exist. No one can reasonably argue that. What really has women up in arms about this whole thing, I think, is that we can't stand to hear that men are better than us at math.

In the comments of his post, Jazz says

"A difference in how people best learn is still a difference in their mental structure, no? The example is not meant to say that women are intrinsically worse at math and science. It only says that they score more poorly on tests. This could easily be explained by a fundamental difference in their brains and the fact that normal school environments are competitive in nature."

I felt the need to answer.

To my way of thinking, structure is not the same thing as potential. I know that at math and science I rock. Call me arrogant, but I know that. I work in a technical field, and it's true, I'm surrounded by more men than women, but I know that I'm good at what I do, and so do they. I think that's why it bothers me personally to hear that "girls aren't good at math". It's because I am, and it makes me wonder if that means that I've got a different kind of brain, and that's a *really* uncomfortable feeling. So, what I maintain is just because we learn it at a different pace (boys - reading, girls - math) doesn't mean that we don't eventually reach the same levels, in accordance with our personal aptitudes.

Does that make sense to anyone else? What I'm trying to say is that each of us as an individual has a certain level of potential as to what we can learn. Some will excel at philosophy, some will excel at physics. Some will always be able to tell how other people are feeling, some will be able to understand how to build a structure with maximum support. The amount of time you take to reach that potential varies by individual as much as the potential itself. And while men's and women's brains may process items differently, that doesn't mean that those items won't both eventually be processed by both kinds of brains.

I know I'm ignoring the big stuff

But sometimes I like to blog about positive stories. I was reading over at JoeTerrito.com, and I liked this very much:

Hoping they click

The photographers -- people like William Coupon, whose pictures have graced the cover of Time magazine, and Martin Schoeller, who hasphotographed Brad Pitt and Jamie Foxx -- have volunteered their time to give these children a better shot at finding adoptive homes.

The collaboration is called the Heart Gallery -- an idea that began in 2001 in Sante Fe, N.M.,and soon spread to Massachusetts, Florida, Ohio and Connecticut. Last fall, in Hartford, Conn., 40 photographs of foster children led to 19 adoptions of hard-to-place children.

...

The main mission of the Heart Gallery, said Van Hemmen, "is to find homes for as many of these kids as we possibly can, but I also hope it will raise awareness. There are many great kids in the foster system who deserve a break. Many of them have gotten lost. Hopefully, the Heart Gallery will change that."

For more information about the children or the Heart Gallery project, go to www.heartgallerynj.com or call (800) 99ADOPT. Donations may be made to Heart Gallery of New Jersey, P.O. Box 4139, Clifton, N.J. 07012.

Helping kids find homes is a cause I like. Now you know.

Moral Conscience Mislaid

What happened to the days of the college campus protest? The sit-in? When students tool a stand for causes they believe in? Whatever happened, those days are gone, and apparently they've been replaced by students whining about shoving affluence in the face of others. Hello, this is America, folks! You're supposed to reach for whatever level you want? If you want to reach for the place where someone else does your vacuuming, then it follows suit that someone is actually going to have to do the vacuuming.

We have so many problems that need addressing before this ever should have been bothered with.

Things I believe, as of March 21, 2005

An unborn fetus that cannot survive on its own is not yet a person. Soul or no soul, it cannot think and breathe on its own. This is why I do not believe that abortion is murder.

People whose brains have been destroyed by illness or accident are indeed people, but if you can never think again, your life has been ended. The fact that your body doesn't know this seems inherently cruel to me, but there it is. With no upper brain function, no chance to think, or feel or know, I don't feel that you can claim that this is life any more.

Soldiers are people. Each and every one of them. Soldiers on both sides of any war are all people. Each has thoughts and feelings and reactions, no matter how intensely they suppress them in able to be good soldiers. Killing people is a terrible thing, no matter what the reason. Torture is not very far below the killing, as it is intended to remove the humanity of a person.

You cannot claim that you make decisions based on a culture of life and simultaneously support a war. It is contradictory and hypocritical. If you believe that unborn fetuses have the same rights as functional adults, then why don't soldiers have those same rights? It doesn't make sense.

Having said that, I also know that I do not live in a world of ideals. All those thoughts and feelings that I keep mentioning have dramatic and unexpected effects every day, every moment. Wars happen because people stubbornly refuse to believe that compromises can be made without retribution from an angry god, or worse, loss of dignity.

I wish there was no war, but I understand that there is. Beyond that, I wish that there was no war in Iraq, right now. I am NOT supporting Palestinians, or insurgents, or anyone who seems to be putting out an opinion that the only way to peace is the suppression of other people's rights, but I am also not supporting the acts of war that we're using to counter them. I don't think it's working, you see. We're not even keeping people safe by making them oppressed and miserable, we're only bringing more danger with the oppression, making it that much more unsavory.

I believe that we should make decisions based on what will lift oppression and misery, we should take the side of those that would battle poverty and injustice. When we've taken steps that we think are in this direction but turn out to be misguided, when we're on a dead-end and we cannot come out to a crossroads that will once again point us towards our goal, we should turn back so that we can once again find the correct path.

Like Minds

Well, as I was ranting about how idiotic it was for Congress to be involved in the Schiavo case, and how state's rights are something that I thought Republicans were supposed to be supportive of, and how calling a brain-dead woman to testify was grandstanding of the worst degree, so was Turnspit Daily. Only, maybe a little more cohesively than I did.

Dead or Alive

I have a post up at Running Scared about the latest development in the Terri Schiavo case.

Intolerance

And this time, the intolerant one is *me*!

Ron Beasley, from Middle Earth Journal, whom I usually enjoy reading, has put a piece called "It's not a matter of choice". Here, let me quote the part that's made me realize my intolerance:

Should abortion be legal is not a question of "choice". The only question is whether a fetus is a human being or not. For society as a whole that is a decision society must make and the laws will reflect that.
Do I think a fetus is a human being? Do I think that abortion should be legal? Those are not my choices to make any more than it is my choice to decide that one or more races are not human beings. It is Societies "choice" not my "choice".

See, there it is. The following paragraph is my pure, unadulterated, unaltered to make it less harsh opinion.

No, A fetus is not yet a human being. A born baby is a human being. A thing growing inside a woman's body without fully formed limbs or organs, or features is not a person. I understand that there are people who think that life starts at the moment of conception, and I would never *make* anyone like that have an abortion, but you know what? I think that those people are WRONG. I do. I think of them as foolish people who won't accept science over religion. I think of them as being led by the nose as opposed to thinking for themselves.

I've made my decision, and I find myself intolerant of those who refuse to agree. I really do expect everyone I like to agree with me on this. I do! It's right, how can you see things any other way?

It's a little uncomfortable knowing I've got an opinion that I'm not willing to consider the other side of, but it's true. I do NOT think that an undeveloped fetus is a person, whether or not the possibility for it to develop into one exists. Therefore, the idea that I would HAVE to make that into a person USING MY BODY makes me crazy.

Oh - and you know what else I'm intolerant of? Men who think that they COULD EVER UNDERSTAND. You CAN'T. Get over it.

Blogrrl Quote of the Day

No, I'm not going to do one of these every day, but the language was so succinct, the comment so refreshing - I refer to Mahablog, in her post "Take a Clue. Any Clue.", and the fabulous line:

OF COURSE IT’S TORTURE YOU STUPID SON OF A BITCH!

Nothing like pointing out that people are idiots. At least I always like it.

Inflated Ego Issues

Cross posted on Running Scared.

Today's reading is yesterday's NYT article on Bush's dealing with Iran, and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. It bothers me immensely that the U.S.'s position is to reinterpret a document and continue acting as if we're a parent to the world.

It's not that I trust Iran. I said in a comment further down the page that I can't "know" that Iran would make weapons with nuclear materials. I take that back. I expect that Iran would make weapons ina second if tey thought that they could get away with it. If I were in their shoes, I'd be thinking frantically what would be the best way to keep the U.S. the hell off my land.

I'm not even against limiting the enrichment of Uranium in the case of other locales that seem like they too would like to make themselves some shiny new bombs. The fewer nuclear weapons that exist in the world, the better, I say.

My problem is, rather, the way we come across.

After a visit to Tehran last week for a conference that Iran sponsored to explain its nuclear ambitions, George Perkovich, a nuclear expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, said he had concluded that Mr. Bush had the right instinct, but might not be taking the right approach.

The Iranians have decided to go on the offensive and simply assert their right, even if the treaty doesn't explicitly say that they have a right to enrich their own uranium," he said Monday. The view expressed by Iran's nuclear negotiators, he said, amounted to "We're not hiding it, we're not embarrassed by it, and no one is going to take our right away."

That's the gist of it. We threaten, and treat other countries like children who must be watched. We need to remember that we are *not* a parent to the world, and that pride exists everywhere, and will color people's reactions. We need to remember that we've called ourselves a superpower for a long time and yet we find ourselves unable to put down insurgency in one small country. We need to remind ourselves that we live in the world, not rule it.

Newsflash

U.S., Pakistan admit bin Laden trail is cold
Christ on a cracker, people, you just figured that out?!

The article talks about how "they almost had him" as recently as "about 10 months ago". Sure, you did.

So, what do I do, make the obligatory comment about how glad I am that we're concentrating all of our forces in Afghanistan, and that we've got our eye on the prize? Do I say something disparaging about people who don't know the location of their own rear-ends?

Nah. I'll just quote Dorothy Parker in a nice non-sequential ending:

Newsflash (by Dorothy Parker)
Men seldom make passes
At girls who wear glasses.

Uneasy Monday

Report: Israel has plans to hit Iran nuke plant
Quote one:

LONDON - Israel has drawn up plans for a combined air and ground attack on Iranian nuclear installations if diplomacy fails to halt Tehran’s atomic program, London’s Sunday Times said.

Well that's not good news. I get the feeling that Iran is an angry nation, much stronger than the ones we've currently been bullying. A military stirke by Israel would result in Iran fighting back.

Quote two:

U.S. officials have indicated they would not stand in Israel’s way if international diplomatic efforts to halt Iran’s nuclear projects fail, the paper said.

Oh, good. So I can't count on my government to be a voice of reason, here. Fabulous.

Quote three:

"We will defend our nuclear sites with all our strength and we are ready to ward off any possible aggression," Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani told the semi-official INSA students news agency on Saturday.

See? That's what I said!

Quote four:

Asked if there was a possibility that Israel could attack Iranian nuclear installations, Vice Premier Shimon Peres said: "I don’t think so."

Oh. OK, so that makes it nice and clear, then.

This is what has made me uneasy this morning. Does Israel have an attack plan? Has the U.S. OK'ed it? Is this just an awful rumor planted in the London Times by the U.S. that we'll use as an example of why we "had" to invade Iran, later on? What are the odds of something printed in the London Times being completely untrue? Completely? I'm guessing those are long odds. I don't actually see anything good coming out of an attack on Iran, so I'm hoping that all this talk reamins at the talk and rumor level - forever.

One thing that really bothers me about it, though, is that the Israelis have a reputation for running a top-level military operation. I kind of have it in the back of my mind that if they were actually planning on attacking Iranian nuclear sites, that the only way people outside the operation would find out is when the explosions started.

Peaceful Protests...

Wish they didn't have to protest in the first place., though.

Via Buzz Machine (and others whom he mentions and links to), there's some protesting going on in Bahrain about bloggers who've been arrested. For blogging. I know that we've all been having a hard time remembering lately exactly which rights we were supposed to be considering inalienable, but freedom of speech is one that most of us can remember, most of the time. Honest opinions and reporting of publicly available facts should be allowed. Period. These bloggers should be set free, and the people brave enough to stand up for them in a peaceful manner are my kind of people.

Am I Unfairly Biased?

This is the question I'm asking myself today. I ask myself this one a lot, in truth, because I try to balance the "I feel this way because it's the only opiion to have!" side of me with the "Everyone is an individual with feelings and rights" side of me. Crazy, I know.

Anyway, today's issue is a big one: Lebanon, Syria, and whether or not the US should support Hezbollah. Today's NYT has an article called U.S. Called Ready to See Hezbollah in Lebanon Role (registration probably required).

After years of campaigning against Hezbollah, the radical Shiite Muslim party in Lebanon, as a terrorist pariah, the Bush administration is grudgingly going along with efforts by France and the United Nations to steer the party into the Lebanese political mainstream, administration officials say.

The administration's shift was described by American, European and United Nations officials as a reluctant recognition that Hezbollah, besides having a militia and sponsoring attacks on Israelis, is an enormous political force in Lebanon that could block Western efforts to get Syria to withdraw its troops.

Wow. My first impression of this was that it was like a bad movie where they put the most out-of-control student in charge of the class, and the sudden responsibility sobers him to the point that he sees the error of his ways. But that seemed like it was too flip, this is a very serious issue, I shouldn't be making fun.

My second thought was "How can we possibly back a terrorist organization as a viable political force?" That one's more serious, and it seems to be how I actually feel. I'm always surprised when a right leaning tendency pops up in my brain, but I think that this one's wedged in there pretty firmly and isn't going to be leaving any time soon.

I want to think that the Lebanese people are all individuals with rights, but by all I hold dear, I can NOT get behind the idea of supporting a group of people who have used covert violence to further their cause. And, of course, their cause is the destruction of Israel. Destruction. They'd like to push the Jews into the ocean. If the U.S. could be destroyed as well, hey that would be just peachy! Because the U.S. is an ally to Israel, which makes us an enemy to Hezbollah.

The kindler gentler approach to "Palestine" is starting to make me angry. These people send out their own on suicide missions, they teach their young to hate, the leaders purposefully keep their populous in poverty in order to keep the hate festering, and over and over is repeated the "fact" that it's all the fault of Israel and the U.S. Well you know what -and you do actually know this - it's NOT our fault. We just want everyone to go about their lives, living in whatever the heck country they're already in. Apparently, this is too much to ask.

The article quotes an arab diplomat who wished to remain anonymous:

"Why don't they realize that once America makes a case for something, the Middle East will go in the opposite direction?"

And there you have it. Whatever it is, if the Americans want it, do NOT do it. These people don't want to work with us. It's time to take of the kid gloves and stop pretending that you can love everyone, which, by the way, coming from this administration is RIDICULOUS. It is time to stand up straight and say that the U.S. is an ally of Israel. It seems as if we're trying to play both sides of the fence, but we're only welcome on one of the sides!

I wish I could just say "Screw Lebanon, screw Hezbollah, let Syria go ahead and stay". I wish it was that easy. But since I can't, in good conscience, recommend that the best thing for a country is occupation, I find that I don't know what to say at all.

Email Conversation of the Day

I realy wanted to share this conversation with the world:

>>> And I want to help other people and further government social
>>>programs. People hate me for that, now, too.
>>
>>I can't remember where I saw it because I've been
>>hopscotching all over
>>the blogosphere at night but I found a great suggestion: the neocons
>>whole schtick is being serious and grownup and intimidation. What we
>>need is a world-wide game of Point&Laugh. It'd screw things
>>up royally
>>if we all just laughed at their every suggestion.
>>
>>Subtext: tiny wee wees = tiny brains.
>>
>
> I can just see my next post: Survey Shows Neocons have Tiny, Tiny
> Penises.

We've found our Gigi!

Around the World, Starting Here

Between seeing a piece on Joe Territo's blog that Jessie Ventura is backing Joe Piscopo for NJ Governor, reading over at Running Scared that Walmart is pushing for some new laws for truck drivers that I find appalling, and reading about even more beheaded bodies being discovered in Iraq, I could really use some good news.

To be fair, the death thing has me way more upset than the Joe Piscopo thing, but I don't particularly love that idea. Maybe if I read up more about his positions and qualifications... No, never mind, it's depressing.

Anybody happy about something? Want to tell me about it?

Laws of the Land

(inspired by Ron at the Middle Earth Journal, even though this isn't actually what he was talking about)

OK, quick quiz - what are the oldest laws you can think of. You know, ones that are so old that it's hard to think of laws older, so well known that pretty much everybody round these here parts has heard them over and over?

Give up? No, you know? That's right! The Ten Commandments.

So, may I ask, what's so wrong with having a set of really old laws made into statues and tablets and stuff and displayed in front of government buildings? Is there some sort of *new* law that says that because we display a religious symbol that symbols from other religions are somehow less important?

I just think that in this particular case, a display of the Ten Commandments is pretty much in context. Like the caduceus displayed on the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps home page. It is indeed a religious symbol, but because it's so associated with medicine, no one would ever think to be offended by it. OK, it's pretty much a defunct religion, but I'm trying to make a point, here.

Are we *really* supposed to keep all religious displays out of public places? Or, instead, is it OK to have a display from any religion - any religion - wherever the heck it seems appropriate? We're supposed to, as Americans, never suppress anyone's ability to practice their religion. This kind of thing, in my opinion, does not violate that spirit.

Head, Meet Desk. Repeat.

U.S. Says It Doesn't Send Off Prisoners for Torture

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Monday the United States would never send terrorism suspects to countries where they would be tortured but admitted once they have been dispatched to nations like Saudi Arabia or Egypt the U.S. government has little control.

Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang...

Confusing but Interesting

Munch Paintings Stolen in Norway

So, someone steals paintings that are way too famous to steal on the open market. Apparently, it's not even that hard, what with the lack of alarms, and a hotel staffer who actually interrupts the theft failing to actually stop it. Anyway, these people now have these famous paintings. What are they going to do with them, sell them to private buyers like the world is actually some kind of movie starring Steve McQueen or Pierce Brosnan? It's a bizarre thought.

Maybe We're Not *In* Kansas Anymore

Via Atrios:

Kansas Voters Keep Anti-Bias Ordinance

Voters on Tuesday upheld an ordinance that prohibits discrimination against homosexuals in municipal hiring, turning back a repeal movement led by a minister known for picketing the funerals of AIDS victims.

...

In final, unofficial results, 53 percent opposed the repeal, with 14,285 voting "no," and 12,795 voting "yes."

All right, I personally find this margin way too slim for comfort, but in an area of the country where I expect the majority of people voting to be terrified homophobes who refuse to be shown reason, I'm heartened.

Was that too harsh? Maybe. I don't actually know anyone who lives in Kansas, although I've known people who've left Kansas.

Either way, if you know me at all, you know that I feel that the municipality should hire the person who would do the best job of filing your home remodeling permits, no matter what race, religion, creed, or sexual orientation they may be. As long as the applicant with the absolute best command of alphabetizing gets the position, I'm satisfied.

In the article, Rev. Phelps is quoted as calling homosexuality a "filthy lifestyle". Oh, like being heterosexual in any way guarantees that you're not living a filthy lifestyle outside the office, but being gay does. This guy's a bigoted jerk.

A Move I Actually Approve Of

Rather than always post about things I disagree with, I try to every once in a while put up a post about something that I actually support. Today, I support not killing minors.

High court: Juvenile death penalty unconstitutional

The 5-4 decision throws out the death sentences of about 70 juvenile murderers and bars states from seeking to execute minors for future crimes.

The executions, the court said, were unconstitutionally cruel.

Yes, cruel. Snuffing out a life before it's even had 18 years to develop into something cohesive seems utterly wrong to me. Good going, Supremes!

Surprisingly, I'm not anti-death penalty. I am, however, very much in favor of only using it under the most severe circumstances. It's a heavy subject, and that should never be forgotten. Without life, there's no hope, and snuffing out hope should always be the very last resort.

Cross-Post time

I put up a piece over on Running Scared. Feel free to click this and go read it, if you're interested in my opinion about whether or not drugs like Celebrex and Bexxtra should stay on the market.

Conflicted at Heart

Friday Not-My-Pet Blogging

Gizmodo has a piece on a hamster-powered MIDI sequencer.

Really!

Morality Quiz

Am I a bad person if I'm thinking the words "Pope death watch"?

Author of a Vision

Warning, this starts out cohesively enough, then just devolves down to my usual pap about respecting others.

Hat tip Middle Earth Journal

Different Era, But Same Talk

Leon Hadar talks about Bush's vision of a New World, and he calls Natan Sharansky the author of that vision. I'm vaguely unsettled by this, because Natan Sharansky was an important figure to me when I was in my teens, he was the example Russian Jew Prisoner. We all wore bracelets with the names of Jewish men and women detained in the Soviet Union. Our goal was to raise world awareness of the unjust incarceration of people whose only crime was that they remained Jewish in a state that had forbidden religion. Well, maybe it worked. Natan Sharansky was freed, and was able to emigrate to Israel, and we all rejoiced. Now, His book is the professed favorite bedtime reading of GWB.

Hadar describes how the idea of advancing democracy is akin to advancing a Messiah, a concept that will save the world. This is "Big Picture" thinking, and the small details...

Forget those "little details": you know, no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and no Saddam-Bin Laden ties; the anti-American insurgency; Abu Ghraib; the rising political influence of the Shiite clergy; signs of civil war. What counts is the march towards victory of democracy in Iraq and the spread of freedom and liberty in the entire Muslim world. The theocracy in Saudi Arabia? The military regimes in Egypt and Pakistan? These are just two more examples of those "small details."

Although I am not actually a proponent of forcing democracy on people who haven't asked for it, I am a big fan of it, as a general rule. I love that I live in a society that gets to vote on things, important things, and I truly believe that no matter what corruptions live on the seedy underbelly of our government, the choices made by the people steer the way that our country moves.

Governments and ideologies evolve. People don't just wake up one day and think, "Hey, how come I don't live in a democracy?". Loyalty to leaders, and religious beliefs hold strong. How can anyone think that someone who has lived in a heterogeneous society all their lives would suddenly want to change all the rules so that people they consider to be unclean in the eyes of god are suddenly considered equal, and not punishable by the law? The concept of separating church and state is beyond immediate grasp.

People don't all necessarily gloss over this, but an attitude of superiority begins to rear its ugly head. Hadar describes Sharansky's vision as that of Israel as "parent", watching over the Arab nations until they're ready. As if they haven't grown up yet. This is not caring for other nations, this is occupying them. Despite the fact that having antagonistic vies about how people should live their lives causes conflict and violence, we can't just assume that we're the ones who are right, and that the rest of the world should get with the program. That nullifies the very nature of the diversity that we (the US) claim to celebrate. It stomps on the rights of the people of the world. Israel, no matter how much I love and respect Israel, is not a parent figure who can control the misbehaving Arab countries, they're just citizens of the world. We're all just citizens of the world.

I do understand the mindset that allows a person to think that because they really do want the best for everyone, that it's all right to impose new rules on people, and once they see how nice it is when everyone plays by those rules, that they'll be happy. I also understand that this simply isn't true. Forcing your ideology, no matter how "right" you're sure you are, is wrong.

Thought for the Day

No matter how cool some people might think the concept, the United States cannot possibly fight the entire world and win. No one's that big.

Benefits, Schmenefits

Taken pretty much whole cloth from an email a friend sent me:

The source is The Democrats, so it's biased, but it's still fun.
http://democrats.senate.gov/ss/calc.html

Pretty sure that Mike posted it over on Running Scared, too, but hey, in case you missed it.

It's depressing, of course. Good thing I have actual private accounts that I plan on living on after I retire.

A Short Exposition

I'm feeling cynical today, and not very loquatious, so just a short bit based on a conversation I had last night.

Every government is at some level corrupt. It just is. Deal with it.

Some forms of corruption disregard the needs of the community so blatantly that all forms of decent support collapse, and places become real cess-pits.

Some "corrupt" officials understand that they live in the communities that their decisions are affecting, and so they use their underhanded, often illegal methods to actually get things done. Alongside the legal, above-board ones, of course. I won't say that most governments are corrupt on all levels, that's just silly. There's plenty of honest people out there, it just seems that most often they're not the ones pushing for power.

New Jersey, most of the time, has the kind of corruption that gets things done. If you're stuck with it anyway, it might as well be the productive kind.

Hey!

Does anybody besides me find the following headline just a little inflamatory?

Truce-Bound Israel Stops Razing Palestinian Homes

Geez - take sides, much, Dan Williams? I admit I take sides, but nobody's paying me. The article, at least, is a bit more even-handed. I specifies that the homes belonged to Palestinian militants, and that the reason Israeli government gives is that it discourages attacks.

Hmph.

At Least There Aren't Any Ration Coupons

Yesterday afternoon over at Shakespeare's Sister, Mr. Furious posted a nice little bit that starts like this:

So Bush-supporting farmers don't like the raw deal they're being given with Bush's proposed budget?

That's Farmers Who Backed Bush Upset With Budget in case you missed the one-word link, there.

Know what I see when I read that article? I see yet another factor in the equation of why it's going to get more expensive to live in this country, really fast. There's less aid for farmers in a year when there's a Hessian fly infestation. Goodbye, reasonable wheat prices. And have you seen the price of milk lately? Staples are up, up, up. Aid is down, down, down. Deficit is up, spending must go down.

I'm thinking that it's really the beginning of a wartime economy.

Not My Cup of Tea

But that doesn't matter!

Justice Dept. Fights Ruling on Obscenity

WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 - In a case representing a major test of the Bush administration's campaign against pornography, the Justice Department said Wednesday that it would appeal a recent decision by a federal judge that declared federal obscenity laws unconstitutional.

Seems that there was a criminal case against a California video distributor for violating federal obscenity laws. It's a company that does, indeed provide what some would label as "hard core". Personally, I'd label it, "offensive".
The examples given in the article are "scenes of simulated gang rapes and other attacks on women". I don't want to watch that. I certainly don't know if any of my friends want to watch that.

Louis Sirkin, a Cincinnati lawyer representing the pornography distributor, said he believed the judge's opinion would be upheld.

"You can't legislate morality," Mr. Sirkin said. "You have to let people make their own personal decisions, and that's the important principle at stake in this case."...

...Judge Lancaster interpreted that ruling to mean that "public morality is not a legitimate state interest sufficient to justify infringing on adult, private, consensual, sexual conduct even if that conduct is deemed offensive to the general public's sense of morality."

That's it, right there. No, I don't want to buy this stuff, but this is a free country, and sometimes freedom means that people are allowed to do things that others find repulsive. Buying filthy videos doesn't hurt anyone. If the people participating in them are all there willingly, and the filmmakers aren't misrepresenting themselves, then they should be allowed to conduct business. There's just a fundamental difference between disgusting and illegal, and we, as Americans, have to respect that. It's part of what makes us a great country, right?

I find myself defending the most outrageous, unusual cases I can find, all for the purpose of making sure that the small, everyday freedoms remain safe far, far inside the container.

(Cross-posted at Running Scared)

Man Down

Jazz over at Running Scared has injured his left hand and is light on today's posting, so I felt it was my duty to get something posted over there. Go on over and read it if you like.

Not a Fan Letter

I'm the Only One in the World...

...who wants higher taxes.

So I was talking to my dad, and he starts telling me (again) that some sort of poll named Tom Kean the best New Jersey governor in recent memory. Apparently, tied for worst were McGreevey and Florio. This brought me to the realization that people are idiots.

Not about Kean - he was a very good governor, really. He was pretty (in my mind, at least) moderate, and fiscally responsible, and the state had a budget surplus when he was in charge. Good thinking, and good work.

And McGreevey, OK, I can see why people think he was the worst. In my mind, he wasn't actually the worst, but possibly one of the most recognizably corrupt. That's pretty bad. Real estate scandals, inappropriate appointments, and of course the whole "my governor is a gay American" thing, they don't speak well of the man. I don't think that he was a bad legislator, I just think that his personal conscience took a vacation without leaving a forwarding address. Not good thinking.

But Florio? People hated Florio because he raised the NJ sales tax by a whopping... 1%. One percent! It wasn't making that much of a dent in our damn pockets! I think it was 3 seconds after she got sworn in to office that Christie Whitman repealed that tax and brought us back down to 6%. I know that she's very moderate in many of her views, but she got elected the "traditional" Republican way - promise to cut taxes. And then she did. (Which actually, kind of speaks well about her character, but I'm talking about fiscal policy, here)

Why were people so up in arms about one more penny on the dollar? I know that a lot of folks say "I earned it, I want to keep it", but do they think that government programs pay for themselves? Because they don't! It's not getting cheaper to run the state, people, it's getting more expensive, just like everything else on earth, except DVD players. What would have happened if we had kept the extra sales tax? Would we be $4 billion dollars in the hole today? Probably not. I'm not saying that we'd have a surplus, but I'm sure it would have helped a great deal.

Republicans talk about streamlining government, but when push comes to shove, you see them spending just as much as Democrats - but with tax cuts, so less money is coming in. If we're going to have state-run programs that everyone seems to feel are a right, instead of the privilege that they actually are, then someone has to pay for it. I'd prefer the money to come from big business, but in today's climate that's not going to happen. And when it comes down to the choice of my state racking up billions of dollars in debt or me paying $107.00 for that wireless Ethernet adapter instead of $106.00, well, I'm willing to suck it up.

Another Good Point

Blogger would not let me in at *all* yesterday. That having been said, check this out:

Truth: The Great Liberal Conspiracy over at Shakespeare's Sister.

I love the way she digs in to a subject and just keeps going until you see how well thought-out her arguments are. She's not just spouting the first thing that comes to mind, her opinions are based on a healthy mixture of fact and experience. And yet, she seems so young! :o)

Take this excerpt for example:

There was a time when pointing out blatantly obvious political maneuvering would not have warranted charges of being a conspiracy theorist. We used to have a healthy mistrust of our government; we assumed that the flaws of humankind weren’t checked at the doorways of the White House and the Pentagon. When the shit hit the fan, we assumed that the people involved might do less than ethical things in the pursuit of self-preservation.

Check out the rest for yourself, it just makes sense.

Complete Lack of Respect

Prince Charles to Marry His Lover Camilla

Lover? Isn't that a little rude at this point?
I mean, OK, he ran around on his wife. No one else on earth ever did that. And, of course, his wife died, but after they divorced, and no one ever blamed him. So, now, he lives with the woman whom he supposedly has loved all along, and the press decides that slapping a label on the relationship is a way to go.

Nice.

Last I checked, he wasn't actually running England, was he? Why does the press care so much?

Interesting (to Me, at Least)

(Via Dail Kos:)

Franken expected to make announcement on candidacy

Al Franken to stop just making fun of politicians and actually become one. Huh.

Trying to Remain Hopeful...

Israel Set to Reopen Gaza Border After Truce Summit

While Palestinian militants said they were not bound by President Mahmoud Abbas's formal truce pledge, they said they would continue to show restraint for now -- and both sides sought to capitalize.

Argh. I knew it. Why are they not bound by an elected leader? Oh, because they have no leader but Allah! And whomever brainwashed them, of course. Still, despite the refusal to acknowledge leadership, they did say that they would stop blowing stuff up... for now.

Israel's heavily fortified Erez crossing at Gaza's northern end will be reopened and hundreds of Palestinians will regain employment in Erez's Israeli-run industrial zone.

Well, that's a good thing, at least. Allowing people to resume the jobs that provide them their livelihood is always a good step. I do indeed believe that the average Palestinian would like to just live their lives in a bullet-free manner, going to a job, coming home at night to their family, maybe catching a movie on a day off, or visiting friends.

Leaders of both sides agree Sharon's plan to "disengage" from conflict by evacuating Gaza this summer could kickstart the "road map" process if done in coordination with Palestinians. Yet with Sharon intent on keeping most of the larger West Bank, which Palestinians regard as the core of the viable state they seek, few expect diplomacy to yield a permanent peace deal in the near future.

...and there's our deal-breaker. I personally can't make up my mind about the West Bank. I'm of three minds; part of me thinks that the West Bank is part of Israel, and that these people have no right to it at all, part of me thinks that Israel should just give the damn land to them, if it will bring peace, and part of me thinks that Israel could indeed give up the West Bank, and that the fighting would continue, anyway. Still, because I do feel that most people in the world *don't* want to live their lives in a constant state of battle, I think that maybe there's a chance that people can work out some sort of a peaceful coexistence. It's a long shot, but I'm trying to remain hopeful.

Paint with a thinner brush

Not everyone in a certain place and time will feel the same way about the events taking place there. History will almost always be truncated to only include the majority, but majorities do not mean "unanimous agreement". A post over at Alternate Brain has reminded me of that.

Give Peace a Chance

Palestinians, Israel announce cease-fire

Well! A cease-fire! Bless my buttons! That's amazingly good! And yes, my tongue is in my cheek, but only a little tiny bit.

I've mentioned in the past, and my mind hasn't been changed, that no one is really in charge of the people who call themselves Palestinians. There are a million groups, and none of the really violent fringe ones have ever seemed willing to honor any kind of cease-fire agreed to in the past. But wait -

Rice also announced Monday that U.S. Army Lt. Gen. William Ward will act as a security coordinator and will visit the region in the next few weeks. Ward also will work on Mideast security issues with Egypt and Jordan, she said.

"Gen. Ward's mandate is on security, which after all, really has to get established and has to be moving forward in order for us to make progress," Rice said.

Ward's responsibilities will include helping the Palestinians train and equip their security forces. Among his duties, Rice said, would be monitoring compliance with Israeli and Palestinian security agreements.

"We are very clear that the parties need to live up to their obligations," she said. "We won't hesitate to say to the parties when those obligations aren't being met."

Palestinian security forces? Could this possibly mean what I think it does? That Palestinians are willing to admit that they have some responsibility to police their own people, and to try and prevent terrorist forces within their midst? Because that's the only way that peace in this region can ever work. Simply decrying terrorism in public forums is not enough, Palestinians must actually work to stop terrorists in their own ranks. Do they really want to?

Now, the next problem is, of course, getting the Israelis to stop the violence, too. How do you convince a group of soldiers who've lived their whole lives looking over their shoulders every minute to stop shooting at the suspicious? Reactions like that have kept them alive up until now, for more often than not, people were trying to kill them. Go ahead, call me paranoid, but I spent 7 months of my life in Israel, just being a student, and I got to see 2 real bombs left in the street and I once moved carefully in the opposite direction of a grenade attack one night in town. Sure, I got held up by bomb threats dozens of times and only 2 were real, and I was in town every night for 5 months, more or less, with only one grenade attack... I think you can see what I'm saying. It's been a violent place, people aren't used to the idea of not shooting.

I once again bring up the issue of feelings and desire. These people have been raised to hate each other. Hate. Not the namby-pamby idea of hate that we here in the U.S. use to express strong dislike, but the kind of hate that inspires you to try and end others' lives. We can say that there's a cease fire, but do the people want it? Is the desire for peace just something that is given lip service, because its real meaning has been lost amongst ancient feuding that outsiders can't understand? I kind of think so, and that's what makes me so pessimistic about this "road map". I'd like to see peace, but I haven't lived with the anger all my life.

Post-Superbowl blogging

Having a busy morning, haven't even had a chance to check out the proposed budget yet. I did, of course, take the time to go look at the Carnival of Cats over on Running Scared. I can't believe I forgot to take cat pictures!!

And, of course, I read the MSNBC article about the Superbowl and it's commercials. I was watching until half time was over. I adore Paul McCartney completely. I don't care if he was brought in because he's so "safe", he's really wonderful. I'm not 60, by the way, I just think that. Anyway, I also paid attention to the commercials, after all, they're usually really something. My favorite was the FedEx/Kinkos one, which is a little embarrassing because that's the main competitor for the company I work for, but it was a really good ad. The article talks also about the sub/hero/grinder* sandwich ads:

Finally, in the battle of hot, toasted sandwiches, it was Subway's couple in a car over Quizno's talking baby.

I totally agree. The talking baby with the hot girlfriend disturbs me, but the Subway ad was good for a lot of laughs and flirting for the rest of the evening. Many jokes were made about better places to do that, and purposeful misunderstanding about whether we meant "making out" or eating sandwiches. And, of course, explaining it like that completely kills the joke.

Ay, Carrumba

I was just reading The Rude Pundit. Did you know that there's a Republican Senatorial Hispanic Task Force? I didn't! Holy crap, there's an Uncle Tom finding task force.

Yeah, I know, I shouldn't have said that.

But I'm so hopping mad that the Republicans have stolen the wind right out from my party's "look how progressive we are!" sails.

I'm gonna go meditate on some pollyanna crap like "any progress is, in fact, progress".

Friday Plankton Blogging

New species of plankton have been found in the deepest part of the ocean!

New organisms found in deepest seas

Aren't they cute!

Convoluted Quoting

Shakespeare's Sister has an excellent, excellent point about the State of the Union Address, that Ron has commented on over at Running Scared. It's about freedom, and how equality is *supposed* to be all wrapped up with it together.

Pointy

Point one - I did not watch the State of the Union Address. I'm guessing that Bush talked about Social Security reform, and freedom being on the march. Feel free to email of comment if you think I missed anything important that I can't catch up on with my news reading.

Point two - I was reading Cynical Nation this morning, and he linked to an article about privatizing Social Security, and how the concept was brought up during the Clinton Administration. So I read it, and I thought, "Oh, good, the arguments against it were the same even when a president I liked was in office". So cheer up, Bush fans - it's not just the man I object to, it's actually the policy! Yay! You know, I bet GWB's very nice to chat with at a dinner table, when it comes down to it. You can't become the leader of the free world without knowing how to at least be polite over plates of rubber chicken.

Which brings me to a tangent, which is not a point at all: when Dr. Phil interviewed GWB and Laura on the teevee, I couldn't help but think how much of an ass Dr. Phil is and I hardly noticed how much GWB infuriates me at all. I so dislike watching Dr. Phil for too many reasons to even start listing them.

Medicine, As I See It

Reading "Are Health Savings Accounts Good Medicine?" I've come up with my own answer to the question: Not really.

I'm a person with health issues. I get a lot of medical things done on a regular basis. I can tell you right now that I'd be less likely to do them if the cost was coming out of my own money. It's not that I don't want to take care of myself, it's just that medical procedures cost so very much. Take, for instance, my hospital stay of last April - I was there for 6 days, and the insurance company reported that the last 3 were "unnecessary" and "alternate arrangements" could have been made for my care. I objected, by the way, seeing as I was being fed through an IV and feeling pretty damn bad. But my point is that the cost for those three days came to roughly twenty-seven thousand dollars. Just thinking about setting up a payment plan for that much makes me dizzy. There's no way I'd have that much in a personal health savings account, and I make a fairly decent living. What would a less fortunate person do?

The article quotes a doctor, Dr. William J. West, Jr., an obstetrician/gynecologist in Reading, Pa.. Doctor West says

"When I deal with a patient who has a health savings account, we make decisions about treatments together and we discuss costs," West says. "This is likely to mean doctors practice less defensive medicine, because if you have discussed a treatment with a patient they have agreed to it, it's harder for them to sue you over it."

Whoa. I forget that people treat doctors like some sort of magic person. I talk about treatments with my doctor and discuss costs *now*. Shouldn't this always be the case? Shouldn't the biggest concern be the most efficient, proper way to solve whatever health problem you're facing? My doctor and I discuss outpatient treatments vs. inpatient, and name-brand drugs that have no generic equivalent vs. a similar drug that does, and whether or not it will do the job.

Now, if the "deductible insurance policy to cover major medical needs" part of this plan would have covered my $27,000 bill, then maybe the health care spending account wouldn't look so bad to me, but I'm suspicious. I don't trust insurance companies to pay for the things that the policies say that they will, and I suppose that the spending account idea just makes me think that they'll even less willing to hold up their end of the bargain. I know it's complicated, and that our lawsuit-happy society is equally to blame, but in this case, I'm looking out for me first.

Lifestyle Issues

Mu at Running Scared has pointed out that Medicare now covers Viagra. OK, it's a lifestyle issue, no less valid that medications that relieve mild pain... yeah. That *better* be on a case-by-case basis.

Votes for food

If this is true, then the small hopes that I harbored for the IRaqi people beginnng to try and take back their country from us in a less-violent way are dead. Dead, dead, dead.

Khalid Jarrar of Secrets in Baghdad described it as follows:
"the way the voting happened, is that you go to the voting center, and you go to the man that is your ration dealer, the oen that you take the ration from him every month, so you tell him that you are gonna vote, he marks your name on his list, and then you vote!!! "

You've heard this before

OK, you're watching a cartoon, and there's a family. The father is a light green color, and the mother is a pretty pale blue. Is this safe for children to watch?

You're watching a cartoon, and there's a family, and the mother is black and the father is white. Is this safe for children to watch?

You're watching a cartoon, and there's a family, and the parents are divorced, and the kids live with their mother. Is this safe for children to watch?

You're watching a cartoon, and there's a family, and the mother is a widow. Is this safe for children to watch?

You're watching a cartoon, and there's a group of people/things/animals living in one home, and they don't mention what their relationship is, and they all seem to be about the same age. Is this safe for children to watch?

You're watching a cartoon, and a bunch of children run around all the time and you never see their homes or their parents. Is this safe for children to watch?

You're watching a cartoon, and a girl introduces a bunny to her mommy and her mommy's "friend" who lives with them. Is this safe for children to watch?

Why?

All right, some people feel that their children should learn about alternative lifestyles from their parents, when they (the parents) feel that the children are sold enough, and ready to understand. What would they do if their 1st-grader came home and told them about the girl at school whom they eat lunch with. This girl lives with her mommy, and her mommy's "friend". Sure, you can keep a program off TV, but how do you keep your kids from noticing something like this in the real world.

I'm sorry, this just isn't something harmless, like telling your kids that those presents came from Santa, or something. No, it's not the mainstream, and it's really a very small minority, but families like this are out there, and all we have to do is tell our children that these people are different, but different's OK. And that's it. You're never going to be comfortable with your kids dating anyway, you know.

Been Blog Surfing

I found myself over at Pam's House Blend, reading her excellent post about Gay Marriage in Connecticut. It's definitely worth a read, it's a good explanation of why it's important that CT not just settle fotr the civil unions thing and that they push for marriage.

You may or may not remember my piece on this subject some months ago. It 's an issue that's important to me. It burns me up that people would dictate to others what makes a "legitimate" family.

Ups and Downs of the Iraqi Election

Well, voting for Iraqi expatriates has begun. I've seen reports of people proudly showing off the ink on their fingers, and people who speak of Belgian disenfranchised from a country that they're no longer comfortable living in.

A Rueters article, Security Clampdown Starts Before Iraq Poll, shows both good things and bad things about the upcoming election. The bad:

Since Wednesday, at least 48 Iraqis and seven U.S. troops have been killed in insurgent attacks. A helicopter crash also killed 30 American Marines and one sailor on Wednesday, the deadliest single incident of the war for the U.S. military.

President Bush has urged Iraqis to "defy the terrorists" and vote in the country's first election since an American-led invasion toppled Saddam Hussein in April 2003.

INSURGENTS DECLARE WAR ON POLLS
Insurgents have told Iraqis not to vote. The al Qaeda leader in Iraq, Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, says his followers will launch attacks on polling stations and has condemned Iraq's Shi'ites, most of whom are backing the polls. Voters will have their fingers marked with ink -- potentially making them a target for attacks.

Iraq's minister of state for national security said two of Zarqawi's lieutenants had been arrested, including the group's head of Baghdad operations, who was seized on Dec. 31.

...He said that while progress had been made since Saddam was toppled, "for the last month or so and particularly the last couple of days, we have been going backward."

So, as we can see, the bad is pretty bad. I remember callously agreeing with a friend months ago when the January vote was first announced that actually going out to vote would pretty much just be asking to get shot. I dearly wish that we hadn't been right.

But there isn't only a bad side. Despite all the mocking I do of people who say that *any* election is good, at the heart of it, that's actually true. I mock those people because I doubt their motives, I doubt their commitment to helping others. I'll take the results, when they're good, though. A poorly planned, badly run election is a step in the right direction. No, I don't think that we've done this right, not at all, but something's been done, and it means that people can keep trying. I'd like it to be the Iraqis who keep trying, rather than the U.S., though. I'm going to end this post on an up note, with a quote from the Reuters article by an Iraqi woman:

"I have been waiting for this day," Lamaa Jamal Talabani, 60, said outside an Amman polling station. "I have been dreaming of this day to tell my grandchildren that in the first election in the history of Iraq I was the first woman to vote."

An Ideal World (Xanadu?)

I finally got around to reading the transcript of the President's recent press conference. In it, he stated

...as I said, it reflects the policy of the past, but it sets a bold, new goal for the future. And I believe this country is best when it heads toward an ideal world. We are at our best. And in doing so, we're reflecting universal values and universal ideas that honor each man and woman, that recognize human rights and human dignity depends upon human liberty...

And you know what? I agree with the sentiment, there. We *are* at our best when we strive for an ideal. I know I've said that if we don't set the goal as high as possible that we can't hope to even reach some of the rungs on the ladder along the way. Still, this statement from the President made me nervous. Why? Because I don't think that his vision of an ideal world and mine match up.

Elevated Comment

I made this comment over on Running Scared this morning, and I decided that it deserved to be a post of its own:

Every time I hear GWB say "Spreading freedom" I find myself thinking that yes, it's being spread thinner and thinner.

Hits Home

Reading The Moderate Voice, playing catch-up, I see he has a post on Disturbing anti-Semitic happenings in Russia. I, too, have a personal interest in this story. One set of my grandparents emigrated from Bialarus, or "White Russia", and the other set was a Lithuanian/Ukrainian combo. Persecution because of religion is the number one reason they left their homeland.
From TMV:

There are a couple of disturbing trends:

• The infamous "blood ritual" which accuses Jews of murdering Christians for ritual purposes has made a high-profile comeback in a major Russian newspaper. It came in the form of an anti-Semitic letter signed by 500 prominent people, including journalists and politicians.


• The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has demanded Russian authorities to investigate the brutal anti-Semitic attack on a rabbi near the Maryina Roscha Chabad community center on January 14.

This stuff chills me to the bone. I know who I am, and I know what Judaism's about. I do. I was taught by my family, I studied in college, I spent 7 months in Israel. I might be taking too much credit by saying that I know what it's about, of course there are aspects of religion and spiritualism that people study for entire lifetimes and only scratch the surface, but I'm trying to make a point, here. I may not know everything about Judaism, but I certainly know that it's not about killing Christian children to use their blood to make matzoh. It's not about "provoking ethnic strife". It's about following rules, and treating your fellow man with respect. Yes, there are wing-nut factions that are violent, but hell, even the most of the wing-nut factions are about separatism. You don't see hassidic guys out there trying to chat up non-believers and bring them into the fold. These guys don't have training camps where they plot the downfall of the non-believers. They just huddle in their small, dark communities, wearing their heavy coats and silly large hats.

I've strayed from the part that bothers me most, though - the blood libel story. Where does this come from, in this day and age? Aren't Matzoh factories out in the open for everybody to see? Can't people go see for themselves that it's pretty much just tasteless crackers? Don't they start to wonder why there aren't bunches of children missing every spring if it's true? How can people *think* that?

I'm nowhere near it, but I'm, well... afraid.

File Under "Sports and Leisure"

Anheuser-Busch launches souped-up beer
"Caffeine-spike brew aimed at 20-something crowd"

Beer with Caffeine? Didn't they make that up on the Drew Carey Show?

(Yes, they did. They called it "Buzz Beer".)

It's A Matter Of Principle

More about Condi

Democrats are actually speaking up and saying that she's not their choice for the position of Secretary of State. They're making noise about her role in convincing the people of the USA that invading Iraq was necessary. They're using the word "lie", and making the point that deceit of the American public is not a desirable trait in a high-placed government official. At least, not when we can all see through it so easily.

I still expect her to be confirmed, but I no longer expect it to be unanimous. This expressing of dissent in an organized manner - through discussion and voting - is exactly what I'm looking for. Democracy is about majority rule, not about suppressing dissenting opinions. If our representatives don't agree, they should speak up. And now it looks as if once again, they are. It's a good sign.

Still Love The Online Quizzes

Yeah, I already knew I was cool. Still nice to have someone back you up.

More two-faced talking

OK, so I hate war. I hate the whole "we kill more of your people than you kill of ours, so we WIN" thing. The dizzying kind of hate.

I dislike the fact that people design and create weapons that can kill more efficiently, even when they pose less danger to the person wielding that weapon. I have spoken out about this, just yesterday. But today, I was thinking about gun control again, and how I would never go to war to depose a regime in another country unasked, but I would absolutely shoot someone who was breaking in to my house with the intention of harming me or a loved one. And if that other country with the unlovable regime that I've just mentioned, if they asked for help, I don't know that I'd be quite as loathe to provide it.

I'm anti-invasion, but not necessarily anti-revolution.

"America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling."

And I can't say that the idea of a robot that you can control from a distance and shoot stuff with isn't technologically cool. As gizmos go, it's pretty stylin'.

What is with my brain, already?

My First Title Was AN Expletive

Robot guns for soldiers. They're calling them "robot soldiers" of course, because that sounds so much cooler than remote-control-weapon, but it's the same thing.

I saw the article, and I started swearing. I HATE the fact that people accept that we have to kill off each other's populace in order to establish which country is "right", now we're making it so that we can kill more people from a distance? Is it just me who finds the idea of being able to shoot people en masse without having to endanger the shooter appalling and inhumane? Actually inhuman?

Going Out of Style

(cross posted at Running Scared)

Is the dollar's attractiveness really just a trend? MSNBC reports Central banks shift reserves away from U.S.It's true that the dollar has been strong for a long time, but now, according to this article,

...70 percent of central bank reserve managers said they had increased their exposure to the euro over the past two years. The majority thought eurozone money and debt markets were as attractive a destination for investment as the U.S.

Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, warned in November that there was a limit to the willingness of foreign governments to finance the U.S. current account deficit.

So, these banks are finding that investing in places other than the U.S. is just as attractive to them now? Is the idea that we're a superpower fading out of fashion like so many straight-legged jeans? Does the Euro make you hips look smaller the way that pants with a slight flare do? OK, that's probably going a bit too far.

Still, this does not bode well. Conservative estimates state that we're (the U.S.) going to need to borrow another $500 billion dollars over the next 4 years. If foreign banks are less eager for the business from our government, that money could cost us more than we were "banking" on, or even worse, just not be made available to us. Now, I know that the government borrows from itself, as it were, using some sort of arcane system that I won't pretend to understand. How long can we keep doing this before our economy actually gets bad enough to collapse? How long before a fistfull of dollars is about as attractive as a fistfull of neon sweatshirts with the collars cut off? I don't think it's soon, but this is one trend that I'd prefer to see reversed.

Shooting Star

Hey, look at me, right past the fish level and immediately to amphibian! I'm so grateful! I'm also going to be tied up in meetings today, so my opinions will have to wait until late in the evening. So, by the time I get to blog for real, everyone else will already have used up all the good lines. I hate that.

Ecosystem Rankings

Today, I am home. I have spent a good deal of time mocking other peopel's earnest entries on the phone with a friend, and adding my blog to the blog ecosystem. You can see the link on the sidebar, there. So far, I'm an insignificant microbe, but I'm hoping to make slippery fish fairly quickly. Feel free to blogroll/link to me and make me feel even more popular!

Identity Crisis

I'm having a bit of an identity crisis today.

I read about people who want smoking bans in my state, and I panic, for I am a smoker. I make comments like "Hey, there's no law against restaurants and bars being smoke-free, why don't you just go to them if you hate smoke so much". And I vacillate between feeling guilty and feeling like it's my right to feed my legal addiction when out for an evening's entertainment.

Health risk to myself and others! I'm not breaking any laws! I don't want to harm people! I don't want to give this stuff up! Conflicted Tami.

I read about Senator Biden telling Europe (in general, I guess, "Go, EU!") that they should stop whining and just deal with the fact that our President is our President, and will be until 2008. Part of me is horrified, because people should absolutely be allowed to express their opinions, but part of me sees the logic in the idea that if you don't just get past the complaining for a minute and work on something, no progress will be made. Another danger of this kind of thing is that by the time the changes that you've been screaming for are made, you're so used to not achieving anything that no one remembers how to get results. Sometimes, you have to work with what you've been handed, and hope that it gets better.

Free speech! Bad choices! Get something done! Conflicted Tami.

Finally, I am conflicted about my automobile choice. I was reading the latest over at Poetic Leanings, and he's talking about an old Doonesbury that was mocking SUV owners (and subtly mocking those who thought they could change SUV owners, as well). I love, love love my car/truck/SUV. It's a Ford Escape. It's high off the ground, so when I go through massive pond-like puddles (which happens more than you might think, living near where the canal meets the river) I don't worry about it, I go *over* them. It doesn't hurt my stupid arthritic hips and knees to get in and out. My goodness, I can fit all of my camping equipment in the back. Even when I go camping for a week or more and bring tons of stuff. It has a roof rack! It drives like a car!

Gas guzzler! Convenient and easy to drive! Ecologically unfriendly! Carries my stuff! Conflicted Tami.

Hubris

Rice to face senators' questioning

Picked up that link on Running Scared today, so I went over to give it a read. My immediate first impression was "Hubris". Condoleezza (does anyone else cringe when they see the way that name's *spelled*?) is quoted as saying

"Now is the time to build on these achievements to make the world safer, and to make the world more free. We must use American diplomacy to help create a balance of power in the world that favors freedom. And the time for diplomacy is now."

American dimplomacy? Make the world more free? OK, perhaps she hasn't noticed that the world, if they don't already, is starting to HATE US. The more countries that we send soldiers to, the more we look like an empire trying to make sure that the sun never sets on us. It is arrogant and excessively prideful to assume that our way of life is the right way of life for everyone.

As a Secretary of State, I think that she'll do an A#1 crap job. Crap. I think that she'll insult other cultures, and dismiss the concerns of people with real issues because they don't "further the cause of freedom". And I'm frustrated as hell, because I really, really want to live in a country where the an African American woman can get this job... if she's the most qualified person for it. What in the world happened that this highly intelligent, seemingly very qualified woman is spouting words that make it seem like she's been brain washed? Because as it stands, I can't see how her appointment, which I expect to happen when all of the members of both houses (except Barbara Boxer) roll over like sleeping dogs, will do anything but send us sliding even further down the slope.

Crazy Caper

Millions of nickels stolen from Fed
Someone stole $180,000 worth of nickels! That's 900 bags of nickels, weighing 23 tons!

So, the guy who drove the truck (leaving from E. Rutherford, NJ, by the way) is missing, either a suspect or a victim, they're not sure which. Who'd kidnap a truck driver for 3.6 million nickels? It's so unlikely!

I am so amused that someone pulled off a crime with so little payoff compared to the amount of effort expanded. I mean, sure, one truck hijacked, $180,000, sounds easy, right? But no, you have to make those nickels into real, spendable cash. You just can't go around paying for your stuff at the Target in all nickels; they'd get fed up with it pretty quickly. The article talks about the difficulty of converting cash to bills:

So, if someone steals 3.6 million nickels, how does he cash them in without attracting attention? Police say it would have to be done very slowly, in small amounts and at many different places, like grocery store counting machines. And even if he were able to cash in $500 worth of nickels every day, it would still take an entire year.

Referral

Today, I posted on Running Scared. It's just more ranting about how Palestinian leaders can't do anything to help the cause of peace. In my opinion, of course.

The Line's Still There...

Stepping over it is never a good move. Goose-stepping even more so.

Prince Harry Wears a Stupid-Ass Costume

Any story about royalty will always get my attention. Throw in Jewish indignation, and I'm all over it.

So, who's to blame for this idiocy? Everyone, of course:

Parents should make sure that their children understand that threatening political/militarily figures who are associated with death and loss are a really bad idea for a costume. A Nazi Stormtrooper isn't fun the way a Star Wars Stormtrooper is - ever. Actually dressing as Hitler is the only way I can think of to send a worse message. Now, I am of course, reminded of South Park, and the episode where Cartman dressed as Hitler for Halloween.

Prince Harry needs to remember that he's a public figure, and even things like a costume will be seen by the multitudes and taken apart teeny bit by teeny bit. And, in fact, I'm wondering about the report of his brother's costume, which I read included a "leopardskin leotard with matching tail and paws". Sounds... form fitting. Back to Harry - he needs to get it that he's under the microscope. But still...

People in General should understand that Prince Harry is 20. He hasn't dealt with a whole lot of soul-rending loss. He probably has no honest idea about how badly a costume like that can make people feel. I think that the President of Israel's reaction was probably reasonable. I expect that to him, dressing like a "bad guy" was probably the intent, and who hasn't wanted to dress as the villain once or twice?

Which brings me back to South Park again, and the episode where they realize that AIDS has been around long enough that it's finally OK to make jokes about it. "Yay, people are desensitized to the tragedy, we're all allowed to laugh, now!" Oy.

We'll Stink After Three Days

Indonesia is very grateful for all the help they're getting, but they're making it clear that all the outside forces are just visiting.

Indonesia Defends Restrictions in Aceh

Jakarta has long been edgy about a foreign presence in Aceh, where
separatists have fought the army for three decades for a homeland on Sumatra island's northern tip.
...
In Berlin, Indonesian Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda told a news conference that he welcomed the presence of foreign troops helping relief efforts.

"You can rest assured that we welcome even ... foreign troops. Their presence is based on our request," said Wirajuda.

On Wednesday, the Indonesian government said all foreign troops should leave the country by the end of March.

Anyone besides me think that Indonesia's cannily trying to avoid being "nation built" or "set free"? And while I think that the US is the most threatening in that regard, I don't think that we're the only threat. It must suck to live somewhere that doesn't have stable government, but probably less than it does to live somewhere that has a foreign power with troops on your land trying to insist that you elect one.

Go ahead, Indonesia, show us the door as soon as you're done with us. You're right, we're just the help, and we don't live there.

Suggestions Box 2

Maybe we should give travel agents a list of people who aren't supposed to get on planes to the US. Although, now that I'm thinking about it, these guys probably buy their tickets on web sites.

Now I'm imagining the kind of code it would take to maintain a list of banned flyers from an airline site. Hmm.

What the?

Whitman, Kerrik, The guy who nailed Crazy Eddie, what's this obsession that Bush has got with my humble little state, here? We're Blue people! Leave us alone! Stop finding the few people I wouldn't support and giving them jobs!

(as seen on Middle Earth Journal)

Amusingly connected: I recently gave a dinner party, and the conversation turned to the oddities of living in New Jersey, and never knowing what bizarrely b-list famous or infamous persons we might run in to at any point. One of my charming dinner guests mentioned unexpectedly finding himself at Crazy Eddie's house. I made beef pinwheels, tossed salad, and stir-fried vegetables, in case you were wondering.

Wolf!

Over at Running Scared Ron has a nice post regarding our current pres and his tendency to... exaggerate just how bad some things are while glossing over others entirely. Ron focuses on Social Security, as it appears to be a cause he really cares about. It's a good post, based on articles like this one over at the Washington Post. All the while I was reading it, I kept wondering, "What happens when Bush yells 'Crisis!' and we don't believe him, anymore?".

Good Samaritan

Warning - I've gone all warm and fuzzy about my employer.

Sometimes I wonder about working for a big corporation. Is it the kind of company that I'm proud to represent. Most of the time, my answer is "yes". I may not support the kinds of political candidates that my company is rumored amongst us to support, but I am proud of the amount of tsunami relief that they've (we've?) donated:

UPS tsunami disaster relief

The press release doesn't go in to detail, but the airlift support numbers alone come to 2.5 million. Plus, there's a program where they'll match employee donations (up to a certain amount) to the Red Cross and Unicef.

Besides the fact that I'm grateful that they pay me to play with computers, I'm also really glad that they take responsibility for helping out the less fortunate. It's nice to feel that way.

The Madness of King George

Somehow, I suspect that I'm not the first one to re-use that title, but whatever.

Circuitously, via Brilliant at Breakfast, I found myself at the Al Franken Show blog, without a clue why I had never been there before.

Anyway, there's a piece on Bush not wanting to hear news that doesn't agree with him:

BUSH REJECTS BAD NEWS
The Nelson Report is a daily political tip sheet and analysis written for the past 20 years for the (US and Asian) corporate and government clients of Chris Nelson, a former Capitol Hill staffer and UPI reporter. (He was actually the first to break the looted explosives story before the election; Josh Marshall then posted it to his blog.) This Monday, he wrote:

There is rising concern amongst senior officials that President Bush does not grasp the increasingly grim reality of the security situation in Iraq because he refuses to listen to that type of information. Our sources say that attempts to brief Bush on various grim realities have been personally rebuffed by the President, who actually says that he does not want to hear “bad news.”

Rather, Bush makes clear that all he wants are progress reports, where they exist, and those facts which seem to support his declared mission in Iraq...building democracy. “That's all he wants to hear about,” we have been told. So “in” are the latest totals on school openings, and “out” are reports from senior US military commanders (and those intelligence experts still on the job) that they see an insurgency becoming increasingly effective, and their projection that “it will just get worse.”

Our sources are firm in that they conclude this “good news only” directive comes from Bush himself; that is, it is not a trap or cocoon thrown around the President by National Security Advisor Rice, Vice President Cheney, and DOD Secretary Rumsfeld. In any event, whether self-imposed, or due to manipulation by irresponsible subordinates, the information/intelligence vacuum at the highest levels of the White House increasingly frightens those officials interested in objective assessment, and not just selling a political message.

Jill (B.a.B.) makes the point that "They used to make Masterpiece Theatre series about insane rulers like this. Now we call them the President of the United States."

Sure, that worries me, but I've had a brilliant idea - the advisors tell him as soon as the election is over that everyone living in Iraq is happy now, and that all the soldiers can come home. Mission Accomplished. And fighting that breaks out after we're gone we can pretend to be surprised about.

The Real Problem

The following is an essay formed completely of my opinion. No main stream media outlets were harmed in the forming of this opinion:

I know what the real problem with Social Security is. The problem is that the distribution of age in the US population is not even. We have more and more people reaching retirement age without an equal number of younger workers feeding the pool. This causes the benefits money to get thin, and possibly run out. Oh, and throw in on top of that the fact that the government has borrowed the money in the Social Security Trust Fund, so that the "security blanket" for the system is only there in name only. The government cannot actually pay that money back, as things stand now.

I also know how to solve this problem. No, really, I do. Raise taxes, and raise the retirement age. "But Tami," you cry, "We don't want to pay more taxes! We want a magic solution involving every citizen in the U.S. suddenly becoming a fiscal genius and managing to score big on the stock market! Or something similar as long as we don't have to make a sacrifice!"

Yes, I know that's what you want. I, too, would prefer to not have to tighten my belt at all. I'd like to be able to enjoy a nice sashimi dinner twice a week, and know that any old Xbox or PS2 game that strikes my fancy is mine for the purchasing. But the truth is that I have more than I actually need, as do many, many Americans. And I personally am working on a financial plan for my retirement that doesn't count on Social Security being there at all. But I'm fortunate, and I've had some good breaks, and I know that there are lots of people out there who don't have what I do. People existing at say, twice the poverty level - that's enough money that you don't get much help, but you sure as heck can't save a lot, either. People like that, who have worked hard all their lives will really be able to use the help that the government could give them after they retire.

I know that we spoiled Americans don't want to give up any of the money that we've worked hard for, not on a regular basis, but that's what will save this program. I didn't want to get my cavities filled, either, but I did it. I don't want to give up any more of the money that I earn, but I can, and I should. I'm not talking about communism here, just a little more altruism.

I suppose it all comes down to how much of a responsibility people feel for supporting others, just because they're there. Perhaps the people out there who haven't managed to arrange to have sufficient funds to support them in their retirement aren't my problem, after all. Or maybe people should stop thinking about the "Grasshopper and the Ant" and start thinking more along the lines of the "Humanitarian and the Prosperous Country".

U.S. Knows Best

Bush's Counsel Sought Ruling About Torture

"The request by Mr. Gonzales produced the much-debated Justice Department memorandum of Aug. 1, 2002, which defined torture narrowly and said that Mr. Bush could circumvent domestic and international prohibitions against torture in the name of national security."

...

"The revision stated that "torture is abhorrent both to American law and values and international norms." It rejected the language in the earlier memorandum, which said that only physical pain "of an intensity akin to that which accompanies serious physical injury such as death or organ failure" constituted torture punishable by law."

Well, I'm glad that the revision reflects what I feel is the only civilized opinion to hold on torture, but the idea that a government official sought to circumvent international law gives me the bad kind of chills.

Now, the cynic in me wonders if it's always this way, but these people are just dumb enough to get caught.

Fewer Women Using Birth Control

They're sneakin' round the back door, the pro-lifers are. At least, that's how I'm reading this. Seems that according to surveys, about 92.6% of women who are not sterilized, pregnant or trying to conceive do use birth control, but that the number of women involved here is so large, that this increase of just 2.2 percent of women over two years is enormous. Big.

...analysts called the spike a troubling development that translates into at least 4.6 million sexually active women at risk of conceiving a child they had not planned on.

Trussell has determined that half of all unintended pregnancies occur among the more than 95 percent of women who used some type of contraception, probably because the method failed or was used improperly. That means the other half of unintended pregnancies came from the sliver of the population not using birth control.

Half. And why would women of child-bearing age be taking this kind of risk? The article mentions that yes, unplanned pregnancy can be a happy surprise, but more often than not, unplanned pregnancy happens to women who are not psychologically or financially prepared to have a child. So back to the question - why?

Many physicians put partial blame on federally funded abstinence-only education programs that by law prohibit discussion of contraceptives, except to detail their failure rates.

"We are spending an enormous amount of money on something that hasn't been shown to work," Trussell said. "It's a giant step backwards."

The article also mentions that funding that had previously been used for birth control is now more widely spread out to include other things, such as testing for sexually transmitted diseases. Planned Parenthood reports that if you do the math and adjust for inflation, their 2003 budget for Title X Family Planning was 57% of what it was in 1980.

Another quote that I find ever so helpful:

"Pregnancy is not a disease. . . . The women making these choices are making a conscious choice. They are not stupid," said Leslee J. Unruh, president of the Abstinence Clearinghouse. "Women don't want to use birth control because of the side effects. And a lot of men refuse to use a condom."

"...a lot of men refuse to use a condom." I'm sorry, is there an actual reason there? And women don't want to use birth control because of the side effects? Are these women thinking that the side effect of having to feed, clothe and house a human being for a large number of years is a better choice?

So what do we have?

• Less education about birth control methods
• Less government funding for family planning
• A government that talks about "family values" all the time

I've done my own math.

I think that people should have children when they both want them and are prepared to care for them. And if you have children, you should be prepared to understand that creating a human life is possibly the most important thing that anyone can ever do. Having a baby as a "side effect" demonstrates irresponsibility and a refusal to see reality. Children are too precious for that.

My First Cross-Post

I put this up on Running Scared today, and figured that the folks who came here first deserved to see it without having to click another link.

She's Not All Talk

A woman on a hobby expedition turned out to be a welcome source of communications in India. Wave of Destruction, Wave of Salvation (registration probably required).

She was there to work a ham radio connection in an area of the world where such things are strictly regulated by the Indian government and not at all common.

PORT BLAIR, India -- About one month ago, Bharathi Prasad and her team of six young ham radio operators landed in this remote island capital with a hobbyist's dream: Set up a station and establish a new world record for global ham radio contacts. In the world of ham slang, it was called a "Dxpedition."

As it turns out, she was able to establish communications with the outside world when there was no power or phone lines. This is the kind of work that a lot of ham operators prepare for. Sure, the hobby is fun for people with technical leanings, but it's also an excellent resource during any kind of disaster. Ham radio can be used under the kind of conditions that cause other technologies to crumble and fail. A lot of people don't know this, and I'm personally thrilled to see it mentioned in the media. I've had my license for a little over a year, now, so I'm really biased.

Some web sites you can look at if you want to look into the whole ham/disaster relief thing:
Amateur Radio Disaster Services
Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service (RACES)
National Association for Amateur Radio home page


They were talking about this on Slashdot, as well. A lot of the comments focus on the fact that broadband over power lines (BPL) is a proposed technology that can cause interference with radio signals. It's an interesting discussion, although be warned that sometimes Slashdot comments discussions get a bit... juvenile. OK, a lot juvenile. But if you like techie stuff, you've probably already read stuff like this, anyway.