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.

Bad all over

Hi. I'm on vacation. Sure, I miss blogging, but not so much that I'm likely to post again before next Monday. You'll all live. Anyway, two things:

1) There's been a terrible tsunami, many people need help. The NYT has a list of how you can do it. I'm a fan of the Red Cross, but hey, pick a charity, any charity, I won't fuss about it. And yes, I gave them some money. I'm like that.

2) Even if someone puts comments on my site that I abhor beyond all reason, as long as they stop short of disturbing violent images describing how they'll commit my murder, I'm going to leave them up. You can go ahead and disagree with me vehemently, I'm leaving the evidence up for all to see. Although I will do my best to mock you and your reasons for not believing the same way I do. It's my blog, after all.

Wait - strike that, reverse it

Over at The Moderate Voice, Joe Gandleman has a piece that doubts the convenient timing of Rumsfeld's visit to Iraq. Honestly, while I think he's more than capable of doing something just to exploit people, I believe that he had the Christmas trip planned in advance, and being able to exploit the attack on the mess hall angle is just an unplanned bonus.

In the news this morning, though, I find Rumsfeld Tells U.S. Troops in Iraq They Can Win. It contains feel-good messages like this one:

He said: "This is a tough situation here in Iraq. It is dangerous, people are being wounded, people are being killed."

Oh, my sweet fannie. It's a tough situation in the country WHERE WE DECLARED WAR.

But wait, wait, I hate when I do this, and I do it every time. I had a point about the article's title - didn't we already declare that we'd won this war? You know, the whole "captured Saddam, toppled his statue" thing? You mean the war's still going on? Is that why all those poor soldiers are being killed? Well this makes a lot more sense, now!

If everyone supposedly wants peace on earth, then why are we still killing each other?

Merry Christmas, all you Christian-type readers.

Repeating myself some more

You know, today I just want to rant about torture. I made a comment at Brilliant at Breakfast the other day that torture is *never* OK, and I got jumped on. I was told that I can't make sweeping statements like that, and given an example that if someone had kidnapped and hidden my child that I'd want to keep torture open as an option in order to save my kid.

Well, you know what? No I don't. No I wouldn't. Torture is wrong, and just because I'm being wronged doesn't OK its use. I'm talking about TORTURE people! Not interrogation, I'm talking about unreasonable cruelty, the kind that can make you actually insane. "An anguish of body or mind", "a punishment for the purpose of coercion or sadistic pleasure". This is NOT something that "the good guys" do.

In a world lacking a reputation for kindness to strangers, there needs to be people who hold themselves up to a higher standard than the rest. Maybe the goal is too lofty, maybe it's unattainable, but without reaching for the sky, you're never going to make any of the steps along the way, and those steps are important. We need to hold ourselves to these high standards, and realize that torture is beyond the pale. Monstrous people stoop to that level, and we should never lower ourselves that way. There used to be a country that held themselves up to these standards, achieving them or not, it was the published goal. That country was the U.S. A. We stood for freedom, and human rights. It seems that things have changed these days, but I want to shout out right now that I never signed up for that change. I swear by everything I hold dear, we should NOT have a government that sanctions torture under any circumstances. People who commit acts like this should be punished, arrested, and denied freedoms that they would have enjoyed as people who obey the laws of the land. Documents authorizing this behavior is unacceptable to me. Unacceptable.

I didn't think that the 2 people who wanted to discuss the fact that "never" was too strong a word to use affected me this deeply, but it seems they did.

Show some respect

Settlers Compare Gaza Pullout to Holocaust

It seems that a group of settler activists in the Gaza strip are protesting the pull-out. OK, I get it, you live there, it's your home, and now the government is saying that you don't have the *right* to love there any more, that they've given your land to another nation. Well, that would make me pretty upset, too. I see the reason for the protest, but I protest the method of the protest. Seems these people have taken it into their head that in order to show their dissent, they should wear holocaust-style orange stars on their clothing. Hold it right there, fellas, that's where you've crossed the line.

"The plan to wear orange stars perverts the historical facts and damages the memory of the Shoah," said Yad Vashem's director Avner Shalev, using the Hebrew word for the Holocaust. He urged the settlers to refrain from using the stars.

I have to agree. What are these people thinking, that they could violate a solemn memory like that? You can't go around waving Nazi symbols as a sign that you dispute any old process as unfair. Even if it means that you have to move out of your home, because the land you live on is being given to another country in a border dispute, it's just not the same. The Israeli government is nothing like the Nazi party, using a symbol that invokes that memory is disrespectful and cruel.

I'm begging you

William Rehnquist, please, please, please try and hold on to your health for another 4 years. Please, don't step down. I don't care if you slow the Supreme Court down a million times over, I just need to know that Bush isn't going to be the one to put someone new in your seat.

I know, I know, it's a pipe dream, and a hideously selfish one at that. But really, reading this post over at Running Scared makes me feel... worried. I despair of a future in which the less permissive half of the country manages to force the more permissive half to bend to their will.

One of the main reasons that I call myself a liberal is that I don't feel that we, as humans, have the right to dictate how other people live, love or worship. I'm not anti-law, I believe that harming others is wrong, but when someone believes something that doesn't hurt anyone else, well, that's their business. I know, I know, you've read these words from me before. But if you allow people to choose their own path, there's nothing that says that they can't follow the path of conservatism. If you're anti-abortion, no one forces you to have one. If you're anti-profanity, you're not tied to a chair in front of your TV with your eyes help open and "Cinemax Late Night" played on an endless loop before you. Even if your against mild titillation, no one tunes your TV to "Desperate Housewives" against your will. There's no one who says that you can't have churches, or personal Christmas trees, or kosher food, or AA meetings that talk about a higher power. All these things are available to choose, even amongst all of us that choose to live like heathens.

Making only one set of choices available seems uncharitable to me. Uncharitable, and unamerican.

Quest for Intelligence Life

New Phase Begins in Push to Reorganize Intelligence

Looks like we actually have to have someone in charge of the new intellegence agencies, and that the President has to support this person, What a surprise! Give me a break, some of the things mentioned in this article make me wonder why I just wasted the brain power to comprehend those words. In fact, all of it seems superfluous to me.

The director's office is one of several bureaucracies created under the bill. The others include a National Counterterrorism Center, which will serve as a governmentwide clearinghouse on terrorist threats; a National Counterproliferation Center, which will oversee the government's efforts to halt the spread of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and the technology to make them; and a board to police against abuses of civil liberties and privacy.

We needed specific agencies for these things? What in the world was wrong with the idea of divisions in the agencies that already existed? We couldn't have terrorism and couterproliferation (that is *such* a mouthful) departments of the CIA, the FBI, the military? OK, maybe not the military, as we all know that they're way overtaxed. But why whole new entities? So Bush could feel like he was the one who got to create the "good guys"?

It seems odd to me, is all I'm saying. Like squid ice cream.

Apologies

Holy Cow am I busy! Can't blog now, and I'm really sorry.

Luckily, you have the rest of the whole blogosphere to hold you over.

Whoa!

Jews, read the Hanukkah post ( 2nd one down) and rejoice! Rejoice in non-sequential mystic lore references! Lore which doesn't come from a single recognized source in out religion, and yet, all the coolest amongst us know about it. It's like a rave site for kabbalists!

Hanukkah, wie er in die Welt kam

Things I didn't know

Top Official Shot Dead in Baghdad

Kassim Imhawi was hit by gunmen who pulled up beside him as he traveled into the city from a western suburb.
Mr Imhawi was director-general of the ministry and a senior adviser to the interim Iraqi government.

There's an interim government? Geez, what do they think about all the chaos?

Insurgents have frequently targeted Iraqi government officials and ministry
compounds.
They view the interim government as collaborators with the US.

Well, OK, now that I understand that there really is an interim government in place, I guess I should have figured that out.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan is to meet discuss the plans in Washington on Thursday with US Secretary of State Colin Powell and his successor Condoleezza Rice.
The UN has maintained a minimal but growing presence in Iraq since a bomb attack on its Baghdad headquarters in August 2003 killed a senior UN envoy and 21 others.
After pulling out of Iraq for a year, Secretary General Kofi Annan has allowed foreign staff to return in small numbers.
The UN has less than 60 staff currently in Iraq and plans to have just 25 electoral experts in the country for the 30 January elections, alongside around 250 Fijian
peacekeeping troops currently being trained.

Fijian peacekeeping troops. That means that there's Fijian soldiers. I had never pictured Fiji as ever having a need for an army, what with being surrounded by all that water. Now, on top of being sad that poor Kassim Imhawi nd his 8 bodyguards were shot and/or killed, I'm sad to try and picture people from one of the nicest-looking places on earth wearing camo and carrying automatic weapons.

I didn't know that people were still trying to claim that they were an actual working government. I didn't know that the UN was actually planning to come through with peacekeepers for the elections, and I sure as heck didn't know that they were going to come from Fiji. I feel very uninformed, today.

My Brilliant Brain

OK, so this morning, I was making some changes to my template, and I accidentally erased the whole thing. Gone. Kaput. I felt like an idiot. Just as I thought that I was going to have to go back to the original version and re-create all my changes, I remembered Google Desktop and it's fabulous ability to recreate things from my cache. Yay, Google!

The reason I was changing the template is that I suddenly realized that I had added my few extra features really sloppily, and I wanted to fix them. My technorati profile and sitemeter icons were stuck at the top because that's where I had blindly pasted them in without any regard to form or placement. My blogroll blogs list had no header. Also, I wanted to add the keen new "muppet terror alert" icon that I saw over at Polyester Bride, and I wanted it to be all nice and neat on the side, like it should be, For pete's sake, I'm a web developer, I can darn well find where I'm supposed to put things in a template laid out by someone as good as Jeff Zeldman is. Have I mentioned before how much I admire him and his work? Because man-oh-man, I really do. He's the ginchiest.

Anyway, it's all back now, as you can see, since there's actual content instead of a big, blank page. And the icons are all lined up nicely in the sidebar like I wanted them. Plus, I've added a new blog to my blogroll, Polyester Bride. I am loving the way that this woman writes! I was introduced to her, of course, by Running Scared, my favorite other blog that I sometimes post at. He linked to her post about novelty t-shirts, and the conflict it caused with the creator of said t-shirts. She mocks a bit the idea that a woman would wear a t-shirt that says "Make me happy - take me shopping". I get where she's coming from because she's young. Me, I'm older, and I know that sometimes, if you don't wear that shirt, your male significant other will not understand that yes, you REALLY WANT HIM TO BUY YOU STUFF. Sure, I love you baby, but I need the swag, I really do. And it's 14k or better, I like it better. Materialistic and cold? Yes. Anti-feminist? Maybe. Cynical? Definitely, and we all know by now that "cynical" describes me pretty well.

By the way, feel free to send me presents, I've got an Amazon wish list.

Ho-ho-hoo boy

Last night I was listening to Jersey 101.5 on my radio dial, because good gravy, a whole MONTH of unrelieved holiday music is a little much (thank you, WPLJ), and they had our newish Governor, Richard Codey on. One of the topics that the host brought up was the issue of Christmas carols in schools, and that it's to the point where even the orchestral arrangements of religious songs are being left out. Well, Duh, Eric Scott, just because the song doesn't have words doesn't make it a different song. But once again, I leave the point I'm attempting to make.

When I first heard about New Jersey schools that were trying to eliminate the religious songs from their holiday concerts, I was in favor of it. I, as many of my 11 readers already know, am Jewish, and sometimes Christmas can leave Jews feeling kind of left out. South Park didn't have Kyle sing the Lonely Jew on Christmas song because nobody ever felt that way. But now, I've reconsidered.

I think about the Constitution, and the bits that people interpret to mean "separation of church and state", and I see a line that says that no religion will be favored, nor will any religion be denied the right to practice. I'm paraphrasing, here. So what I'm thinking now is that there's no reason to ban any religious music. Let's celebrate good music, no matter where it came from! Why can't we just be super-inclusive, instead of all-exclusive? Let's do Christmas songs, Hanukah songs, and some songs from some cultures that we'd never think of as being "mainstream". Surely someone else has a December holiday that we can sing about, no? How about Buddhist Bohdi Day, they have any songs for that? I honestly have no idea.

Anyway, I've definitely switched up my thinking on this. I think that we should celebrate everyone's festivals at a concert, and not try to deny them just because everyone doesn't celebrate them. A concert should be first and foremost about lovely music. Censoring it for religious content in schools now seems to me as bad as censoring it for "adult content" on record albums. I mean, are we trying to protect our children from disturbing religious ideas?
OK, last side track before I finish this non-directional ramble - big statues and images of a guy hanging dead, all bloody and nailed to a cross, that's kind of disturbing. It just is. OK, off the side-track.

The goal of most religions that I've run across is peace and morality (most, most!). These are not issues that children need to be protected against. The truth is that Christmas in the US is all about shopping, and Santa, and presents. Jewish/Muslim/Hindi kids never feel left out that they don't get to go to midnight mass and sit on a pew singing prayers and listening to a sermon; no, they feel left out of getting piles of presents. Singing or not singing certain songs probably isn't going to fix that.

Codey didn't really state a preference on the issue one way or the other, by the way. His answer was that he thinks that there are much more important things to worry about. Good point.

Death Warrant?

Abbas calls for end of Palestinian uprising

Peaceful resistence
In an interview with the London-based Arabic newspaper Asharq al-Awsat published Tuesday, Abbas said Palestinians should resist Israeli occupation without resorting to violence.

OK, so I agree with him. Resistance shouldn't necessarily be so bloody. If we all kill each other, after all, there won't be anyone left to live on the land we're disputing, in the end.

I suspect that the non-violent attitude will get him killed within a month.

Still a NJ Cynic

Some major newspaper stories about former nominee for the post of Homeland Security chief, Bernard Kerik. Some people go more for the jugular than others.

CNN -just the illegal alien employee angle. OK, so he hired a Mexican nanny. Anyone can make that kind of mistake, right?

NYT - ties to a company with mob connections. Ooh, mob connections, never good. Taking cash gifts? Even more not good.

Washington Post - "hounded" Judy Regan. Hmm, veiled allegations that the man has enjoyed more than a friendship with the famous publisher, but couched in terms as to make her look uninvolved...

NY Daily News - love nest in battery park. Finally, allegations brought right out as facts, not implying that Regan wasn't involved at all, but still smacking of Regan-camp spin ("stunningly attractive head of her own book publishing company"?). And, throwing another woman into the mix, on top of it.

OK, so the guy has done every sneaky thing we've seen politicians accused of, short of murder (actually, I'm glad about that!). Here's my issue: I personally believe that almost (nothing is absolute in this world) EVERY politician has stuff like this in his closet. According to an ABC show, Primetime, 22 percent of males 50-64 admit to cheating on a spouse. A lot of people run around. Dealing with companies that have ties to organized crime? Tougher statistic to call for obvious reasons, but really, I bet the numbers are up there.

Here comes the cynical part. If so many people are doing it, and so many are getting away with it, then why not Kerik? I'm guessing that he crossed the wrong person. In the world of public officials, there are people that wield a lot of power. The kind of power that can make stories like this come out, or go away. It looks to me like Bernie made the wrong person angry, and now he doesn't get to join the exclusive club that he was up for membership in. Heck, maybe it was his lack of pedigree that inspired the press-driven expose-a-thon, we'll never know.

Sorry Bernie, guess we'll never find out what kind of job you would have done.

The right idea

Wangari Maathai has won a Nobel peace prize. She's been actively trying to prevent deforestation of Africa. It's an amazing effort. When accepting her prize, she had some very reasonable things to say:

"Further, industry and global institutions must appreciate that ensuring economic justice, equity and ecological integrity are of greater value than profits at any cost," she said. She said grassroots citizens' movements should be encouraged.

This is the kind of thinking that we should all be doing. The earth is our home, and if we use it up, we as a race will have nowhere to live. Just as we can't abuse your body's resources by working and working without ever eating or sleeping, we can't use up what the earth gives us without ever getting back. No, we can't make the same kind of profit as we could if we continued in environmentally unsound ways. Protecting the earth will never make anyone the kind of money that abusing it and forgetting about it does. But if we don't accept that the profits that we could manage being unethical are not worth the consequences, we will all suffer with a less hospitable world.

Wangari Maathai has gotten herself out there and made a difference. In return, she is now receiving a Nobel Peace Prize. Way to go, Wangari.

My opinion

In my opinion, Pat Robertson is an ass.

A lighter note

And now, discussing sperm in a completely different context, The Moderate Voice discusses the latest news about laptops and whether or not they can damage male fertility. Folks, today it's all about the seed.

OK, I'm serious, now

You intolerant people are making me MAD!

Look at this article. Overlook the fact that Gerald Allen either thinks that Hammet is great literature or else doesn't know the actual title of "Hamlet" and is confused about it being by Shakespeare. Move past that, obviously I have.

Now that you've read the stuff, including such lovely lines as

"Traditional family values are under attack," Allen informs me. They've been under attack "for the last 40 years". The enemy, this time, is not al-Qaida. The axis of evil is "Hollywood, the music industry". We have an obligation to "save society from moral destruction". We have to prevent liberal libarians and trendy teachers from "re-engineering society's fabric in the minds of our children". We have to "protect Alabamians".

you can see why I'm mad. Tolerance is not about degrading morals, it's about upholding them. Not practicing prejudice against others is one of the most moral things you can do. Why is homosexuality considered a sin, because some guy in the bible didn't want to have sex with his dead brother's wife? OK, I can see how that's interpreted as masturbation being a sin, but isn't it taken just a little too far? All sexual activity that isn't directly intended to cause pregnancy is a sin? It never says that! Come down off the high horse, people!

And how many homophobes actually ever read the bible, anyway? Do they know why they're even supposed to look down on it? And who decided that? I bet most of them don't! They just feel icky, and lo, it's a sin to do the icky stuff! Well guess what? Lots of stuff about Catholicism makes me feel icky, like the whole "drink of my blood" thing, but you don't see me saying that we should dig a hole in the ground and put all of the writings about Catholic people in the ground!
Intolerance is intolerable. Every person on this planet has an equal right to live their lives on it. Being a homosexual is not an agenda. There's not some manifesto that all gay people have read explaining how to turn everyone else in the world gay. That reminds of the Mormons, who actually *do* have a mission to turn everyone else in the world Mormon, but I digress. One of the things I like best about America is that it truly is an example of how different kinds of people with different beliefs and traditions really can live side-by-side. No one denies the Shakers their right to live their Shaker lives, even if we don't want to live that way. Every day people who love members of their own gender go about shopping for groceries, or paying their taxes, or going to the movies exactly the way that people who love members of the opposite gender do. We don't have to eliminate other people's ways of life in order to protect our own. Being that close-minded is unimaginable to me, and that's why the people who say that we need "protection" from people, or books, or TV shows, well, they make me hopping mad.

OK, forget my liberal leanings, let's look at this another way: all you people who believe in God, whom amongst us did God create?

Everyone. And he calls us all his children.

You Don't Get It, Do You.

OK, time to talk about the basics of terrorism. Again.

Basic Rule 1 - terrorists are not actually soldiers

No matter how often people refer to the "war on terror" or "Bin Laden's army of Al Qaida terrorists", one fact remains: when you're a terrorist, you don't play by the army rules. Terrorists aren't representative of their governments, they are only representative of their causes.

You'll note I say "causes", plural. That will be important later.

Basic Rule 2 - The defeat of an army means nothing to a terrorist

See, if you don't report to a government, it doesn't matter much to you whether or not that particular government's army has conceded defeat to your army. Since the government's not paying your check, you don't care who's surrendered to whom, you're still out there fightin'. No governmental ties, no respect for things like treaties, or cease-fires, or surrender. Geneva convention? Don't care!

Basic Rule 3 - There are more terrorist causes in this world than we could hope to identify

Yes, Al Qaida is a major force in the terrorist world, but they are far from the only terrorists that exist. In fact, the smaller your cause, the more likely you are to use things like home-made car bombs driven in to a hotel lobby frequented by people you consider to be oppressing you. Even if we could completely eliminate one large group, we could never hope to identify all the smaller ones, not with all the time or money in the world. It would be like trying to find the bad grains of sand on a beach. Admittedly, it's a small beach on the Mediterranean, but it's still a near impossible task.

So, combine rules 1,2 and 3, and come to the same conclusion that I have - terrorist activity, even if it's funded by a country's government, is not directly controlled by it. Punishment is seen as a type of martyrdom that simply inspires others of the cause to greater heights of violence. That's why arguments like the one on the new Becker-Posner log (nod to Running Scared), let's say Becker's piece on how preventative war can be justified must ultimately be discarded as naive and wrong.

Combating crime mainly relies on deterrence through punishment of criminals who recognize that there is a chance of being apprehended and convicted-the chances are greater for more serious crimes. If convicted, they can expect imprisonment or other punishments- again, punishments are generally more severe for more serious crimes. Apprehension and punishment reduce the gain from crimes; in this way, it deters others from criminal activities.

We're not "deterring the criminals" by going to war with regulation armies. The criminals don't care what we do to the armies - wait, no, I take it back - the criminals LOVE when we attack the armies, because it just goes to serve as a great example to the children that they're brainwashing that the U.S is an evil, evil place that's trying to take over the whole world by force.

It is because of the utter lack of rules, and the complete refusal of terrorists throughout the world to operate in a civilized manner or venue, that Yasser Arafat was never able to control the activities of Hamas. It's also why defeating the Iraqi army and ousting Hussein from power has done us no good whatsoever to secure peace in Iraq so far.

This war is not preventing future problems, rather it is opening the door to a never-ending list of problems that we have no expertise or understanding to solve. In my opinion, nothing could ever justify that.

Blame gets Laid

Disclaimer: I have a wicked headache, and the following post may be completely incomprehensible. I can't tell.

Minor Sanctions for U.S. Troops Who Balked in Iraq

Remember those soldiers who wouldn't drive a pointless, contaminated fuel convoy through hot spots in trucks without sufficient armor? Well, they're being punished, but not courtmarshalled.

Lieutenant Colonel Steve Boylan said a further five would also face "non-judicial" punishment under Article 15 of the U.S. military justice code, making 23 troops disciplined in this way.

OK, so now we know that they're being punished for disobeying orders, which I support, because a soldier that doesn't obey orders is of no use to anyone. What I don't know is this - are there any repercussions for the person who gave this stupid-ass order? Where's the accountability there? Who thought it was a good idea to send a few of our brave young men and women to drive what amounts to a giant bomb through an are where it was most likely to get detonated? Is judgment that bad not a crime? Shouldn't it be? And if there were repercussions, would I ever know?

Kerik Named Security Secretary

Bush Names Ex-Police Chief to Top Security Post

So, what do you think, man with first-hand experience who understands the people who commit terrorist acts and will be a strong force to fight against them, or just another misguided New Yorker out for revenge, fated to make mistakes in judgment out of anger and blunder into even worse situations than we currently find ourselves in?

The fact that he worked as a warden in Paterson, NJ makes met think that the first option is still possible - you can't even *go* to some parts of Patterson without learning how unscrupulous people can harm you, forget work there. I'm keeping my hopes up, but, knowing how I feel about the current administration, know that I'll be keeping my guard up, as well.

Remember, please, I don't know this man, and I'm a very cynical individual. Anything *I* think could be completely off-base. Doesn't hurt to get the questions out there, though.

Holiday Sarcasm

The Left's Christmas Debate Readings

Sarcasm that smacks of reality is both a good thing and a scary thing. An excerpt:

March of the Wooden Soldiers: Santa's Toyland is under attack by the evil Barnaby. Two of Santa's helpers bring Santa's wooden soldiers to life to fend off the assault. Since the wooden troops haven't been properly trained, they turn tail and run, allowing Barnaby to take over Toyland and make nothing but violent video games. Eventually, the U.S. invades Toyland, stating that Barnaby is secretly hoarding chemical weapons in his candy cane facilities. When no chemicals are found, U.S. Forces decide to arrest Barnaby anyway and hold democratic elections. Alas, most of the citizens of Toyland have died in the invasion, so a puppet government is installed. Pinocchio is declared Premier.

The more I think about Iraq, the more I ask myself the question: "Didn't we already declare victory there, and if so, whom are we fighting?" We deposed the dictator, we should be done. If they want to start a civil war, at this point, I think it should be their business. Personally, if I were an Iraqi, I'd just want to get back to living a semblance of a normal life, act calm, and let the outsiders leave. Don't they see that insurgent activities are just going to keep us there? Stop with the killing, we'll go. Then you can start up killing each other again, if that's what you all really want. Don't know if my plan would work or not, since I'm basing it on old strategies that as I child I employed to get babysitters to leave my sister and I alone in a room. Still, it's more of a plan than I've seen elsewhere.

That's kind of off the track that the Left-Right Debate's article stays on, but hey, sometimes I hit a tangent.

I'm off to go spend more than I can afford on gifts. I'm an American, after all.

Lazy Day

I've posted, but over at Running Scared. Look, I've made it a link, don't make me cut and paste the whole thing, too. Go there, it's interesting, anyway. Heck, you probably came from there.

Consequence

An uncalled for exposition regarding Roe v. Wade:

To all of you politicians thinking about how great it would be to overturn Roe v. Wade, since you're so "pro-life"...

Wait - side track - I've put "pro-life" in quotes because I still have such huge problems with the idea that someone can fight for the rights of a child who has not yet lived, but thinks it's just dandy to send soldiers off to their deaths because it's patriotic. Ugh.

OK, back to my uncalled for exposition. Let's just remember, boys and girls, that if abortion becomes illegal, that means illegal for everyone. And it means that any indiscretions that result in accidental pregnancies will then have to be resolved by sending the enceinte person away for a goodly amount of time, always worrying about the possibility of discovery during the lying-in, or by tricking someone other than the socially-improper person to admit to fatherhood, if possible, also risking discovery, or perhaps the ever-popular illegal abortion, once again, risking that pesky discovery.

Sure, sure, with a legal abortion you still risk discovery, but with a process that's so tied up with rules about privacy, you stand a much better chance of covering these things up. And lets face it, a legal abortion is way, way, way less expensive than the methods of cover-up I've mentioned above. At the very least, there's fewer people that you'd have to pay off to keep it quiet!

Face a fact - no matter how much or how often people talk about morals or family values, most of these self-same people are really hypocritical and will continue immoral sexual practices and conduct extra/pre-marital affairs. We're people, we just do. For every person preaching morals that actually practices those self-same morals, I'd guess that there are 3 that preach without the practicing part.

To sum up - no more Roe v. Wade means money out of your pockets, Mr. or Mrs. Politician Person. Don't forget that, and don't screw it up for the rest of us.

Holiday Hiatus

Well, I stayed away from my computer over the entire weekend, and I didn't even warn anyone. Sorry.
Anyway, I'm back now, and off to find some current event that I can spout off about.

Give

Today, on the day before American Thanksgiving, I'd like to remind people to think of others and head on over to The Hunger Site.

Thank you in advance.

Department of Irony

Exploding cell phonesprompt warnings

Cell phone batteries can explode. I never really thought about it. I mean, I guess I should have known that, any kind of battery can explode, so why not those? It just didn't occur to me. This article talks about people who've had problems, offering the following information:

Over the past two years, federal safety officials have received 83 reports of cell phones exploding or catching fire, usually because of incompatible, faulty or counterfeit batteries or chargers. Burns to the face, neck, leg and hip are among the dozens of injury reports the agency has received.

Of course, the article also says that there are 170 million cell phones in this country. That makes the odds kind of low.

So I finsihed the article, and I was wondering if I'd wasted my time, because I already know to be carfeul with batteries, and the statistics seem in my favor, and then I saw it. On the bottom of the page is an advertisement - for cell phones.

Copycat's nine lives

Senate passes scaled-back copyright bill

And thank goodness that it's scaled back. As a person with a very large music and video library, I like to make digital copies of some of my collection. I have some movies copied to hard drives as convenient backups, should the originals get damaged or destroyed somehow, and I rip almost all of my music to mp3 format for use on my iPod or to play over my TiVo (home media option).

I can't say that I've never shared music - I have. I don't do it any longer, but it seems to me that the punishment proposed in the copyright bill was way too harsh. 3 years jail time? For a "crime" that's roughly equivalent to speeding, on the morality scale? Heck, speeding can cause physical harm, and song sharing doesn't even do that.

I understand that making unauthorized copies of music and movies to sell is illegal. In many cases, I feel that it cheats the fans, because the quality suffers so much. Punishment for stealing something with the intent of making a profit is reasonable, it's expected, it's the way things are supposed to work in an ordered society, even - but sharing music for free? An even exchange of entertainment? It's just not the same kind of thing, and I'm glad that the sections of the bill that dealt with punishing file-sharing users were dropped.

Also dropped was a section that would have made it illegal to edit out commercials. *That* was just silly. Companies pay for the advertising, but there is no way on earth that they can make sure that I watch it. Even if it were not edited out, even if my excellent, excellent TiVo (I love that thing more than you can imagine) didn't have a fast-forward button, that would still be the time when I chatted with other people in the room, or went to the bathroom, or flipped through my mail. As it is now, if I see a commercial that looks interesting when I'm fast-forwarding past, I'll stop and watch it. That wouldn't happen if I was out of the room, now, would it? Making it illegal to edit out commercials would have made me frustrated with regular TV, and I would have started watching less and less of it, and I suspect that so would a lot of other people. How much would that help advertisers? Not at all; right in one!

I'll quote the article for the last bit I want to mention:

The bill also shields "family friendly" services like ClearPlay that strip violent or sexually explicit scenes from movies. Hollywood groups say such services violate their copyrighted works by altering them without permission.

Once again, silly. If people want to see movies watered down, let them. I actually think this is a great compromise between people who want their art as real as possible, and people who still want art, but find reality much too messy and imposing. You'd love to show your child a movie like "Saving Private Ryan" in order to demonstrate great patriotism and courage, but you don't want him hearing the naughty words from a program you sanctioned? Use ClearPlay and go, my sheltered friend, and do so with my blessing!

Stoic, even

I'm not so wordy, myself today, but if you haven't already, please please please go read this Tbogg post. Brilliant. Plus, it enforces my personal belief that child rearing is not something I should ever attempt on purpose.

I'm with the band

Well, it seems to me that any lingering election depression I might have been feeling is now gone. I was reading the news this morning, and I was intrigued by the article regarding the President's body guards being denied access to a fancy dinner. I was reading the following:

The incident happened after Bush and his wife, Laura, had just posed for pictures on a red carpet with the host of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, Chilean President Ricardo Lagos and his wife, Luisa Duran.

Suddenly it occurred to me that their Americanized nicknames could be "Ricky" and "Lucy".

Spreading the Tami Word

Hey! I'm now a guest blogger over at Running Scared! How cool is that?

Rock Bottom Ahead

Bush to Sign Debt Limit Increase Within Days

In a statement issued late on Thursday after Congress gave its final approval to increase the limit to a new $8.184 trillion ceiling, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the legislation "was important to protect the full faith and credit of the United States."

We now owe so much money, and from what I can tell, to ourselves, that failure to increase our debt ceiling will result in us defaulting on securities. That is so not good. Throw in the fact that the dollar is NOT doing well, value-wise, and I wonder just how "strong" our economy is. Never mind, by the way, that the article I've linked seems to be implying that the only reason that the dollar is falling is because Greenspan said depressing things. Greenspan simply pointed out that we have an enormous deficit, and that should, logically, put investors off. It's just the ugly truth. And now, rather than admit that we can't pay our debts, we're going to extend our own credit limit. It's dizzying.

So, as it stands, we have this enormous debt. What are we going to do to stop this scary trend? When are we going to pay this money back? Am I foolish to be worrying about funding for educational programs when there's just no money to be had, period? I try to find something, anything that shows me how we're going to stop bleeding money and start trying to tighten belts and balance a budget, but nobody says anything about it, at all. The attitude seems to be that since we're at war, we can just keep the downward spiral going. Where are the Republican values of "smaller government" and the concept of "paying your own way"? Yes, program funding is being cut, but not to a level where it actually helps. Perhaps the fear is that if average Americans lost privileges, they might not be so quick to support the war effort?

We cannot continue to enjoy a standard of living that we cannot afford. At least, in theory, that should be true. But we are, and we do, and as far as I can tell, the only reason we get away with it is because no one in the world is powerful enough yet to be the repo man. Will they be someday? Guess we'll find out.

Revisting Ribbons

A good friend sent me this:

The Magnet Magnet

I am encouraged to see that a man named Dwain Gullion thought up the ribbons as a way to raise funds for worthy organizations. Now, of course, I've seen a million knock-offs of these things everywhere from the gas station to the grocery store. Still, it's very nice to know that when the idea was born, it was born out of a concern for one's fellow man.

"It never entered my mind that people would see these as pro-Bush or pro-Kerry," graphic artist Derrick Carroll said last week by phone from his home in Germanton, N.C." There was no hidden agenda. It was just to support the military, not the war."

Bad advice

OK, I read a fluff piece. It was about the President pardoning a turkey. But really, the content of the piece is shockingly misleading. I quote:

"It was a tough contest and it turned out some 527 organizations got involved, including Barnyard Animals for Truth. There was a scurrilous film that came out, "Fahrenheit 375 Degrees At 10 Minutes Per Pound," he said.

375 at 10 minutes per pound? That's never going to make a juicy turkey! I never roast a turkey at more than 350, myself. And, then, at 350, I'm going at about 20 minutes per pound. Who told him 10?

Giving out such blatantly wrong information strikes me as irresponsible. There are children listening to him! Children who may have to live with undercooked turkey.

*huff*

War is H***

Today, emailing with Tallulah

Tallulah: Wow. Some REALLY scary articles on Fark today. Example:
http://www.sundayherald.com/45957

Tami: I knew about this and I don't get one thing - why couldn't they bleep the profanity? Is that against some contract? "The film could not be edited for artistic reasons"? What the hell is that about? They couldn't beep swear words? Are there just too, too many to be able to do it?

I have never seen this movie, since getting massively upset about death and war doesn't seem like my idea of entertainment, so maybe I just don't get it.

Tallulah: I only have one question:
IS THE CHANNEL CHANGER BROKEN?
A movie about war WILL have swearing. And that seems like the LEAST of your problems. Honestly, it's as if these people have never left the house.

Tami: It's true. And, it's the old "you can't use the TV as a babysitter if you're any kind of a thinking parent" argument. Check on what your children are watching. If you're just offended for yourself, go on over to Nick at Nite and shut the hell up.

Tallulah: Why does no one say this to their faces? BLOG, TAMI, BLOG!

So, I did.

Suggestion Box

OK, all the nations of the world, listen up:

Does your country have military troops that have nothing to do? Do you have neat uniforms that you're not getting to show off to anyone but your own countrymen? Are you avoiding Iraq like the plague because you don't want your civilian contractors getting kidnapped causing all kinds of national controversy?

Consider Sudan! They need real help. We'd do it ourselves, but we're supposedly not overextended with our own military actions right now.

What I would have said

If I hadn't been to chicken to try and tackle this subject today. Jill over at Brilliant at Breakfast says exactly the kind of thing that I wanted to, the kind of thing that you might not expect to hear from a liberal.

A quote:

I don't know about you, but I'm not going to sit in judgment on these guys. Many
of them are on stop-loss orders, they haven't a clue why they're there or what
on earth they're supposed to be doing. They're told that they're liberating the
very people that they're told to kill; but that everyone they come across is
"the enemy."

See, I would have said someting a lot like that.

Saddened

Iraq charity worker feared killed

It's being reported that Margaret Hassan, the kidnapped charity aid worker, has been killed. What kind of person kidnaps a charity aid worker? They risk their lives just by being in a war zone, but they go anyway, and they do their best to try and help people whose lives are being torn apart. They bring food and medical supplies, and are nothing but good for everyone on the planet. And as a reward for her efforts that are nothing short of angelic, in my eyes, some insurgent group kidnapped her, by all accounts tortured her, and has now killed her. That's more shameful than anything else I can think of, today.

Never mind the ribbon guy, he's not hurting anyone.

Another Quandary

America is the "showplace home" of capitalism. It's a place where someone can come from nothing, but if they've got a really great idea and enough moxy, they can make a million, right?

Well, I'm wondering about those yellow ribbon magnets you see on cars everywhere nowadays. They're everywhere. Do I think how great it is that people support the troops, and that it's fantastic that some cunning businessperson has provided the American people a convenient, visible way to express that support? Or do I, instead, go all bleeding-heart sensitive and think that it might be kind of disgusting, exploiting people's support of the military to make your own fortune. Let's face it, whoever sells those things has got to be raking it in, they're hotter than the Lance Armstrong "Live Strong" bracelets. And unlike the "Live Strong" bracelets, I don't see anything anywhere about the sales of the ribbon magnets going to actually support our troops.

So, what should I think? Clever patriot providing people an easy way to express themselves, or exploitative sleazy businessman making a profit on the people's need to express their desire for unity? Comment away, I'm torn.