Simple Tricks and Nonsense

I mentioned in the previous entry that I don't think modern Americans have the same self-image of nobility that previous generations did. According to David Kurtz over at Talking Points Memo, we don't have as much courage, either. Here are some numbers for you to consider the next time you see one of those over-the-top political attack ads trying to convince you there is no alternative to maintaining our own American gulag at Guantanamo:

Number of Gitmo detainees that the GOP hopes to keep off mainland U.S. soil with its "Keep Terrorists Out Of America Act": roughly 250.

Number of Axis POWs detained in camps on the U.S. mainland at the end of WWII: roughly 425,000.

Axis POWs. That would be Nazi and Japanese soldiers captured abroad and shipped here, to our soil, to sit out the war inside American borders. Well-trained, fully indoctrinated fascists who would've loved to slit American throats for their Fuhrer and their Emperor. And yet we managed to keep them locked up, didn't we?

I've got a prison only a couple miles from my house, and I'm sure it's full of serial killers, gangsters, rapists, murderers, white supremacists, and paranoid militia types, but I've never lost one wink of sleep because of it. So why is the thought of 250 suspected terrorists -- suspected, mind you, still not proven in many cases -- locked down inside a mainland military prison or even a civilian Supermax facility so scary? We've already got terrorists locked up in our mainland prisons. The Blind Shiek and Timothy McVeigh come immediately to mind. (Okay, McVeigh is dead, but you see my point.)

Al Qaeda is not composed of immortal, superpowered, super-intelligent boogeymen, and behaving as if it is only gives them power over us. I, for one, am sick of being scared, or, more accurately, of politicians and talk-radio personalities telling me I ought to be. Gitmo is a PR disaster and must be closed if America is to regain the moral high ground in our struggles. If you're that worried about the Gitmo detainees causing trouble, just turn them out with the regular prison population. I'm sure all those gangsters and militia types I mentioned earlier will be happy to keep an eye on them for us...

Posted by at 6:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Of all the objectionable things that emerged from the presidency of George W. Bush -- and it's a long list, in my opinion -- nothing has troubled me more than the issue of torture.

I'm troubled by the fact that it happened at all, of course, that our military and civilian intelligence people drowned and abused and tormented prisoners until (in some cases) they literally lost their minds. But what really disturbs me about this whole thing is how few of my fellow Americans seem to care.

Even now, when it has become blindingly apparent that the torturers were not soldiers who lost control in the heat of battle but were actually acting on orders from the White House itself, when it's been revealed that the White House had a cadre of lawyers -- including, I'm sad to say, a number of guys with connections to my home state -- writing memos and briefs to justify decisions the administration knew were legally questionable, even after all that, there are still people who would defend the Bush "interrogation" policies. The news media still can't bring itself to use the word "torture" on any kind of regular basis, preferring instead Orwellian weasel words that were coined by the freaking Nazis. And many pundits are brazenly parsing whether certain techniques constitute actual torture or merely "harsh treatment." (Here's a clue: if we would call it torture when it's done to one of our people, then it's freakin' torture, people!) Hell, some people are trying dodge the legal and moral questions altogether and debate only whether waterboarding actually works, as if efficacy is the only consideration when it comes to this stuff.

You know what, though? It doesn't matter if it works, not in my book. Because it's wrong. Because we're supposed to be better people than those who would destroy us. We used to believe we were. But that appears to have changed in recent years.

I like to think -- to hope -- that this apparent shift is due merely to ignorance, that people simply don't realize the techniques used in Abu Ghraib and CIA "black sites" were effectively ripped off from the Soviets and the communist Chinese. (I don't know about you, but I find it immensely unsettling to think our people have done the same things we used to condemn the KGB for.) But honestly, I'm not so sure. In my more cynical moments, I find myself thinking, sadly, that a lot of people out there are perfectly okay with subjecting other people to horrendous inhumanities because they think torturing people somehow avenges 9/11, or because they're racist, or maybe because they'd rather feel "safe" than accept the risk and effort of living up to our nation's ideals. Well, maybe those people do feel safer knowing that we're beating the hell out of people with Arabic-sounding names. Not me, though. Because I worry about what it does to us, to our very souls.

Kevin Drum said essentially the same thing last week, and his words have been echoing in my mind ever since:

I don't care about the Geneva Conventions or U.S. law. I don't care about the difference between torture and "harsh treatment." I don't care about the difference between uniformed combatants and terrorists. I don't care whether it "works." I oppose torture regardless of the current state of the law; I oppose even moderate abuse of helpless detainees; I oppose abuse of criminal suspects and religious heretics as much as I oppose it during wartime; and I oppose it even if it produces useful information.

The whole point of civilization is as much moral advancement as it is physical and technological advancement. But that moral progress comes slowly and very, very tenuously. In the United States alone, it took centuries to decide that slavery was evil, that children shouldn't be allowed to work 12-hour days on power looms, and that police shouldn't be allowed to beat confessions out of suspects.

On other things there's no consensus yet. Like it or not, we still make war, and so does the rest of the world. But at least until recently, there was a consensus that torture is wrong. Full stop. It was the practice of tyrants and barbarians. But like all moral progress, the consensus on torture is tenuous, and the only way to hold on to it — the only way to expand it — is by insisting absolutely and without exception that we not allow ourselves to backslide. Human nature being what it is — savage, vengeful, and tribal — the temptations are just too great. Small exceptions will inevitably grow into big ones, big ones into routine ones, and the progress of centuries is undone in an eyeblink.

The eye is in the midst of blinking, people. What will we see when the lid rises again?

Posted by at 4:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (7)

I imagine by now you've probably heard about the latest outrageous remarks spewing from the pie-hole of Utah state senator Chris Buttars, and you may be thinking to yourself, "what the hell is with that place anyhow?" Well, I live in this place, and I don't get it either.

As far as I'm concerned, Senator Buttars is an ignorant, hateful old son-of-a-bitch who oozes contempt for anyone who isn't just like him, i.e., white, male, heterosexual, Republican, Mormon,* and dressed by Mr. Mac. I have no doubt that in another time and another place, he would've been proud to stand alongside Governor Wallace on the steps of that elementary school. He is an embarrassment to this state and he ought to be an embarrassment to his church, as well, although I know there are quite a few people in both who agree with his opinions but are too polite to phrase them in terms as inflammatory as he likes to use. There's got to be or else he wouldn't keep getting elected.

When you've spent your entire life in Utah, as I have, nearly 40 years now, it is impossible -- or at least highly dishonest -- to deny that there's a deep, ugly wellspring of bigotry flowing beneath this state. It's directed at many types of people for all kinds of reasons, all of which basically boil down to someone being "different." But not everyone who calls Utah home drinks from that spring. Not everyone here is afraid of people who don't look like they were pressed out of some kind of biological cookie-cutter, or who don't believe the things we do or behave and think in exactly the way we do. It disgusts me that this big-mouthed, belligerent, obstinate asshole keeps drawing national attention to himself and making it look as if his bad attitude is representative of what Utah is all about, even as he tries to portray himself as a misunderstood victim of a liberal press and "mean" special-interest groups. Mean, Buttars? Seems to me that's a classic case of the pot talking to the proverbial kettle.

This isn't about the political football issue he's discussing in the interview that started this brouhaha, gay rights, not really. It's about a nasty-spirited, awful man who likes to try and hurt people he doesn't like. You can see it in the video excerpts of that interview, the glitter in his eye when he starts throwing around nasty terms like "pig sex" -- a term I've never heard before the righteous Mr. Buttars introduced it to me, by the way, and I fancy myself a reasonably worldly guy -- he's itching for a fight, and he's being deliberately provocative in hopes of getting it. He's a bully and an ass, as bigots usually are.

Buttars makes me ashamed of my home state, ashamed that this is a place where enough people agree with his thinking to keep voting him into office. But I have to say again, and keep saying it as loudly as I can, that not everyone from Utah is like him.

* Disclaimer: I've got nothing against Mormons. As I've said before, most of my friends and family are Mormon and they're good people whom I love, even when I occasionally disagree with them. But a lot of Buttars' bile is fueled by, or at least informed by, his religious beliefs. I don't suggest he's a bigot because he's Mormon -- you can find fearful, close-minded bastards in any particular group -- but Mormonism gives shape to his bigotry, and membership in the church is very obviously one of the criteria he uses to judge others, so I consider it fair to mention it here.

Posted by at 6:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

I just thought this was an interesting photo; any particular metaphor you may see there is based entirely your own perception:

(Source.)

Posted by at 5:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Well, that last entry was something of a buzzkill, wasn't it? Sorry about that.

(Incidentally, in case you're wondering why an entry date-stamped last Tuesday didn't appear until Wednesday night, it's because your humble proprietor is a dolt who forgot to switch the entry's status to "published" after he finished writing it. Sometimes you just have weeks like that...)

Anyhow, consider this fair warning: I don't know if today's topic is going to be of interest to anyone but myself, as it's all self-reflective and musing and wool-gathering-y. It is also political and pro-Obama, so my conservative readers who are cringing at every stroke of our new president's pen -- and you know who you are -- may want to skip this one. Unless you like getting all worked up at the thought of America hurtling pell-mell toward a gloomy and uncertain future that seems likely to be the exact opposite of everything you personally stand for or have ever believed about your own country. I know the feeling, believe me.

Continue reading "Welcome Again" »

Posted by at 11:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

And just like that, one era is over and another begins.

Is it just me, or was it all kind of... anti-climatic? Of course, it's supposed to be anti-climatic; that's the way the founders intended it. A peaceful transfer of power, with no palace coup, no martial law or rioting in the streets, just one guy handing the keys to another. But the past eight years, and the past six months especially, have been so emotionally intense, so harrowing, that I guess I expected to feel something... more. Pride that my country finally made good on its ideals and elected a black man to be its president. Pleasure that the first black president comes from my preferred party instead of the other side. Relief that the most hated presidential administration of my lifetime -- yes, even more hated than Nixon's! -- has finally been sent packing. Ah, yes, relief. That was the sensation I was really counting on. But honestly? I'm not feeling much of anything, at least not to the extent that I thought I would be. I seem to have gone rather numb.

Well, no, that's not entirely correct. I'm not numb. In fact, now that I think about it, I'm feeling very much like somebody who's awakened on the fifth morning of a four-day bender, cottonmouthed and head pounding, and wandered out into a kitchen filled with weak, watery daylight to find a sink full of dirty dishes and a scatter of empty bottles on the floor. If you've never been in that condition, trust me when I say you tend to experience a bleary sense of resignation at the clean-up that awaits as well as a single recurring, shameful question: "Man, what the hell went on here?"

The Bush era is over, but our troubles remain, and while I'm happy with our new president and hopeful about what he may accomplish, for me there is a nagging sense of letdown on this inauguration day. I don't know, maybe that doesn't make sense. Maybe there's something inside of me that's broken, that prevents me from feeling the delirious joy that seems to have infected so many today. All I know is that I have felt so much for so long, and now it's all come to... what? No reckoning, no accounting, just an oath, some fabulous parties, one man headed home and another man with his work cut out for him.

I loathe the term, because I think it's been overused and its importance overemphasized, but in this instance, I could genuinely use some closure... and so far, I haven't really experienced it.

Posted by at 5:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (7)

So, as I mentioned earlier, I sat up half the night last night talking politics with an old friend. The conversation -- which occasionally flirted with becoming an argument but thankfully never went too far in that direction -- was pretty standard liberal vs. conservative stuff and isn't worth detailing here. (Not that I could reconstruct much of it anyhow; one consequence -- or perhaps it's a blessing -- of having these conversations at two in the morning is that they end up looking pretty hazy the next day.) But one thing my friend said struck me as noteworthy, because it was so unexpected and, from my point of view, so very odd.

My friend said that he and others he knows who share similar views often feel like they don't dare express their opinions, for fear of offending people, starting an argument, and/or being unfairly judged. Now, I completely understand and sympathize with that feeling. As a self-identified liberal* living in the reddest state in the Union, I experience it to one degree or another just about every day. It's the reason why I rarely blog about politics or controversial topics, because I know the bulk of my audience doesn't agree with me and I don't want to pick fights with my friends (or, indeed, with anyone; I don't need the elevated blood pressure and anxiety that comes with it). But here's the thing that I found so strange about my friend's comment: his opinions are basically the same as those of roughly 75 percent of this state's population. In other words, the overwhelming majority of people around these parts are on his side. So realistically just who does he think he's going to offend? Why should he of all people feel insecure about speaking up?

I don't mean to make light of what he said or invalidate his feelings in any way -- if he feels intimidated or inhibited, that's what he feels and it's not my place to say he's wrong for feeling that way. And perhaps I misunderstood what he was getting at; maybe he was just saying what my mom has always told me, which is that it's impolite and generally a bad idea to discuss religion and politics openly. Maybe his job places him in situations where he's more likely to find himself interacting with that dissenting minority and he's had to learn to keep his mouth shut to avoid problems (welcome to my world). But given the overall demographics of our environment here... well, it just struck me as a very odd thing to say...

* For what it's worth, my friend told me he doesn't think I'm as liberal as I believe myself to be. I suppose I should take that as a form of compliment.

Posted by at 10:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (8)

By now, everyone has no doubt seen that video of a disgruntled Iraqi journalist hurling his shoes at President Bush in a gesture of contempt. Naturally, the Internet was immediately awash in parodies, mash-ups, and remixes of said video. Here's my favorite response thus far:

(I moved it below the fold as a favor to anyone with a slow-loading connection...)

Continue reading "He Puts the Neo in Neo-Con" »

Posted by at 11:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I've been wondering all day what I can possibly say here that hasn't already been said in a million corners of the blogosphere, and probably in a million better ways than I can manage.

I've considered waxing poetic on the fact that a country with a deep and ugly history of racism has finally elected a black man to the highest office in the land. But you've all heard about that ad nauseum by this point.

I thought about trying to offer an olive branch to my conservative friends, who I know are unhappy and even downright frightened about what the future now holds. But I fear such words may be misconstrued as gloating, or worse. (I will just say that I know exactly how you feel, like you've passed through the looking glass and everything is insane and the whole country is rocketing toward the abyss. I was there in 2000 and especially in 2004. Trust me, you'll make it through.)

The obvious thing to do would be to recount my feelings and experiences on this historic occasion, to record for posterity what it was like to be here when a huge landmark was at long last achieved. But honestly, last night is kind of a blur for me. I was steeling myself for a big disappointment -- Barack Obama is a Democrat, after all, and we have a long and ignominious history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory -- and I think I did it so well that I was kind of numb when the returns actually went the way I wanted them to. The last 24 hours have been positively surreal for me.

I think the best thing to do is to quote what I thought was the most impressive part of President-Elect Obama's acceptance speech, a remarkable passage in which he simultaneously leveled with his supporters about just how difficult it's going to be to fix the things we want fixed, while still maintaining an inspirational tone and even reaching out to those on the other side. I can't recall any presidents-elect in all my years of political awareness being so honest in their acceptance speech, which is usually about triumph and blind idealism without much acknowledgment of the practical matters to come. It felt like we were being spoken to be a grown-up, by a man who is sincerely looking for a middle ground and a way to make this country work for all of us and to encourage us, in turn, to work for our country. Most of all, it felt like we were being addressed by a man who is ready to be president, in spite of what his detractors have been saying:

Continue reading "The Chance for Change" »

Posted by at 10:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

Brilliant:

(Via.)

Posted by at 5:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (15)

With voting underway as I type this, another of those "go vote" PSAs is probably a little passe at this point, if not downright tiresome. But hey, maybe, just maybe, you're one of those people who thinks the election is already in the bag, or that your vote doesn't count, or for some reason you haven't been sufficiently worked up by the last two years of campaign blather and you need a swift kick in the civic-responsibility zone. Or maybe you're the type who just thinks it's fun to look at a whole mess of celebrities and see how many you recognize (that would be me). In any event, here's a clip that's a sort of sequel to one I posted a couple weeks ago:

I think we can say from the available evidence that you really do not want Harrison Ford peeved with you...

Posted by at 1:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Feeling keyed up about long lines at your polling place and the fate of the entire universe hanging in the balance? Here's a little something to break the tension:

Billy Dee still looks pretty good, doesn't he? Ah, if only the Lando-Chewie ticket had been available in my galaxy...

Posted by at 11:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

I've had a fairly slow day at work, and usually that leads to much bloggage, but today I just haven't been able to zero in on any particular topic on which I wanted to bloviate. I think I'm distracted by the building sense of anticipation and, yes, anxiety for tomorrow's election. I'm trying not to worry too much about it -- after all, I've already cast my vote and whoever is going to win is going to win -- but damn it, doesn't it seem like we're on the verge of something big here? Can't you sense the huge, rushing something gathering strength out there in the night? Like the crackling electrical potential you sometimes feel in advance of an approaching thunderstorm? One of my friends e-mailed earlier today and said he feels like "I feel like I'm six years old and going to Disneyland tomorrow."

That's one way to describe it, I guess. Personally, my feelings are a bit more like the harsh yet vivid image Andrew Sullivan came up with the other day:

The more I think about it the more this election day feels like one giant collective, global puke. That Bush-Cheney thing never quite settled with us, did it? We'll feel a lot better but a lot more tired once the last heave is over.

Coffee probably doesn't sound too appetizing after that, but just as a public service, I'll pass along the following word anyhow: Starbucks will be giving out free cups of joe tomorrow. All you have to do is tell them you voted. Pretty sweet way to encourage democracy, don't you think?

Have a good pre-election day evening, everyone, and if you haven't voted early, remember to get out and do it in the morning!

Posted by at 5:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

I feel like I'm really pushing my luck with all the political and/or inflammatory posts lately, but as election day nears, more and more items are catching my eye that seem to be worth risking a fight. I was steered to the latest such item by Andrew Sullivan; it's a blog ostensibly written by an 82-year-old Texas woman. (I say ostensibly because some of her commenters have raised the possibility that the 82-year-old "Helen" is merely a persona adopted by someone who wants to express a particular point of view.) Regardless of Helen's true age or identity, though, she is an eloquent and entertaining writer with a refreshingly crusty, no-nonsense, and unabashedly partisan attitude. I found today's entry particularly good, notably this passage:

Continue reading "Please Consider the Following" »

Posted by at 2:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Damn, I already used my vote for this year... if only I'd seen this video a few days earlier!

You know what really scares me about this? The way it actually makes me kind of like Paris Hilton. Just goes to show what a catchy jingle can do for you, I suppose.

(Via Neatorama.)

Posted by at 10:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I see this morning that Mark Evanier has posted the Opie/Richie clip as well, along with an interesting comment:

...before any of you start muttering about Hollywood Liberals...I've actually talked politics with two of the three men in this video and I would have bet on Cindy McCain endorsing Barack Obama before I'd have put money on these guys...

So which two of the three do you suppose he's talking about? I think Andy's probably an easy bet; his age and background would naturally lead to the more conservative side of the spectrum. But between Ron and Henry (about whom I admittedly don't know much, aside from their public personae)? Hm. That's a stumper...

Posted by at 10:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Anyone with a shred of common sense can tell you that celebrity endorsements have about as much influence on elections as the rantings of your average nobody blogger (yours truly included), which is to say, very little effect at all. In fact, you could probably argue that celebrity endorsements are actually counterproductive, since conservatives tend to react to the opinions of Hollywood personalities like bulls react to red blankets flapping in the breeze, and as a result the endorsement sometimes backfires and ends up becoming a cudgel that's used against the endorsed. That's one reason why I tend, as I usually do, to avoid the whole subject of who endorses what and any possible confrontations that may arise from talking about it.

However, sentimental slob that I am, I can't resist passing along this odd little clip, in which director Ron Howard reprises his most famous acting roles with his old buddies Andy Griffith and Henry Winkler in the name of getting out the word about their preferred candidate. The video is kind of lame and kind of embarrassing, but it's obviously heartfelt, and, well, it's just nice to see these beloved characters again, even if they're in the service of a partisan statement. Given Andy's advancing age, it may well be the last time we see them:

One little sidethought: Have you ever considered how truly extraordinary Ron Howard's career has been? A child actor from the age of five or six, he breathed life into two iconic characters in two hugely successful television series -- Opie Taylor in The Andy Griffith Show and Richie Cunningham in Happy Days -- not to mention playing a significant role in George Lucas' American Graffiti, then went on as an adult to direct a string of money-making films. Truly an amazing record. Ron's directorial work has its detractors, but you can't deny how exceptional it is for a former child actor to still be in the business at all, let alone making movies that the public likes...

Posted by at 2:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

For the record, I took advantage of my state's early-voting program and registered my political choices yesterday. If you have that option where you are, I highly recommend taking it. It's nice to have it out of the way.

That said, I wonder how many people really get how remarkable and important this election season is. A few people do, at least:

For me the most moving moment came when the family in front of me, comprising probably 4 generations of voters (including an 18 year old girl voting for her first time and a 90-something hunched-over grandmother), got their turn to vote. When the old woman left the voting booth she made it about halfway to the door before collapsing in a nearby chair, where she began weeping uncontrollably. When we rushed over to help we realized that she wasn't in trouble at all but she had not truly believed, until she left the booth, that she would ever live long enough to cast a vote for an African-American for president.

It was only two generations ago -- if we define a generation as 25 years, more or less -- that black people weren't allowed to use the same drinking fountains as whites. Viewed in this context, it doesn't really matter who wins the presidency (although I certainly have my preference). We've still taken a big step forward. And for that, I am proud of my nation. At risk of pissing off my conservative readers, it's been a long time since I've felt able to say that...

(Via.)

Posted by at 10:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I don't have much to say about last night's presidential debate -- I watched only a part of it and I choose to keep my admittedly partisan impressions to myself -- but I've got to share this amusing photo that's been floating around the politiblogs today:

Now, I'm perfectly willing to give McCain the benefit of the doubt and chalk this up to one of those unfortunate moments when the shutter just happens to open at exactly the worst possible instant -- the blog I pulled this from suggests he was about to walk off the edge of the stage or something -- but doesn't he look like he's doing that childish pretend-you're-a-monster-behind-the-other-guy's-back thing? You know, when you're teasing someone by acting like Frankenstein or whatever?

I'll bet when Obama turned around, McCain was standing upright and looking perfectly normal and dignified. Just like that kid in the fourth grade always did when I looked at him, even though I knew he was up to something back there...

Posted by at 4:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

There's some NSFW language in this PSA, but it's a pretty cool effort nonetheless. Just put your headphones on:

Hey, I'm pretty sure I have five friends who read this. I'm doin' my part. You guys do yours...

Posted by at 12:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Given that there's no escaping politics at the moment (not even on vacation -- I saw lots of evidence that Obama is going to own San Francisco), I thought I'd take the political quiz that's been floating around to see if I am what I think I am. The results are entirely unsurprising:

You want government out of people's personal lives, but you appear to desire some continued government control over people's economic activities. There is no political party that represents your views. The Green Party does run many candidates with similar views, but the overall Green Party platform is much more socialistic than you are. You would need a mix of Democratic, Green, and Libertarian politicians in office to get the balance of freedom and social justice you desire. The ratio between these depends on how high up your dot is on the chart.

Approximately 12% of the takers of this quiz scored in this area, 18% for all liberals outside the centrist circle.

Even though I expected results along these lines, I do think Brian and Ilya are correct when they note that the questions are pretty broad and omit some important issues, not to mention that the available answers didn't always completely mirror my actual opinions. Still, I'd say this is fairly close... take it and see how you fare!

Posted by at 9:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (8)

I really shouldn't press my luck by writing two political posts in the same day, but I've been hearing a lot of nonsense about the set that's been constructed in Mile High Stadium for Barack's acceptance speech this evening. Seems our friends on the conservative side of the spectrum think there's something funny about Roman-Greco-style columns. They're making jokes about "The Temple of Obama" and "The Barackopolis." One of John McCain's people has reportedly issued an illustrated style guide to instruct people on how to properly wrap a toga.

Puh-lease. Most every government building in this country -- including the White House, which is, of course, the goal Barack is trying to achieve -- has a Neo-Classical facade. Our very system of government derives from the Greeks, something everybody should've learned back in middle school. I'm willing to bet that most people, whether consciously or not, simply associate columns with government and politics. There's nothing elitist or foolish about them.

But then, I'm a liberal and as such I'm not supposed to have any idea how common Americans think, right? This grandiose display is supposed to be an illustration of Barack's arrogance and his "cult of celebrity," right? And the Republicans would never, ever do this sort of thing, right?

Give me a frakkin' break. This is grade-school-level taunting of the most foolish kind, and it's tedious bullshit like this that drains all the meaning and intelligence from our political process.

Posted by at 2:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

My advice to you, kids, is to take a look around today as you go about whatever your business may be. Take note of the details: the weather, the quality of the light, the snatches of conversation you overhear on the streets and in the shops, the general mood of the people you encounter. Because sometime in the future, a child may ask you what it was like the day one of the major political parties first nominated a black man for the office of the President of the United States.

It doesn't matter whether you like Barack Obama personally. It doesn't matter if you think he's the savior of a fading nation or all flash and no substance. It doesn't matter how you feel about the Iraq War or whether you're a Democrat or Republican. It doesn't even matter, in this context, whether Barack wins the general election in November. Because the mere nomination of this man is a thing of wonder. It's a sign that the America we were told about by those Schoolhouse Rock cartoons when we were children -- the country where all people are created equal, and where anyone can go as far as their aspirations and grit will take them -- is not entirely a pipe dream. It's easy to become cynical about that vision of America as we grow up and begin to understand that there are a lot of decks stacked against us, and as life batters us around and we gradually realize just how many of our countrymen -- maybe even ourselves -- have feet of clay.

But today, 45 years to the day after a brave man told us about a dream that must surely have seemed impossible -- or at least highly improbable -- to many of those who heard his words, we've done something that would have made him very proud. We've nominated a black man to the highest office in the land. It's something that should've happened long ago, but no matter. Because the breakthrough has finally been made.

You may think I'm being melodramatic or making too big a deal of this. And maybe I am, as I'm prone to do. But I'm just thrilled to be witness to this moment. So often the big events that occur during our lifetimes, the things that are destined to go into the school books, are bad: the fall of Saigon, Watergate, the assassination of John Lennon, the destruction of the space shuttles Challenger and Columbia, the Oklahoma City bombing, 9/11. Death and destruction, followed by insecurity, soul-searching, and pain. But here's something that is good, a moving-forward moment.

I'm not one of those who think Obama is a superhero. There are aspects of his campaign and his persona that I find frustrating, and I know that a nomination is a long way from an election, and that whoever takes the Oval Office in January is going to have a hell of a job in front of them. Nevertheless, I feel great pride in and hope for my country today.

Posted by at 9:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Everybody in the blogosphere is buzzing today about that mildly risque photo of President Bush trying to decide whether to accept Olympic volleyball player Misty May-Treanor's invitation to smack her on the tushy for good luck, but personally I was far more amused by this pic:

You know, I think this is the first time I've ever felt any sense of empathy whatsoever for this man... yep, George, I know how it is. We're both guys, after all...

Posted by at 5:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

So, did you hear McCain compared Obama to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, apparently in an effort to paint him as a pretty but vacuous celebrity instead of a serious politician? Here's Paris' response:

(Go on, click it -- you may be surprised. God knows I was...)

I don't know about you, but that clip fills me with a killer case of cognitive dissonance. Who knew anything that sensible could ever come from her beglossed lips? I know, of course, that this material was surely written for her, but still... she actually sounds as if she knows what she's talking about! If nothing else, she reads from the teleprompter better than McCain or our current Fearless Leader...

Posted by at 9:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (11)

Here's something I'll bet most people -- especially we younger folks who grew up hearing the term in question on a regular basis -- have never considered:

WE hear constantly now about “our commander in chief.” The word has become a synonym for “president.” It is said that we “elect a commander in chief.” It is asked whether this or that candidate is “worthy to be our commander in chief.”

But the president is not our commander in chief. He certainly is not mine. I am not in the Army.

...

The president is not the commander in chief of civilians. He is not even commander in chief of National Guard troops unless and until they are federalized. The Constitution is clear on this: “The president shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States.”

When Abraham Lincoln took actions based on military considerations, he gave himself the proper title, “commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” That title is rarely — more like never — heard today. It is just “commander in chief,” or even “commander in chief of the United States.” This reflects the increasing militarization of our politics. The citizenry at large is now thought of as under military discipline. In wartime, it is true, people submit to the national leadership more than in peacetime. The executive branch takes actions in secret, unaccountable to the electorate, to hide its moves from the enemy and protect national secrets. Constitutional shortcuts are taken “for the duration.” But those impositions are removed when normal life returns.

But we have not seen normal life in 66 years. The wartime discipline imposed in 1941 has never been lifted, and “the duration” has become the norm. World War II melded into the cold war, with greater secrecy than ever — more classified information, tougher security clearances. And now the cold war has modulated into the war on terrorism.

Just a little food for thought as the echoes from the Fourth of July fireworks fade and the campaign rhetoric returns to full volume. Original source here, via.

Posted by at 1:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

So, the news this morning was the now-usual drumbeat of rising gas prices and calls to begin exploratory oil drilling in Alaska and protected coastal areas, and I was thinking of my dad's irrational certainty that the high prices aren't merely the result of supply and demand, that someone has just got to be behind the abrupt and seemingly unstoppable increases, and suddenly I had an epiphany. My idea was paranoid and sounded like a tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory cooked up by the lunatic fringe, but maybe, just maybe... well, consider this:

Continue reading "Just Because I'm Paranoid Doesn't Mean..." »

Posted by at 11:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (7)

I learned long ago that, in politics, you don't count your proverbial chickens until they hatch -- which is my roundabout way of saying I'm not writing off Hillary Clinton until I hear from her own lips that she's quitting -- but after yesterday's Democratic primary results in Indiana and North Carolina, the assumption across the blogosphere seems to be that her campaign is finished. On that note, Evanier makes a very interesting observation:

If all goes as expected, Barack Obama will accept the nomination of the Democratic party at their convention on August 28... 45 years to the day after Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech.

How cool would that be? Historic and poignant... almost cinematic, in fact. I can already see the "dream fulfilled" graphics on the television news coverage...

Posted by at 1:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

SamuraiFrog poses a real head-scratcher:

Why is it that in a presidential race against a former First Lady and an admiral’s son who married into a beer fortune, it’s the black guy with almost no political presence who has to prove he’s not an elitist?

This started me thinking: What does "elite" really mean, anyway, and how does one become "elitist?" Is it a factor of education or wealth? If it's a question of intelligence or accomplishment, what's gone so wrong in our society that a term that once meant simply "the best" has acquired such a negative connotation? What's wrong with being the best at whatever it is you do?

Why is it that our current president, a New England blue-blood by birth who only plays at being a working man on his ranch in Texas, is seen as a "good old boy" and therefore not elitist, but our previous president -- who started life as poor Arkansas trailer trash -- was often accused of elitism? Is it perhaps more a reflection of the person calling someone elitist than the person being accused of it? Bill Clinton has a tendency to come off as the smartest guy in the room -- worse, as someone who knows he's the smartest guy in the room -- and perhaps he makes some people feel insecure because of that, or his detractors mistake his intellectual confidence for an air of superiority, so they call him an elitist. Here's the funny thing: smart people don't bother me, personally; the ones who I see as having an air of superiority are the wealthy, especially the children of the wealthy. For me, money and privilege are far greater indicators of "elitism" than brains. But that's probably just my own personal insecurity and prejudice; other people's issues may vary.

I think what's really going on is that "elitist" has taken the place of many other words that political correctness and a societal trend to not want to debate race and class no longer allow us to say. Where once you could call someone a nasty name or, in the case of a woman or a black candidate who rub one's prejudices the wrong way, uppity, our modern social mores now dictate you have to express yourself some other way than with the, ahem, traditional epithets. You have to call them something else, find a word that's less loaded than the one you'd probably really like to use. At the core of it, you don't like the thought of women or black people or smart people or rich people being superior to your own pathetic self (whatever your definition of superiority may be), so you call them "elitist." Really, all the word means these days is "other." By calling someone an elitist, you're saying, "this person isn't like me, he (or she) isn't one of my kind, so therefore, I dislike this person."

But that's just my Saturday morning theory...

Posted by at 10:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I've pretty much stopped paying attention to the seemingly endless back-and-forth between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- at this point, I figure I've already decided who I prefer and I've frankly lost interest in following the campaign any further until a candidate is officially chosen at the Democratic National Convention in August -- which means that I only learned of "Bittergate" this morning when I saw that the blogosphere had been chattering about it all weekend. Basically, I guess Obama made a remark about small-town folks relying on guns, God, and anti-immigrant feelings to deal with their frustrated ambitions, and Hillary and McCain are feigning offense on behalf of those people he was talking about, branding Obama an "elitist." (In case you also missed this one, details are here.)

Now, I've read Obama's remarks and I personally don't think he said anything all that offensive (although I grant I may feel differently if I were one of those small-town people). While you never know what's going to piss people off, this whole thing strikes me as a tempest in a teapot that'll likely be forgotten by next week. However, the accusation of elitism has been reliably effective in bringing down politicians who display too much schooling in their speechifying, so, again, you never know what'll happen here. It's a phenomenon I've never fully understood, myself. I find our cultural distrust of intellect both mystifying and deplorable.

So does writer Peter David; he made some particularly cogent remarks on the subject today:

We have a situation wherein this country's anti-intellectualism has become so pervasive, so suffocating, that we have multi-millionaire Ivy league graduates trying to pretend they're just plain folks when clearly they're not. And people know they're not. This country was founded by men who knew they were the best and brightest, and the citizenry took pride and comfort in that. But television has put politicians into peoples' homes, and now we just want someone we're comfortable with. We don't want men and women who come across like professors; we want the guy who sat in the back of the class and goofs off, as if life was a sitcom. To put it in "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" terms, we should want to elect Mr. Hand; instead we opt for Jeff Spicoli.

Couldn't have said it better myself...

Posted by at 5:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Scalzi on the abysmal exchange rates of the moment:

...in the long run it would be nice to have my home currency seen as stable and having value. The cynical part of me wonders how much the global perception of the dollar will change simply by having a new occupant in the White House on January 20, 2009. I guess we’ll find out.

That's an interesting question, isn't it? I'll admit that I know very little about economics or all the arcane factors that influence how well or poorly we're doing as a country -- I find even simple 401k investments utterly baffling and intimidating -- so I have no opinion on this idea myself. But I do wonder just how much psychology and prestige plays into something like the value of a nation's currency. Anyone have any thoughts?

I will say that, if there's anything to this, a post-election rebound for the dollar would be excellent news for me, as The Girlfriend and I have been talking about finally taking that dream trip to Scotland next year...

Posted by at 10:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Here's an interesting bit of food for thought:

Suppose you had to choose between two Presidential candidates, one of whom had spent 20 years in Congress plus had considerable other relevant experience and the other of whom had about half a dozen years in the Illinois state legislature and 2 years in Congress. Which one do you think would make a better President? If you chose #1, congratulations, you picked James Buchanan over Abraham Lincoln.

So much for that campaign tactic...

(Source via.)

Posted by at 9:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

The topic du jour this morning was, of course, the news that Fidel Castro is stepping down after decades of rule, followed by the White House's affirmation that our country's nearly half-century-old embargo against Cuba will not be relaxed anytime soon, regardless of which Castro is running the show over there.

So, here's the thing I've been wondering all day: is there anyone out there in InternetLand who can explain to me why our country is so unrelenting on this damn-fool embargo? Anyone at all? Really, what purpose does it serve here in the year 2008? Maybe it made sense during JFK's administration, when the Soviet Union was trying to use Cuba as a proxy against us, and everyone was terrified of communists infiltrating our borders from nearby nations. But the USSR is long gone, and our decades-long effort to keep the island nation isolated have utterly failed to effect any change within Cuba. The communists remain firmly in power and the Cuban people seem reasonably content with that state of affairs. So what's the point of maintaining the embargo now?

Continue reading "So When Can I Finally Enjoy a Mojito at Ernie's Place?" »

Posted by at 5:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Heh. This amuses me... according to the gossip site TMZ.com:

Tom Scholz, founder of rock group Boston, wants Mike Huckabee to quit using "More Than a Feeling" as a campaign anthem... because Scholz is an Obama guy, and Huckabee is "the polar opposite" of what Boston stands for.

Funny, I always thought Boston stood for Camaros and excellent doobage... but then I really can't imagine Mike Huckabee enjoying either of those things, so I guess Tom's statement does make sense, doesn't it?

Posted by at 3:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Well, here it is, the morning after, and we still can't predict with any certainty who the Democratic nominee for president is going to be, but it's looking pretty likely the Republican nom will go to McCain. My own prediction -- and this isn't my own preference, mind you, it's just what my Magic 8-Ball is telling me -- is that we're going to end up choosing between Clinton and McCain come November. But who really knows? There's still a lot of time to go...

I find it interesting that Huckabee made such a strong showing; obviously, his surge was fueled by Christian evangelicals in southern states where they are in the majority. I wonder if they honestly believe their guy has a chance in the general election, if they were just voting their principles, or if voting for Huckabee was really a strategy to block Mitt Romney, because evangelicals have such a problem with Mitt being Mormon?

Here in Utah, the voting went pretty much as I expected. Romney won the local Republican primary by a ridiculous margin (90 percent, I believe), owing, I'm sure, to his religion and his reputation as the man who saved Utah's bacon during the 2002 Winter Olympics. (Long story, but just in case you don't know it, the Cliff's Note version is that preparations for SLC's Games were not going well, there were scandals, and the whole thing looked like it was going to be a embarrassing disaster. Mitt took over the Organizing Committee at the last minute and the Games turned out to be a resounding success.) On the Democratic side, Obama took a wide lead over Clinton. Many people I've talked with this morning seem surprised by this; I'm not. Even among Democrats, Hillary is not well-liked in these parts. My theory is that even many so-called liberal Utahns -- who, let's be honest, would be considered fairly conservative in other parts of the country -- tend to subscribe to more, ahem, traditional views of gender roles, and Hillary alienated, offended, or threatened them during the Wild Bill Years with her strong will and apparent acceptance of her husband's philandering. But that's just me talking out of my hat; it could also be something as simple as Obama visiting the state in person while Hillary just sent Bill and Chelsea in her place.

Either way, it was an interesting experience to be part of the Big Time for a change. Only eight months to go...

Posted by at 10:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This is a historic day for the citizens of Utah, the first time we've ever participated in the Super Tuesday process, following unprecedented visits by nearly every major presidential candidate from both parties. (Little old Utah normally doesn't get this much attention from the candidates, partly -- I would imagine -- because the state's population is so small, and probably also because it's a given that, come November, our electoral votes will go to whoever the GOP nominates.)

I myself voted in the Democratic primary this morning. (I couldn't have voted on the Republican side even if I'd been so inclined -- which I'm not -- because they have a closed primary, loyal members of the club only, please.) For the record (and at risk of kicking off an argument here on my humble little corner of the Internet), I voted for Barack Obama.

Continue reading "Super Tuesday" »

Posted by at 3:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I really don't have much to say about the speech -- what I heard of it sounded like the same old stuff -- I just enjoy typing the phrase "President Bush's final State of the Union address."

Posted by at 8:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (13)

Michael May says something beautiful about Dr. King that bears repeating:

He may not have searched for lost treasure, discovered ancient civilizations, or killed aliens in outer space, but he was one of the bravest men this country's ever known.

And he did fight monsters.

Bravo, Michael. Very nice...

Posted by at 3:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

...why you won't be getting any snail-mail today:

If you've never heard the entire speech, you owe it to yourself to watch this clip. It's a little long, but it's powerful stuff. And it's quintessentially American: injustice identified and loudly denounced, over and over, until change is wrought. This is what I was talking about last night, the progressive spirit of the early '60s that among many other, far more important things, fueled the philosophy behind a little TV show I grew up loving. I admire it. In my cynicism, I can't help but wonder if it's still there somewhere in the American character, just sleeping, or if it's been washed away by complacency and fear and all the shiny baubles that distract us. I also wonder what Dr. King would think of this brave new world of the 21st century. Have we come far enough yet on matters of race to satisfy him? How would he have reacted to 9/11? Would he have spoken out against the horrors of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo? And would people still listen if he had?

Posted by at 10:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

As I mentioned the other day, this is the time when everybody starts recapping the previous 12 months, trying to gain some perspective on the year just winding down or at the very least remember just what exactly has gone on lately. In that spirit of recollection, have a look at this:

Love those boys at JibJab. Extra credit to them for playing off Billy Joel's "We Didn't Start the Fire," a song that I always loved because I knew what more of the events referenced in the lyrics actually were than my friends did. (I'm all about establishing my own intellectual superiority.) In fact, I think Billy ought to revisit that tune once a decade or so, to keep it all up to date. Think of it, Billy Joel, the keeper of recent American history! That's a much more impressive title than mere musician...

(Hat tip to Brian Greenberg, who probably found this specifically because of the Billy Joel connection. It is your destiny, Brian...)

Posted by at 1:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

You know, I love Utah, I really do. I grew up here, my family roots stretch back to the very first wave of Mormon pioneers in 1847, and, for my money, you're never going to see anything as jaw-droppingly beautiful as the Wasatch Mountains on the first clear day after a snow storm. This is my home, and while I can imagine living in other places, I highly doubt I ever will.

But as comfortable as I generally am here, it drives me absolutely batshit insane when the busybody prudes of this state decide it's time to dust off their torches and pitchforks and launch yet another crusade against their latest perceived threat to the moral well-being of the community.

Case in point: the kerfuffle over the Blue Boutique.

Continue reading "Feeling Blue in Sugar House" »

Posted by at 11:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I tend to be pretty anti-authoritarian by nature, and I'm deeply troubled whenever I hear about those who have power abusing those who do not. Even so, I just can't seem to work up too much outrage over that incident that's had the InterWebs buzzing for the last week or so, the one in which a University of Florida student got tasered after disrupting an appearance by Senator John Kerry.

The video evidence plainly shows that police had no good reason to zap him, considering he appears to be handcuffed, on the ground, and surrounded by about a half-dozen uniformed officers. But it also looks to me like this kid was going out of his way to make a scene and was egging on the blackbellies by acting like Dennis the Constitutional Peasant in Monty Python and the Holy Grail ("Help! Help! I'm being repressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system!"). I've also heard that Andrew Meyer, the student in question, is a known provocateur who butted his way to the front of the line so he could harangue Kerry, and that he had arranged for someone to film him in hopes (presumably) of getting his 15 seconds of YouTube fame (Warhol overestimated the country's attention span, in my opinion).

I think Jon Stewart probably nailed the situation when he called it, "An unfortunate combination of police over-reaction and what appears to be student douche-baggery."

Still, whatever Meyer's true motivations and regardless of where you may stand on the question of whether his civil rights were violated, he did get his moment on YouTube:

These days, that seems to be about all that matters, doesn't it?

Posted by at 3:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (7)

Sorry about the offensive title, but I myself find the behavior that provoked it about a thousand times more offensive than that common vulgarism. If you haven't heard, a trio of Christian whack-jobs disrupted the opening prayer on the floor of the Senate yesterday because they thought having it delivered by a Hindu -- a historical first, by the way -- was an "abomination." Now, leaving aside any personal beliefs or questions of theology or "truth," this sort of thing is quite simply rude; shouting down a soft-spoken man who's just trying to say a few nice words that he was invited to say is a rotten thing to do, and no amount of bone-headed posturing about "gross idolatry" can excuse that. If you watch the video of the incident, the poor Hindu guy looks absolutely mortified, not to mention a little bit scared. These moronic fundamentalist protesters -- who strike me as the moral and would-be practical equivalent of the dreaded Taliban -- are entitled to their opinions and beliefs, of course, but their actions are totally unacceptable under those circumstances, little different than walking up to some guy who's minding his own business and poking him in the eye. Their actions are also, in my book, bigoted and un-American.

Continue reading "Dickheads for Christ" »

Posted by at 11:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Andrew Sullivan reminds us of the way things used to be:

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is," - George W. Bush, April 9, 1999, criticizing President Clinton for not setting a timetable for exiting Kosovo.

"I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn," - George W. Bush, June 5, 1999.

Interesting how people change their tune, isn't it?

Posted by at 4:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

As far as I can tell, the following proclamation is legit:

The Congress, by Public Law 85-529, as amended, has designated May 1 of each year as "Loyalty Day." This Loyalty Day, and throughout the year, I ask all Americans to join me in reaffirming our allegiance to our Nation.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2007, as Loyalty Day. I call upon the people of the United States to participate in this national observance and to display the flag of the United States on Loyalty Day as a symbol of pride in our Nation.

Is it just me, or is there something seriously creepy about this? Doesn't a holiday to "reaffirm our allegiance to our Nation" actually conflict with the spirit of the most American of all American holidays, the Fourth of July (a.k.a. Independence Day, when we celebrate a bunch of guys who were willing to reject allegiance to their Nation -- the British Empire -- when it became necessary)?

Continue reading "Loyalty Day" »

Posted by at 12:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I don't know if this is widely known outside the Zion Curtain, but the Dark Lord himself, Vice President Dick Cheney, has been invited to give this year's commencement address at Brigham Young University in a few weeks. BYU (or "The Y," as it's more commonly known in these parts) is, of course, the most conservative college in Utah, possible even in the country. It's so conservative that male students aren't even allowed to wear beards.

(True story: I actually applied to the Y back in my pre-bearded days. I was conditionally accepted pending a letter of recommendation from my spiritual leader. Smart-ass that I am, I was tempted to forge a letter in fractured English and sign it, "Yoda, Jedi-Master of Dagobah," but ultimately I decided it wasn't worth the trouble, and anyway I didn't want to go to a school that would forbid me from dressing like Sonny Crockett. [I was very big into Miami Vice at the time, and had this thing about muscle shirts, not shaving for four days at a stretch, and going sockless, all big no-nos at the Y.])

As conservative as the school is, however, there are protests planned to coincide with Darth Cheney's visit. But I don't think it's necessary to dwell on the fact that even BYU students think the man is nasty and hateful. I think we should instead concentrate on the really important matters:

...the question remains whether Cheney will get an honorary degree. And, if so, what would it be? International diplomacy? Public Relations? Energy Policy? Environmental Science?

Enquiring minds want to know!

Posted by at 5:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I just learned from Scalzi that the columnist Molly Ivins has died. According to her obit, it was breast cancer and she was 62, about the same age as my mom.

This is really shaping up to be a crappy day.

Continue reading "Molly Ivins" »

Posted by at 11:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

President Bush's strategy for Iraq, 2006: Stay the course.

President Bush's strategy for Iraq, 2007: Stay the course. Only with more troops.

Continue reading "The Surge" »

Posted by at 11:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)

So the Butcher of Baghdad is dead. I'm sure there are people toasting his execution all over the world right now. A certain occupant of the White House is probably planning a party, and maybe his dad is, too. Maybe they're even entitled to one. I, however... I'm not sure how I feel about it.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not shedding any tears for the bastard. He deserved his ignominious and unmourned death. But so do a lot of other penny-ante dictators around the world whose sole purpose seems to be finding new depths of depravity and cruelty to visit on their people. And therein lies my deep ambivalence about Saddam Hussein's execution. It isn't that I don't believe he was a bad guy. I simply have never understood what made him so uniquely bad as to justify all the energy America has expended on him over the past fifteen years.

Continue reading "Saddam" »

Posted by at 12:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

My Internet wanderings this morning somehow carried me past the official site of Will Rogers. Best known for saying he never met a man he didn't like, Rogers was a beloved humorist, commentator, and media personality of the 1920s and '30s. Here is one of his observations, which I think I'm going to adopt as a motto:

"I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat."

And here's a bonus Rogers quote, which has a somewhat darker edge in light of current circumstances:

"If we ever pass out as a great nation we ought to put on our tombstone, 'America died from a delusion that she has moral leadership.'"

The amazing thing, of course, is that these remarks (while admittedly taken out of context) still have relevance some 60 years after Rogers first said them...

Posted by at 12:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Here's an idea that jumped out at me from my morning-commute reading matter:

The Right doesn't like to acknowledge that the power and authority of a government can be a good thing, up to a point, in the hands of a genius. The Left doesn't like to acknowledge that geniuses are few and far between.

--David Gelernter, 1939: The Lost World of the Fair

Posted by at 11:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Looks like the President has a ready-made excuse for his next diplomatic blunder:

A renowned black magic practitioner performed a voodoo ritual Thursday to jinx President George W. Bush and his entourage while he was on a brief visit to Indonesia.

Ki Gendeng Pamungkas slit the throat of a goat, a small snake and stabbed a black crow in the chest, stirred their blood with spice and broccoli before drank the "potion" and smeared some on his face.

"I don't hate Americans, but I don't like Bush," said Pamungkas, who believed the ritual would succeed as, "the devil is with me today."

The question that comes to my mind is, does the inclusion of broccoli in the potion have anything to do with George Bush Sr.'s well-known aversion to that vegetable, or is this just a coincidence? Is broccoli the Bush family's version of kryptonite? Enquiring minds want to know!

Posted by at 10:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wow, what an afternoon! My previous entry has generated a number of comments that I'd like to respond to, but I haven't yet been able to settle down long enough to compose anything worth reading; I've just learned one of my co-workers is in the hospital after wiping out on his longboard last night (he was skating in downtown Salt Lake when a car cut him off; he evaded, but crashed into a concrete planter box at about 30 mph); and, as everyone's no doubt heard by now, Rumsfeld is hitting the showers. I'm still processing that one -- I expected some changes in the wake of the Democratic victory, but I didn't expect anything so major to happen so soon. Frankly, I'm a little overwhelmed.

I think I'm going to spend the rest of this afternoon and evening unplugged from politics. In the meantime, I'll leave you with the following thought, courtesy of Mark Evanier:

Someone on Fox News just said that everyone should try and find something to be happy about today. I think I'll be happy that I wasn't around Dick Cheney last night when he was armed and getting the news.

Posted by at 4:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

It seems to be the topic du jour, so here's my reaction to yesterday's election results (which I'm sure won't surprise any of my three loyal readers): I'm pleased. Pleased that the brakes can now be applied to the runaway "unitary executive" and that the rubberstamp Congress which enabled it has been disbanded.

Continue reading "Election Results '06" »

Posted by at 12:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Well, I fulfilled my civic duty this morning, for all the good it will do. Election results in Utah are highly predictable, not to mention one-sided, and if you happen to be on the, ahem, minority side -- which I am, if you haven't figured that out by now -- voting tends to feel like an exercise in futility. Still, you've got no room to bitch if you don't vote, right? And my three loyal readers all know how much I like bitchin', so...

My actual voting experience went much more smoothly than I anticipated. I've been somewhat apprehensive about these fancy new computerized voting machines with their new-fangled touch-screens and all. I don't trust them, to be honest; I worry about them being hacked or secretly programmed to produce a particular outcome. It's all too easy to imagine my vote simply vanishing into the aether of cyberspace, or else being transmogrified into a vote for those other guys. I've also wondered what happens if the machine has a problem, and the only people available to try and fix it are the typical polling-station volunteers who tend to be so old that they still think color TV is a passing fad. And for today's election, at least, I worried that the lines would be terrible because the machines are new and a lot of people would be slowed down by the learning curve.

To my surprise, however, the lines moved quickly, the machines struck me as very user-friendly -- even my parents, to whom e-mail remains a deep and unfathomable mystery, had no problems figuring them out -- and my concerns about security were somewhat mollified by a back-up system that generates an actual paper ballot. (If you haven't seen the voting machines yet, your votes are recorded on a paper roll similar to a cash register receipt. The paper stays inside the machine, presumably for security reasons, but it passes through a little window so you can review it and make any changes before you hit the "Cast Ballot" button.) I'm still generally suspicious of the new machines and would prefer that we return to tried-and-true paper-balloting methods, but the back-up helped me to rachet down my paranoia a notch or two.

I have seen reports of local problems with the machines, but in my precinct, at least, everything was fine. The biggest problem I had was finding my polling place, because it seems to change every other election. One year, it's held at my old elementary school; the next, it's at the new elementary school that was built a decade or so back. This year, it was back at the old school, but my parents and I thought it was still at the new one, so we wasted a good 15 minutes driving around town. (We went to vote at the same time, but travelled in separate cars so I could go to work afterwards.) I suspect we looked like we were re-enacting the climax from the original Pink Panther movie, that farcical sequence where half-a-dozen different cars keep whizzing through a quiet village center from different directions.

Posted by at 3:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Well, now, this is just childish: it appears that the NRCC -- that would be the Republicans, kids -- has orchestrated a nationwide campaign to annoy people into voting against Democrats by repeatedly telephoning the same households over and over with recorded messages that appear to be made by or on behalf of Democratic candidates. It sounds like a desperation tactic to me, and a pretty damn silly one, too, but there is anecdotal evidence that it may be having an effect. The mainstream media has thus far ignored the story, but thankfully Josh Marshall (among other politi-bloggers) has been on his toes; scroll back through his archives to see how the situation developed.

I can't begin to tell you how much I despise this kind of sleazy, prankish nonsense, and I despise it even more when it appears to actually work. I fantasize about the day when we may witness some dignified, grown-up political discourse in this country. In the meantime, keep in mind that if you've been getting a lot of annoying "robocalls" over the past few days, the blame may not fall where you think, and anyway there are more important things to consider when you cast your vote tomorrow...

Posted by at 4:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Last weekend, I watched one of my favorite old movies, The Guns of Navarone. If you haven't seen it, I recommend that you immediately add it to your Netflix queue. It's a 1961 wartime adventure starring Gregory Peck, David Niven, and Anthony Quinn as commandoes tasked with destroying a Nazi artillery emplacement that guards a vital sea passage.

As the cliche says, they don't make 'em like this anymore. War movies these days, on the rare occasion that somebody actually makes one, tend to be self-important, self-conscious, and burdened with the need to say Something Important. Guns isn't like that; it takes its subject matter seriously enough, even allowing David Niven's character to make a couple speeches about the pointlessness and horror of it all, but the film's overarching goal is to entertain, not to enlighten, and it succeeds wonderfully in that regard.

I did notice something on this latest viewing that's had me thinking, though.

Continue reading "How Far We've Come" »

Posted by at 5:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Several of my daily-read blogs have been linking to the "Letter from Iraq" published on Friday by TIME.com. If you haven't run across this yet, go check it out; it's definitely worth a minute of your time.

The letter is a series of observations from an anonymous Marine officer who pulls no punches in describing his life in the middle of the war zone. Although I'm sure both sides of the poltical spectrum here at home can (and will) try to spin this to support their views, the letter itself, read in its entirety, strikes me as remarkably non-partisan, honest, revealing, and, ultimately, quite moving. It is also, in places, very funny:

Most Surreal Moment — Watching Marines arrive at my detention facility and unload a truck load of flex-cuffed midgets. 26 to be exact. We had put the word out earlier in the day to the Marines in Fallujah that we were looking for Bad Guy X, who was described as a midget. Little did I know that Fallujah was home to a small community of midgets, who banded together for support since they were considered as social outcasts. The Marines were anxious to get back to the midget colony to bring in the rest of the midget suspects, but I called off the search, figuring Bad Guy X was long gone on his short legs after seeing his companions rounded up by the giant infidels.

Most Profound Man in Iraq — an unidentified farmer in a fairly remote area who, after being asked by Reconnaissance Marines if he had seen any foreign fighters in the area replied "Yes, you."

As far as I can tell, this letter -- unlike some of the supposed "real stories of our troops" that float around in e-mail form -- is for real.

Posted by at 4:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I shouldn't say anything, because I know that political entries never bring happiness to anyone, least of all me. But I've been reading all about this developing scandal surrounding Representative Mark Foley and his messages to Congressional pages, and I want to make sure I fully understand the situation. So, let's review:

Continue reading "Foleygate" »

Posted by at 3:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (9)

My concept of America formed early and was gathered largely from old black-and-white movies, Schoolhouse Rock cartoons, and, yes, Star Trek, which despite all the lip service about a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, and multi-species crew projected a largely American (specifically JFK's "New Frontier" America) sense of identity. And while I never subscribed to the jingoistic "we're number one" mantra that so many of my classmates seemed to reflexively utter whenever news of some international dispute managed to filter down to our grade-school consciousnesses, I always understood that Americans were the good guys. I may not have quite believed in the concept of American exceptionalism, but I did believe that our country was respected in the world and, more importantly, worthy of respect, not because we were superior human beings who were inherently better than everyone else, but because we chose not to do the kinds of nasty shit that other nations did. Like Captain Kirk choosing to spare the helpless Gorn, who would surely have killed him, the Americans of my understanding struggled to rise above our brutal natures, to find a better, more humane way of doing things.

That meant we didn't send our own people to Siberia for speaking their minds. We didn't persecute people because of their religion or lack thereof. We didn't invade and take over other countries in order to expand our own territory or influence. We tried to help the rest of the world, not just ourselves. We cared if innocent blood was unavoidably shed. And we most certainly did not, under any circumstances, torture people.

Continue reading "Disgusted" »

Posted by at 5:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

Being on the edge of what is essentially a dead sea, Salt Lake City is frequently subject to a phenomenon we locals call "lake stink." It occurs when the wind blows across the Great Salt Lake from the northwest, churning up all the decaying gunk at the bottom of the lake and carrying the resulting odors straight into the city and its surrounding 'burbs. I kind of like the smell myself, at least in small concentrations; it smells like home to me. But in higher concentrations, it can be rather... disconcerting.

I bring this up because last night, as a weather front moved through the area, there was an unusually powerful lake stink in the air, the strongest I've experienced in several years. As it so happens, President Bush was also in town last night, staying overnight in downtown SLC so he could speak to the American Legion convention this morning. I wonder if Dear Leader, safely ensconsed in the marble-floored penthouse of the fanciest hotel in town after his thrilling five-minute ride in from the airport, noticed the stench, and whether he thought someone was playing a prank on him...

Posted by at 4:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Score one for common sense: the House of Representatives cafeteria has quietly changed its menu nomenclature so that you can once again order french fries and french toast. Remember, if you will, the attack of silliness that broke out on the eve of the Iraq War when the hyper-patriots, miffed that the French weren't tripping all over themselves to march into the meat grinder at our side, retagged the House's potato wedges and grilled egg-bread with the prefix "freedom." It was a ridiculous gesture that accomplished little beyond making Americans look offensively petty and stupid -- something we really didn't need considering the beating that our country's image was taking in the international press anyhow -- and it rightfully turned into a late-night punchline. And now it's rightfully been rectified and consigned to the Memory Hole.

If only the war could be so easily undone as well.

Posted by at 12:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

When I was 16 years old, my uncle Louie was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, better known as ALS or Lou Gehrig's Disease. ALS is a neurological disease that causes the myelin sheath coating the body's nerve cells to deteriorate. Think of this sheath as insulation around an electrical wire; when the myelin goes, the nerve short-circuits and ceases to function. The victim first loses strength in affected areas of the body, then loses control over them altogether. In time, the effect of the disease spreads throughout the body and, as the muscles receive less and less stimulation from the deteriorating nervous system, it begins to atrophy. The victim essentially wastes away.

Continue reading "Bush's First Veto" »

Posted by at 2:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

So, federal anti-terrorism funding to New York City has been cut by 40% because the Department of Homeland Security says there are no icons or national monuments there. John Scalzi, a resident of Ohio mind you, identifies some of the "non-icons" DHS may have missed, including the Chrysler Building, the Empire State Building, and the New York Stock Exchange, not to mention that big green lady out in the harbor.

Is there anyone left out there who really believes the Bush Administration knows what it's doing? Anyone?

Posted by at 11:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

If you've been hanging around this blog for a while, you know that I was less than happy with the way the last presidential election turned out. However, as Andrew Sullivan points out, being on the losing side isn't always a bad thing:

...Can you imagine how battered a president Kerry would have been by now? He'd be stuck with Bush's Iraq mess; he'd be constantly told he's Neville Chamberlain on Iran for doing exactly what Bush has been doing; he'd be ruthlessly attacked by the Hannity right over Teresa, immigration, gays, and any other cultural issue they could exploit. And the GOP would have escaped the responsibility for their fiscal insanity, while Kerry took lumps for raising taxes. As a matter of principle, I do not regret endorsing Kerry. My decision was based on the manifest incompetence and unconservatism of Bush. But in the sweep of history, it is fitting that Bush, for the first time in his entire life, actually face the consequences of his own recklessness. It is also important for conservatives to see up-front what abandoning limited government and embracing fundamentalism leads to: the collapse of a coherent conservatism. There was a silver lining in Bush's re-election: the unsentimental education of conservative triumphalists.

Posted by at 6:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Hm. Well, it appears my concerns about that deluge of new visitors from The Whatever were overblown, since nothing much seems to be happening around here. So much for my delusions of grandeur.

Moving right along, I see that my skills at predicting box-office success are no better than my estimation of my own celebrity drawing-power. By which I mean that I was surprised by the generally good business done this weekend by United 93, the movie about one of the doomed 9/11 flights. I honestly didn't think there would be a market for this film.

Continue reading "Too Soon? Apparently Not..." »

Posted by at 10:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (11)

Saw something interesting on Lileks' Daily Bleat today. (Why, yes, things are kind of slow for me at work today; how can you tell?) If you click on over there and scroll down a-ways, you'll see that he's scanned a wonderful old newspaper photo of Times Square, circa 1952. But that photo isn't quite what it seems...

Continue reading "Photoshopping in the '50s" »

Posted by at 3:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I've been wanting for some time now to vent my spleen about one of the more insidious political strategies currently in play by the right, namely the campaign to convince the average, not-too-well-informed and not-terribly-thoughtful voter that "activist judges" are wrecking the country, but naturally Scalzi has beaten me to the punch. His basic thesis is the same as my thinking on this subject, namely that those who use the term "activist judge" only seem to bring it out when a particular ruling doesn't go their way. It's sour grapes, in other words, but it's also a cynical (and, unfortunately, effective) effort to sway public opinion into thinking the right's agenda is the natural default setting for the country. It's also nonsense, since, as John points out,

Continue reading "Activist Judges" »

Posted by at 10:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Detective Yeti has written a wickedly funny (if incredibly geeky) satire of this whole sale-of-the-ports-to-Dubai kerfuffle. If you don't get the joke, you're obviously not familiar enough with the films of the incomparable Jeff Bridges:

Continue reading "Another Take on the Ports Controversy" »

Posted by at 2:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

As much as I hate to admit it, I think President Bush made a good point yesterday when he suggested that there's something wrong with opposing an Arab-owned company operating U.S. shipping ports when a British-owned company has been doing the job for years. He's right, there is a double standard at play in this debate, and it is tinged with an uncomfortable hint of racism, or at least of playing favorites with our allies and business partners.

But the president, in his usual zeal to support corporations and big business deals above any other concern, misses the very important question at the heart of this matter. It isn't, "Why is it okay for a European company to operate our ports but not a Middle Eastern one?" The actual question is (or ought to be), "Why in the hell are we allowing any foreign company to operate our ports?"

Now, I don't believe that I'm especially xenophobic or isolationist, but, at risk of sounding like one of them totalitarian, anti-capitalist types, I do believe that certain industries and activities are so intimately connected to our national security that we should restrict them to home-grown companies only, if not outright nationalize them. Transportation is the obvious (and pertinent) example. Communication is probably another. How is it that a president who has built his entire reputation on the rubric keeping the nation safe from outside danger doesn't seem to see this?

(I'll give you a hint: the answer is in the second paragraph...)

Posted by at 5:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

"It was not Harry's fault. You can't blame anybody else. I'm the guy who pulled the trigger and shot my friend."

Frankly, I'm stunned. I've been working off-and-on all afternoon on a ranty post in which I excoriate Darth Cheney for his stubborn silence on this shooting incident and the Bush White House in general for being so pathologically dead-set on never, ever admitting any kind of mistake whatsoever, and now the guy's gone and accepted responsibility for something. All the wind has officially left my sails...

Posted by at 5:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

On the heels of the previous entry, here's another funny: a pictorial representation of the Ten Ways Vice President Dick Cheney Can Kill You, courtesy of Boing Boing. Curiously, none of them involves a shotgun...

Posted by at 3:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Okay, this still isn't my long-promised travelogue, but I found it interesting enough to share. Andrew Sullivan on what we ought to be hearing from the minority party:

I'm not a Democrat and don't think I ever could be, but here's what I'd say if I were in opposition right now. These guys [the Republicans currently in charge of things] are corrupt and incompetent. They have screwed up the Iraq war, turned FEMA into a joke and landed the next generation with a mountain of debt. We're for making the homeland safer, winning back our allies, and taking on the Iranian dictatorship. We're for energy independence, universal healthcare and balancing the budget again. Now, let [Karl] Rove do his worst. Hey, we need Democrats who relish the fight, not timid ones who cower at the prospect. Bring back the happy warriors. Please.

Say hallelujah. I am so frustrated at the inability of the Dems to say or do anything effective. It's not like the other side doesn't have any genuine vulnerabilities to exploit. Come on, guys, get a frickin' clue! I could go on, but I need to devote my energies to writing about Yellowstone...

Posted by at 12:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I've run across something that I think makes for an interesting addendum to the Brokeback Mountain controversy, namely some comments from the author David Gerrold about last fall's revelation that Star Trek's George Takei is gay.

Gerrold, in case the name doesn't ring a bell, is an accomplished science-fiction author and television screenwriter with a number of novels to his name. Despite his lengthy career, however, he's most likely always going to be known as the man who wrote "The Trouble with Tribbles," the one episode of the original Star Trek series that non-Trekkies most frequently seem to be familiar with. Given the "Tribbles" connection, it shouldn't surprise you to learn that he's been friends with Mr. Takei -- and fully aware of George's sexuality -- for years. He also has strong feelings on the question of how visible homosexuals ought to be in our society (which is really what Larry Miller's decision on Brokeback -- as well as a certain political fight heating up in Utah's legislature -- is all about, the visibility of gay people and their relationships). Here's Gerrold:

Continue reading "Gerrold on Takei, and Other Related Matters" »

Posted by at 11:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I haven't been following the Alito confirmation hearings very closely -- I figure the outcome is pretty much inevitable unless Alito admits to drinking kitten smoothies or something -- but I have caught bits and pieces of them in the car on my way to and from the train station. Frankly, I'm amazed -- nay, disgusted -- by the sheer pointlessness of them. What exactly is Congress accomplishing with this week-long exhalation of hot air? Judge Alito is obviously following the example set by every SCOTUS nominee since Bork, which is to say absolutely nothing at all that might tell us what he really thinks. Meanwhile, stymied by their inability to get the man to admit he enjoys a nice kitten smoothie every once in a while, Democrats preface each of the questions they know will go unanswered with interminable speeches (the contents of which I agree with in principle, but that doesn't change the fact that they're really boring and, under the current circumstances, useless gestures). Republicans then overcompensate by falling all over themselves in displays of dewy-eyed fawning that would've embarassed even Monica Lewinsky during her beret-wearing days. (Utah's own Orrin Hatch is particularly irksome in this department. I cringe every time he opens his mouth.) It's all nothing more than an overly elaborate ritual that does no one any good.

Continue reading "And Now, Welcome Back... To Confirmation Theater" »

Posted by at 6:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

Seeing the recent movie Good Night, and Good Luck sparked my curiosity about the legendary newsman Ed Murrow, so I've been reading a book by former NPR host Bob Edwards called Edward R. Murrow and the Birth of Broadcast Journalism. It's a short little volume, less an in-depth biography than a concise overview of Murrow's life and philosophies. Sparse as it is, though, the book provides plenty to think about. Consider, for instance, the following passage:

Continue reading "Unthinkable" »

Posted by at 11:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Ponder if you will the following quotes:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

--Amendment IV, U.S. Constitution

[President] Bush said he approved [wiretapping without a court warrant] "because it enables us to move faster and quicker. We've got to be fast on our feet.

"It is legal to do so. I swore to uphold the laws. Legal authority is derived from the Constitution," he added.

--"Bush Says NSA Surveillance Necessary, Legal", The Washington Post

Interesting, don't you think?

Posted by at 10:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)

There's an interesting (if rather "bullet-pointy") interview in the Boston Globe today with Mike Wallace, the 87-year-old bulldog reporter that nervous CEOs don't want to see waiting in their lobbies when the arrive for work in the morning. His trademark bluntness is on full display here, especially when it comes to the current President Bush:

Q. President George W. Bush has declined to be interviewed by you. What would you ask him if you had the chance?

A. What in the world prepared you to be the commander in chief of the largest superpower in the world? In your background, Mr. President, you apparently were incurious. You didn't want to travel. You knew very little about the military. . . . The governor of Texas doesn't have the kind of power that some governors have. . . . Why do you think they nominated you? . . . Do you think that has anything to do with the fact that the country is so [expletive] up?

That's a 60 Minutes segment I'd definitely tune in to see. Unfortunately, given this president's aversion to appearing before any but the most supportive audience, I think it'll probably happen about the same time Wallace gets Jim Morrison to sit down with him and chat about what life in the Phantom Zone with Jimmy Hoffa is really like.

Posted by at 2:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Josh Marshall responds to an interesting question from one of his readers with a few more interesting questions of his own:

...[November 22] did used to be a date for which there was always some build up and moments of commemoration [for the assassination of President Kennedy]. But now nothing. Is it just some critical mass in the passage of years? Forty-two years and it's just definitively part of the past? Or is it some political or cultural inflection point the country's passed through post-9/11?

Continue reading "Have We Forgotten About JFK?" »

Posted by at 10:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Here's another interesting statement from Senator Hagel of Nebraska:

Terrorism is a real threat and a present danger that we must confront and defeat. But we must not sacrifice the strengths and ideals of America that the world has come to respect and trust, and that define us. That is why I co-sponsored Senator McCain's amendment to prohibit cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment of any detainee under the custody of any branch of the U.S. Government. I strongly oppose any exception to this prohibition...

The recent media reports of a worldwide American system of secret, black-hole jails, run by the Central Intelligence Agency, and developed explicitly to circumvent our obligations under the Geneva Convention, sullies everything that America represents.

Both this quote and the one in the previous entry come from a speech the senator delivered yesterday to the Council on Foreign Relations. It's a pretty interesting read as political speeches go, made even moreso by the fact that Hagel's words seem to stand in direct opposition to much of what his party has championed -- or at least tolerated -- under the Bush White House. Oddly enough, he says many of the exact same things I myself have been muttering ever since 9/11. It's a strange feeling to find myself nodding in agreement with a Republican. I really don't know what to make of it...

Posted by at 9:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

"The Bush Administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them. Suggesting that to challenge or criticize policy is undermining and hurting our troops is not democracy nor what this country has stood for, for over 200 years. The Democrats have an obligation to challenge in a serious and responsible manner, offering solutions and alternatives to the Administration's policies.

"Vietnam was a national tragedy partly because Members of Congress failed their country, remained silent and lacked the courage to challenge the Administrations in power until it was too late. Some of us who went through that nightmare have an obligation to the 58,000 Americans who died in Vietnam to not let that happen again. To question your government is not unpatriotic - to not question your government is unpatriotic. America owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices."

--Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska

[Ed. note: emphasis mine]

Posted by at 4:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I imagine my previous entry probably ruffled a few feathers, so as long as everyone in Utah is pointing and hissing at me anyhow, I may as well go ahead and reference Scalzi's recent post on President Bush's plummeting national (if not local) approval rating. I find this section especially resonant:

What do I think about the Bush's approval rating? Well, I think it's exactly what he deserves. He's a terrible president with an incompetent administration, and it's gratifying to see the large majority of the American people coming around to this fact. Would that they would have come around to this conclusion a year ago, when the vote was on.

You'll note, however, that I did not say that I was happy that Bush has such a God-awful rating. I'm not. Having a weak and deeply unpopular president makes us vulnerable as a nation, particularly when we are engaged in a war, and especially when engaged in a war that it is becoming increasingly clear the origins of which are best described as an administration misadventure. I don't like Bush, and I wish he weren't president; nevertheless he is my president, and my country is ill-served at home and abroad by his weaknesses, both real and perceived. Noting that this is a mess of his own making is cold comfort indeed. Bush may have made this bed, but we all have to lie in it.

One hopes that if the American people get anything out of the Bush second term, it's to be reminded that the next time around, Republican or Democrat or something in between, they might want to try for competence. It's not too much to hope for. Because at a 35% approval rating, we have a clear indication people recognize that incompetence isn't working.

Continue reading "Scalzi on Presidential Incompetence, and Some Other Political Ranting" »

Posted by at 3:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

From time to time, well-meaning friends who have escaped the protective dome that seals off my home state from the rest of our sinful planet ask me why I stay in Utah. Their implied suggestion is that I, with my unorthodox (for Utah) interests and attitudes (not to mention my somewhat scruffy looks), might be happier if I lived in some place a bit more... cosmopolitan. I don't deny that they could be right. After all, I am an unmarried, childless, socially liberal, anti-authoritarian agnostic who enjoys the occasional distilled beverage and generally doesn't care what people do (or don't do) with their genitalia. My out-of-state friends are not misguided to wonder what could possibly keep me living in a place that is notoriously conservative, religious, provincial, family-oriented, and hostile to dissenters -- in short, about as opposite from everything that defines my life as you can get. Nevertheless, my response to their concern is usually just a shrug and the somewhat lame proclamation that, "this is home."

Continue reading "Why Do I Stay Here?" »

Posted by at 5:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Boing Boing is linking this afternoon to a Chicago Tribune obituary for one Theodore Roosevelt Heller, an 88-year-old man who must've been quite a character. In addition to noting that he "forced his way back into the Illinois National Guard [after being discharged from the Army], insisting no one tells him when to serve his country," the obit also contains this line:

In lieu of flowers, please send acerbic letters to Republicans.

You just know this guy's going to have an interesting eulogy...

Posted by at 4:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Bumpersticker spotted Sunday afternoon in a Costco parking lot and presented here without further comment:

Posted by at 12:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)

Yesterday, John Scalzi wrote in his AOL Journal about the difficulty of being expected to produce what he calls a "variety show" -- meaning lots of entries about many different and mostly lightweight subjects -- while Something Big is going down in the world:

...it's causing me some real cognitive dissonance to have an entry [about] the complete horror of what's developing in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, and an entry about cats in a sink, right next to each other. I'm feeling mildly guilty about talking about cats in a sink at all.

I'm experiencing much the same kind of angst myself, actually. I've been looking at my last couple of published entries and thinking about the topics I'm planning to write about in upcoming ones, and suddenly I feel like I've got some really screwed-up priorities, like I'm a modern-day Marie Antoinette or something. Huge numbers of people are dying pathetic deaths right here in our own country and I'm writing about fake zombies and space movies, for god's sake. It's frivolous, isn't it? A sign of a superficial personality? Do I have a responsibility to use my abilities and my little public forum here to acknowledge what's happening? Am I being disrespectful to the victims of Katrina if I don't?

Continue reading "Overwhelmed, and Craving the Peace of 1985" »

Posted by at 1:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Did you see the recent poll that says 51% of all Americans now believe the White House "deliberately misled" us about those weapons of mass destruction? I've believed that all the way along, myself. Not that it matters much at this point.

Nevertheless, that poll number is interesting. Mark Evanier thinks so, too, and he's raised a very good question in regards to it:

...as more and more of Bush's negative ratings hit that magic number of half-the-nation-plus-one, I wonder about something. [I wonder] how many Bush supporters who thought 51% in the last election was a mandate or even a landslide will now argue that 51% or even anything below 55% or so isn't really a majority.

For the record, I'm not trying to be a smartass here. I'm just considering a semantic point: in this age when nothing is free of the taint of political spin, when each side of the debate jockeys endlessly for the slightest edge over the other, can we even agree anymore what constitutes a majority? And what does it mean for our society if we can't even find consensus on that?

Posted by at 3:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sandra Day O'Connor announced this morning that she's retiring from the Supreme Court. I am now filled with dread anticipation for what the tone of the rest of this summer will likely be.

Continue reading "Fasten Your Seatbelts..." »

Posted by at 11:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Here's an interesting idea: a new study indicates that people's political leanings may be genetic in origin. The researchers behind this study are not suggesting that we're all destined to belong to a particular party or that we're programmed from birth like little politibots, just that we may be drawn by nature towards a particular side of the spectrum. In other words, our genes pre-dispose us towards being conservative or progressive, and then our upbringing and unique life experiences shape our opinions on specific issues. The real fun seems to occur when someone's innate inclination clashes with their family's expectations and affiliations. (The study was intended partly to figure out why people defect from the parties in which they were raised, such as when the children of staunch Republicans become hippies, or vice versa. While some of that behavior can be chalked up to youthful rebellion, there are plenty of cases where children just plain think differently from their parents for no apparent reason, which makes little sense if you believe that our attitudes are entirely shaped by "nurture" without some element of "nature" being involved.)

Continue reading "The Political Gene?" »

Posted by at 2:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

As I wrote a week or so back, I've been fairly puzzled by some people's reaction to the revelation of Deep Throat's identity. Here in my home state of Utah, especially, a lot of folks are saying that Mark Felt is a bum because he betrayed a president he was sworn to protect. I wonder what those same people think about Nixon himself. Do they think he was wrongfully driven from office for the crimes committed in his name, if not on his actual orders? Do they honestly believe Felt's "betrayal" is worse than breaking and entering, illegal wiretapping, and government cover-ups, all for the purpose of one political party unfairly increasing and retaining its grip on power? It seems to me that Felt was being a good soldier by protecting the Republic as opposed to a president he knew to be corrupt. In other words, he was showing loyalty to something higher and more important than Richard Nixon. Just in case you missed it the first time I said it, I'll say it again: it doesn't really matter what motivated him to do it, because it was ultimately the right thing to do, for the country as a whole. In the real world, people often do things that get labelled as "good" or "bad" regardless of the purity of their intentions, and that's how I see Mark Felt blowing the whistle.

Mark Evanier has a similar take on this subject, which I think is as good a defense of Felt as anything further that I could say:

People have been debating whether Mark "Deep Throat" Felt was a good guy or a bad guy, and these debates often seem to be conducted on the assumption that he had to have been one or the other.

I don't think many public figures -- especially in government -- can be fit wholly into one of those two classifications, and I see no reason to expect that Mr. Felt can be so tidily rated. His motives in leaking to Bob Woodward were probably some mixture of wanting to protect the F.B.I. from abuse by the Nixon administration and wanting to advance his personal agenda. In the grand scheme of things, I suspect he was less important to the toppling of a president than he was to the career advancement of Woodward and Bernstein. I don't think what he did was dishonorable or illegal -- that's the spin of those who cast their lot with Richard M. Nixon -- and to the extent he did it to expose corruption, I guess he's a hero. But only for that one series of actions. He wasn't a hero for what he did soon after.

Evanier finishes with a link to an article that details Felt's less-than-noble, post-Throat exploits, if you're interested.

Posted by at 5:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Given the two subjects that have gotten the bulk of my attention lately, I was greatly amused by a line in the new issue of Newsweek:

Now that we've learned how Anakin became Darth Vader and who Deep Throat really was, can we finally close the book on the '70s?

I didn't think that book was still open, myself, but it does seem like a lot of loose ends are getting tied up lately, doesn't it? Star Trek, Star Wars, the final mystery of Watergate... what's next, for someone to dig up Jimmy Hoffa's body? How about finding Jim Morrison alive and well on Fiji? Is a Sasquatch about to wander into downtown Portland, or will a Scottish fisherman finally manage to land Nessie? Keep watching the skies, kids, because you never know...

Posted by at 11:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Aside from the initial disclosure of his true identity, I've paid little attention to this week's public conversation about Deep Throat, so I was taken aback this morning when I tuned into the talking-head shows and learned that former Nixonians are trying to smear Mark Felt as some kind of bum for blowing the whistle on their wrongdoing. This flabbergasts me for a half-dozen different reasons, not least of which is the incredible notion that TV commentators are still (or once again) arguing about a political battle that was won and lost (depending on your perspective) thirty years ago. I suppose that shouldn't surprise me, given the lingering bitterness over the Clintons, Vietnam, the civil rights movement, and even, in some quarters, the Civil War. People have long memories and grudges do endure. But I guess I keep hoping there'll be an outbreak of common sense any day now, and this eternal optimism causes me to be caught consistently off-guard when it doesn't happen.

I'm reluctant to get into this because I really don't want to pick a political fight here on Simple Tricks after the pleasant silence of these past couple of months. But when I hear that people like G. Gordon Liddy -- one of those who did prison time for the Watergate break-in, just in case you don't know -- are calling Mark Felt a disgrace and a traitor because he went to the press with what he knew, well, that's so ridiculous as to beg some kind of comment.

Continue reading "Deep Throat: Hero or Traitor?" »

Posted by at 11:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Way back in February, I commented on rumors that the public would soon learn the identity of "Deep Throat," the legendary anonymous source that led investigative journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein to the truth behind the Watergate scandal. Today the rumors came true.

According to an article in the new issue of Vanity Fair, Deep Throat is a man named Mark Felt, who was Deputy Director of the FBI at the time of the scandal. These days, Felt is a frail 91 years old and lives with his daughter in California. Woodward and Bernstein have issued a statement confirming the magazine's claims, and their former editor, Ben Bradlee -- who also knew Deep Throat's identity -- was quoted as saying, "The thing that stuns me is that the goddamn secret has lasted this long."

So it looks like another big historical mystery is solved. Kind of anticlimatic, really, and regrettable, too. Like I said the other day in regards to Blackbeard's lost pirate ship being found, it's more fun to have some things remain unknown.

One interesting note (well, interesting to people who live in Salt Lake, anyhow): the local TV news says that Felt ran the Salt Lake office of the FBI for two years in the 1950s. Strange how often these big stories have some kind of Utah connection. Sometimes I think my home state truly is the nexus of the universe... and that scares me on many, many levels.

Posted by at 5:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Once again, I don't have the time to fully explore the issue I'm about to raise. Sorry about that. Nevertheless, I still want to share with you an interesting quote that was recently referenced by Andrew Sullivan, then picked up by the always excellent Josh Marshall and now seems to be wending its way though the blogosphere. (I heard about it via Mark Evanier's post on the subject.) Seeing as I'm always one to hop on the bandwagon, I will now repeat the quote followed by Sullivan's remarks:

Continue reading "Separation of Church and State" »

Posted by at 9:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (8)

Up to now, I haven't wanted to even mention the words "Terri Schiavo" on this site, for a number of reasons.

First, because this story has received so much attention in both the regular media and the blogosphere, I suspected that most of my readers were sick of hearing about it and were coming to Simple Tricks in search of something a little more frivolous. (One of my three loyal readers essentially said as much in a recent comment.)

Secondly, my own views on this matter have been shaped by deeply personal experiences with death, lingering illness and quality-of-life issues, and I didn't see how I could comment on Schiavo without dredging up a bunch of stuff that I frankly don't want to share with the whole InterWeb. Let's just say that my opinion is a lot less hypothetical or philosophical than many of those you've been reading.

Finally, this situation has been the sort of hot-button issue that is sure to spark a fight, regardless of how reasonable you may think your own position. I haven't had the stomach to argue about it, in large part because of Reason #2 above.

But now that the poor woman has moved on to whatever awaits her, I would like to make a few remarks. I hope this isn't a mistake on my part. Let me be absolutely clear that I am not looking for a fight. I just want to say some things that have occurred to me over the past few weeks. If you're sick to death of this subject or can't discuss it without getting all huffy, then I invite you to skip this entry and come back another time.

Continue reading "Remarks on the Schiavo Mess" »

Posted by at 3:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I received an email this morning from a fellow named Rex, who is the proprietor of The Deep Throat Blog and a proponent of the theory that the infamous (yet anonymous) Watergate informant was actually Ferris Bueller's economy teacher. Rex informed me that since I and other bloggers linked to one of his articles last month, he's been receiving lots of interesting new clues, the latest of which is detailed in his most recent entry.

Essentially, this new piece of the puzzle connects the dates on which reporter Woodward met with Deep Throat with the dates when the McGovern Campaign was in or near Washington, D.C. (Background for those who don't their recent history: McGovern was the Democratic candidate for president that Nixon's people were trying to bring down by, among other things, bugging the campaign headquarters at the Watergate Hotel.) As Rex describes it, this clue fits the so-called "Bradlee Riddle," explains why Woodward couldn't call a meeting with DT whenever he wanted, and lends credence to the Ben Stein theory:

...in our opinion, Deep Throat must have been someone who wasn't normally in Washington. We think Throat was someone at the Republican CRP (Committee to Re-Elect the President) who traveled around the country conducting operations against the Democrats, much like Don Segretti. This person could have been a "mole" on McGovern's staff (and the Watergate hearings uncovered at least one named Thomas Gregory) or someone who carried out "sabotage" against the Democrats such as hiring hecklers, demonstrators, etc. Our theory is that Ben Stein worked with the CRP and met with Woodward when his travels took him to the Washington/Baltimore area.

As I explained to Rex, I'm not a serious Watergate buff. I haven't done a lot of extensive reading or research on the matter, beyond seeing the fine movie with Robert Redford, Dustin Hoffman and Hal Holbrook (All the President's Men) and reading the occasional article. But I am interested in historical mysteries, and they don't get much more mysterious than this one. The Ben Stein theory is plausible (in my opinon, at least), and Rex's blog makes for an interesting read. Go check it out. (You'll probably want to review his detailed explanation of the Stein theory as well.)

Posted by at 1:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

I've been trying to think of something to say about Dan Rather's final broadcast from the anchor's chair of The CBS Evening News, but I can't find the right approach. The problem is that I'm really not sure anyone cares about Rather's departure, aside from political right-wingers who see him as the embodiment of their hated "liberal media" and so are thrilled to see him go. While professional observers view Rather's choice to step down -- as well as Tom Brokaw's recent retirement -- as "the end of an era," the public seems to be yawning with indifference.

It wasn't like this when Rather's predecessor, Walter Cronkite, stepped down. I think it's fair to say (based, of course, on my readings into media history and not personal memory) that Cronkite's departure produced a near-universal sense of warmth and fond regret to see him go. I can remember my parents tuning in to Cronkite's final show with an air almost of apprehension, like they were about to lose a member of their family. No one I know feels that way today about Rather or Brokaw. But then, to use an oft-repeated phrase, it was a different world in Cronkite's day.

Continue reading "What's the Frequency, Kenneth?" »

Posted by at 11:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I was doing some follow-up research on a couple of recent post topics and I thought I'd share some interesting findings with all you bored cubicle dwellers out there.

Continue reading "Ancient Treasures, a Theory on "Deep Throat," and a Black Bird" »

Posted by at 11:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Some interesting political stories have come to my attention over the past couple of days and I think they bear mentioning here. But fear not, loyal readers: there are no lengthy rants, harangues, or confrontational digressions ahead, only some links and news items that are probably of interest to no more than one in 100 people. I, however, am one of those oddballs who care about this sort of thing, and it is my blog, after all, so here we go...

Continue reading "Howard Dean, Deep Throat and Social Security" »

Posted by at 9:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I know I probably ought to stick to nice, safe, non-flammable topics like Battlestar Galactica, but after reading today's headlines and all the associated chatter buzzing through the blogosphere, I've just got to throw in my own two cents on the Iraqi election that took place over the weekend.

First of all, the Iraqi people should be commended for the courage and optimism they have just demonstrated to the world. I sincerely mean that.

Continue reading "What's Next for Iraq?" »

Posted by at 6:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I don't have much to say about President Bush's inauguration today. It is what it is, and frankly I don't feel like picking a fight with anybody right now. I'm also trying to put aside some of the negativity that has dogged my thinking over the past couple of years (more for the sake of my own mental health and blood pressure numbers than because I've changed my mind about anything) and part of this effort is a conscious decision to limit my political ranting here in this space.

Nevertheless, I would like to quickly point out two articles that grabbed my attention this morning. What I find interesting about them is the sharp difference in attitudes they show between those who are staying on the White House staff and those who are leaving.

The first article, a Washington Post essay that reports on the Administration's attitude since the election, notes that "President Bush and his Cabinet nominees have been sending a firm message as they kick off a second term: no mistakes, no regret, no comment." (Registration required if you want to read the whole article. Sorry. WaPo is that way...)

Contrast that with the words of outgoing Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who says in an interview for an Australian paper, that he is "disappointed that Iraq hasn't turned out better. And that we weren't able to move forward more meaningfully in the Middle East peace process... [and] that we didn't stop 9/11. And then in the wake of 9/11, instead of redoubling what is our traditional export of hope and optimism we exported our fear and our anger. And presented a very intense and angry face to the world. I regret that a lot."

Make of this what you will. I know what I think about it, and how I feel about the fact that the folks running the show are apparently not willing to engage in any sort of self-reflection. Maybe that doesn't matter these days, and maybe the voters actually prefer it this way. But like I said, I find the contrast interesting...

Posted by at 12:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

[Ed. Note: If you haven't already, read the previous entry before this one.

In the last entry, I said that the Democrats need to figure out what our vision of the country and the future actually is. This is perhaps the biggest problem the Democratic Party has: what do we stand for, and what will we do if we're elected? What are our core beliefs?

Continue reading "Final Wrap-up (And There Was Much Rejoicing...)" »

Posted by at 5:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'd like to finish my ruminations on this long dark midnight of the liberal soul with my thoughts about what I believe the Democratic Party needs to do in order to regain some influence over our country's trajectory. Not that my lone voice is going to make any difference, of course. The odds that anyone in a position to actually accomplish anything will ever see this little blog, let alone adopt the ideas expressed herein, are approximately equal to the chances of Ozzy Osbourne being invited to speak at the next LDS General Conference. Nevertheless, there is a whole galaxy of liberal blogs and message boards out there that have been buzzing on this same topic for the last six weeks, so perhaps our collective din will somehow become loud enough for the DNC to hear.

The most important thing, I think, is that all Democrats, from the most liberal whack-job hippies to the "Republican Lite" Clintonian centrists, need to make a major attitude adjustment. Several, in fact, starting with the way we on the left handle defeat. I disagree with Republicans on damn near every matter of policy and a whole lot of philosophical points, too, and I certainly despise their contemptuous attitude toward their defeated opponents. But they're absolutely correct about one thing: we lost, and we need to get over it. That motto should be printed on giant banners and prominently displayed at every Democratic meeting until we get the point and start acting differently.

Continue reading "Attitude Adjustments" »

Posted by at 4:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Trying to disprove the old adage that there are no second acts in American life, former Vermont governor/presidential candidate Howard Dean is now apparently pursuing the chair of the Democratic National Committee, which, as I understand it, is essentially the core of the Democratic Party itself (somebody correct me if I've got that wrong). I was fairly dubious about the idea of Dean as President, but I think the idea of Dean as Chairman of the Party is pretty intriguing, especially after reading the transcript of a speech he delivered this afternoon at George Washington University. It's a good speech, if you're interested in such things, and a compelling vision of what the Democrats ought to be all about. (As it so happens, Governor Dean's ideas about what the party needs to do correspond pretty heavily with my own. Make of that what you will.)

What really caught my eye, however, was a brief section in which Dean addresses the moral values issue I've been discussing here on Simple Tricks:

"The pundits have said that this election was decided on the issue of moral values. I don't believe that. It is a moral value to provide health care. It is a moral value to educate our young people. The sense of community that comes from full participation in our Democracy is a moral value. Honesty is a moral value.

"If this election had been decided on moral values, Democrats would have won.

"It is time for the Democratic Party to start framing the debate."

I don't have anything more to add; I believe those ideas speak for themselves.

Posted by at 5:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I've run across an interesting addendum to my previous entry, an article from the Washington Post called "The Anatomy of a Myth". To view the article, you'll need to register with the WaPo -- which is free and painless -- or you could try a generic login courtesy of bugmenot.com. If you're at all interested in this "moral values" angle on the election, it's well worth a look. The author, Dick Meyer, is the editorial director of CBSNews.com, and he provides an insider's perspective into how this story evolved from a simple question into accepted fact, even though, in his opinion, it's total bunk.

Continue reading "Meyer on Moral Values" »

Posted by at 10:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

[Ed. Note: Hiya, kids! Sorry it's taken so long to get the rest of my election analysis up for public consumption, but Real Life sometimes pulls even me away from the keyboard, and besides, it's taken me a while to figure out exactly what I want to say about all this "moral values" stuff. If you missed Part I of this post or you just want to refresh your memory, click here. As always, I invite you to skip this one if you're tired of reading about politics or don't have time for a lengthy rant.]

[Ed. Note 2: the language in this post is a little rough in spots, so consider yourself warned.]

The post-election discussion has focused mainly on John Kerry's loss, which makes sense since the presidential race always gets the most media attention. However, Democrats also lost seats in both houses of Congress this year as well as in many state governments. (From what I understand, we apparently did fairly well at the local, grass-roots level. Go figure.) While I personally believe there are a number of reasons for these defeats, the pundits and bloggers have been looking for a one-size-fits-all explanation. The one they seem to have fixed upon is exit-poll data which suggest that "moral values" were the deciding factor for a significant number of people.

Continue reading "Post-Mortem, Part II" »

Posted by at 10:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I know the election is ancient history at this point, and that all the Democratic griping and navel-gazing has gotten tedious in the weeks since. Nevertheless, I have some things I want to say about the way things turned out, and given that blogs are essentially an exercise in self-absorption -- uh, self-expression, I mean -- I'm going to ask that you bear with me. Or don't. I can't make you stick around if you don't feel like reading anymore on this subject. It's not like I have a remote-controlled rifle pointed at you. If you're absolutely sick of politics or don't have time to read a long post, I invite you to come back in a day or two.

Continue reading "Election Post-Mortem" »

Posted by at 10:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Neil Gaiman, a British comic book writer and novelist who lives in California and is generally a witty fellow, has an interesting idea on how to reform the whole political system:

I think that some country or other ought to try jury duty as a way of picking its politicians: if your name gets picked, and you can't come up with a good enough excuse, you'll have to give up four or five years of your life to helping run the country, which avoids the main problem of politics as I see it, which is that the kind of people you have to choose between and vote for are the kind of people who actually think that they ought to be running things.

What do you have to do to get people interested in seriously studying a proposal like this?

Posted by at 10:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

It's one of those days when there's so much stupidity floating around that I don't know what I should be outraged at first.

Continue reading "Wednesday Afternoon Rant" »

Posted by at 4:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

I see in this morning's headlines that Attorney General John Ashcroft has resigned. Two thoughts occurred to me as I was reading about this development. First, if Mr. Bush is really as interested in "healing the country" as he said he was in his acceptance speech, he ought to consider nominating a Democrat for this position. I happen to know of a certain former trial lawyer and vice presidential candidate who isn't doing much at the moment. And second, maybe now we can behave like grown-ups and uncover Lady Justice's breasts...

Posted by at 9:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

As President Bush forges ahead with his second-term agenda, I hope someone will show him this pie-chart:

Hardly a sweeping mandate...

Posted by at 11:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

So I stopped at the liquor store last night to pick up a bottle of Jameson. Not to be too melodramatic about it, but after the day I'd had, I needed -- hell, I deserved! -- a good stiff drink. The grog shop was unusually busy for a Wednesday night in Sandy, Utah, and I found myself wondering if the people in line around me were also disgruntled Democrats in need of a belt. There was no way to tell, of course. The guy in front of me looked like he'd just turned legal, and from the way he gingerly placed a single Smirnoff Ice on the counter in front of the cashier, I gathered he was experimenting with his new-found right to get potted. The woman behind me, meanwhile, was loaded down with a half-dozen bottles of wine and looked to be in a hurry. I guessed she had a dinner party to get back to. And right after I made that guess I started thinking that maybe everything in the universe doesn't really revolve around politics after all. After all, the election of George W. Bush didn't stop the sun from rising, the college kid from getting his first drunk on, or the wine lady from cooking a meal for her friends. Life continues. And realizing that little fact left me feeling much better about what happened on Tuesday.

Continue reading "Post-Election Flotsam" »

Posted by at 11:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

So it's to be four more years, is it? I can't say I'm surprised. Disappointed, dejected, disgusted, and very worried about what comes next, but not surprised. The fact is, I've been steeling myself for the big let-down for weeks now. I started planning what I would say about it here on Simple Tricks, if it became necessary to say anything at all, back around the middle of October. (Obviously, I hoped it wouldn't be necessary.) Except now it has become necessary to say something, and I find that most of what I had imagined myself saying no longer applies to how I'm actually feeling.

Continue reading "The Result" »

Posted by at 5:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'll be back later with my reaction to the election results, but for now I thought I'd share the best bit of political writing I've read this morning, a remarkably cogent analysis of the Ohio situation using an old '80s sitcom to put it all into perspective. From Jaime J. Weinman's blog "Something Old, Nothing New", I give you The Family Ties Explanation:

Continue reading "How The Keatons Voted" »

Posted by at 10:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Well, it's a cold day here in Utah underneath a high crystal sky -- quite pretty actually -- and the temperatures aren't affecting the voting one bit. My own polling place was crowded like I've never seen it before, and everyone was talking about the turn-out. There was even an exit poller there from a media research group, the first time I've ever encountered such a thing in my sleepy little suburban precinct. The air felt charged with electricity, like it does before a concert or a long-anticipated film. People knew they were making history today.

One quick anecdote to relate: I overheard the woman in line behind me say that her husband had cut short a business trip and was driving in from Oregon today so he could cast his ballot.

It's that important.

Take time off work, go during your lunch, go after work. But go.

Posted by at 9:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

In a little under fourteen hours, the process begins... the truly revolutionary concept that emerged from the minds of those Virginia planters back in 1776, the idea that the People could make up their own damn minds about who was going to call the shots.

I can't begin to stress how absolutely vital it is for every registered voter who may be reading this blog to do their duty tomorrow morning (or this evening, if you live in one of the handful of states that allows early voting). You may think that your vote won't carry much practical weight because of the screwiness of the electoral college. I know mine won't. But that's beside the point. There are people in the world who would die for the privelege that many Americans ignore because they think their vote won't make any difference, or because they're cynical about the candidates (there is a difference between Bush and Kerry, dammit!), or because it's cold outside or any of a raft of other silly reasons. There are people who are dying right now to try and obtain this privelege as well as those who are dying because not enough of us bother to exercise the privelege. So, no matter which candidate you support, make sure you get out of the house and make your position heard. It only takes a few minutes.

If you're not sure where you need to go to vote, consult mypollingsite.com for a quick and easy reminder. You might also try mypollingplace.com, but I understand that site has been slammed with traffic today and is intermittently off-line.

Finally, if you're a Utah voter and you haven't yet reviewed the Voter Information pamphlet that came in the newspaper a few weeks ago, please make sure you give it a look. There are more things to vote on than the positions of president or governor, including some very important legislation.

If you're a religious sort, pray for a fast and definitive conclusion to tomorrow's festivities. And if you're not so sure about this God fellow, well, just hope for the best...

Posted by at 5:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

So, I don't know about everyone else out there in Internet-Land, but I can't wait for the election to be over with.

Continue reading "Political Fatigue" »

Posted by at 1:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (8)

Well, this is it. D-Day. Zero Hour. The Iceman Cometh. As I type this, Michael Moore is addressing a packed house at UVSC. And as far as I can tell by looking out my office window, the world has not -- repeat NOT -- come to an end. Oh, sure, it's cold and rainy, and I can't see the Wasatch Mountains through a low-hanging raft of gray clouds, but I'm pretty sure they're still there. You wouldn't know it from the nonsense that continues to swirl because of Moore's visit, though. Before I left the house this morning, I caught a live broadcast from the parking lot of the McKay Events Center showing the police department's mobile command center -- basically a big RV, no doubt fitted out like a technophile's best dream on the inside -- set up and waiting to control any riots that may break around lunchtime today. I can't wait until the evening news tonight to see if this precaution was needed or if the ravening mobs managed to restrain themselves from tearing the guest speaker limb-from-limb.

In case you couldn't guess from my snarky delivery, this whole "controversy" continues to rankle me. I am simply appalled at how the people of this state, and of Utah County in particular, have reacted to the "threat" of hearing one man's opinion. From the news segment this morning I learned that a number of donors to UVSC have made good on their threats to pull their money because of Moore's visit, and there's even been a last-ditch effort to cancel the appearance by means of a lawsuit. It's all such nonsense.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: we need dissent in this nation. You can argue about Moore's methods or the accuracy of his views, but many of those who would silence him aren't concerned with these issues so much as the fact that he dissents at all. They want him to shut up and go away because he says things they disagree with. And that's not right. That's not America. I only hope that someday things calm down enough for people to start to realize that again...

Posted by at 12:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Johnathan Chait writes today about Bush's misleading claim that Kerry voted to raise taxes 98 times. I always cringe when candidates on either side start throwing around specific numbers like this without any further elaboration. In the case of "raising taxes," it's especially egregious because most bills that Congress votes on are conglomerations of many different "action items," some of which a Congressman may support while others are harder to swallow. Oftentimes, a member of Congress is forced to hold their nose and vote on a bill that has portions they dislike in order to make sure something they do like passes. It's lesser-of-two-evils time, something I think that few "civilians" understand. Politicians use that ignorance to their advantage when making this sort of attack. Yeah, a candidate may have voted on a bill that raised taxes or cut a particular defense program -- but that same bill most likely also funded a school or provided disaster relief or trimmed fat out of a bloated budget or any of a thousand other positive results that taxpayers and voting citizens would likely approve. It's the same scenario in reverse when a president is forced to veto a largely popular bill because someone managed to tack an unfavorable amendment on to it.

Attacking an opponent with this sort of claim is the worst possible case of taking something out of context.

Striking paragraphs in the Chait piece:

Kerry's campaign has a detailed list of 642 Kerry votes to reduce taxes. (Maybe Bush should be painting Kerry as a crazed tax-cutting zealot totally unconcerned about fiscal responsibility.)

Meanwhile, Dick Cheney as a member of Congress from Wyoming voted to raise taxes 144 times. If 98 tax-hike votes make Kerry a far-out liberal, than Cheney would have to be placed somewhere in the ideological vicinity of Che Guevara.

Posted by at 12:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'm still working on those movie reviews I promised the other day, but in the meantime I want to share a very astute op-ed piece I ran across during my morning surfing. It's the first of two-part analysis of the seemingly intractable cultural divide that is currently crippling our political process, our national discourse, and, in a very real sense, our national identity. The author doesn't pull his punches when it comes to the flaws of the Bush administration, but he also lays the blame for this deadlock on everyone, including the Naderites who condemn both of the more mainstream parties.

Here's a vital paragraph that nicely crystalizes the problem:

"The polarized atmosphere, the abandonment of compromise, the triumph of extremism, and the collapse of even any attempts at moderation may have achieved primacy during the Bush administration, but the groundwork was laid as a truly bipartisan effort. Over the past three or four decades, both Democrats and Republicans have gerrymandered congressional districts to serve their political parties rather than citizens, society, or community. There are now so few truly contested districts left that there is not only almost no demand for compromise, but an almost explicit mandate against it. Ignoring constitutional ideals and basic democratic tenets, politicians have gutted this country's established operating principles. We are paying for it now, but the real hell is just around the corner, when we find this country electorally unable to face the problems created. "

Posted by at 12:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I've been seeing TV ads in the last couple of days that accuse Utah Representative Jim Matheson -- the only Utah Democrat currently serving at a national level -- of being a flaming liberal in the Ted Kennedy mold. However, an article in today's Tribune indicates that Matheson has more often than not sided with House Republicans in his voting. Interesting...

I guess some people think that being "a little bit liberal" is kind of like being "a little bit pregnant."

Posted by at 3:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Blogs are like ice cream -- sometimes you're in the mood for one flavor, sometimes not. The one blog I never miss, however, is John Scalzi's Whatever. It is quite simply the summit that all of us other bloggers should be striving for -- always well-written, diverse subject matter, strong opinions, glimpses of the author's personal life that manage to be cute without getting too cloying, and a sharp, laugh-out-loud wit that cuts through the crap to say exactly what needs to be said. Take, for example, today's entry, in which Scalzi begins by saying that, "if John Kerry cannot beat George W. Bush in this election, he should be taken out and beaten to death with his own shoes." Lest you think this is just another standard-issue Bush-bashing, let me point out that Scalzi spends most of the entry excoriating the Democrats for not seizing the opportunity this campaign represents. It's an interesting read, and I think he hits the nail on the head. There is no reason why this election should be as close as it is, except that Kerry and his people haven't played the game as well as they should have. I won't say any more, because I think Scalzi says it better than I can. Take a look...

Posted by at 1:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Let me direct your attention to this essay written by one Marshall Wittman. He's a self-identified Teddy Roosevelt-style conservative who has worked in the past for the Christian Coalition and Sen. John McCain. And he intends to vote for John Kerry. His reasons why make for an interesting read, especially because he doesn't see himself as surrendering his conservative beliefs or his desire to see a "a new politics of national greatness."

Continue reading "Recommended Reading" »

Posted by at 2:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

[Ed. note: I know I said I wouldn't discuss politics for a while, but interesting things just keep happening in that arena, and besides, it's my blog. I'll write about what I feel like writing about, thank you very much.]

[Ed. note 2: That last comment probably sounds a lot snarkier than I intended. I didn't intend it to be snarky at all. It's supposed to be taken in a good-natured, we're-among-friends sort of way. Sorry if it came across as rude.]

I don't know about you, but I wasn't planning to watch the presidential debate on Thursday night. I didn't see much point to it. I've known for a very long time which way my vote was going to go, and nothing I was likely to see was going to change my opinion. However, as the zero hour neared and the TV talking heads started to salivate, I found that I was more interested in seeing this thing than I thought. Many of the blogs I like to read had been going on about preparations and speculations for several days, and, as much as I hate to admit it, I got swept up in the hype. I tuned in figuring I'd just watch a few minutes, get pissed off at something, and then go do some reading. Instead, I ended up watching the entire thing, all ninety minutes of it.

Continue reading "Political Deathmatch: Kerry v. Bush, Round One" »

Posted by at 1:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Up to now, I haven't had much interest in seeing the film that earned Michael Moore the ever-lasting enmity of political conservatives, namely his anti-Bush polemic Fahrenheit 9/11. I figured there was little point, since my opinions of the incumbent president and his administration are already well-developed and, I believe, well-informed. I had a pretty good idea of what charges Moore would level against Bush in this film, and they're all issues I've learned about through other sources, so I didn't need to see F9/11 for educational purposes. Nor did I need the film to stir up my political passions, because the daily headlines are usually sufficient for that. Finally, there was the deterrant effect produced by Moore himself. If he was a typical documentarian who stayed safely behind the camera, there wouldn't be a problem in that regard, but one of the valid criticisms of Moore is that he likes to take center-stage in his films. In short, it often seems that Michael Moore's movies are less about the subject matter than they are about Michael Moore.

However, after thinking and writing so much about the UVSC controversy over the past few days, my curiosity was aroused. And so, with Anne away on her Church history tour and nothing better to do on a fine early-autumn Saturday, I decided to go ahead and have a look at what it is that has everyone's panties in a bunch.

Continue reading "Movie Review: Fahrenheit 9/11, Plus a Couple of Vital Links" »

Posted by at 10:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

[Ed. Note: Political rant ahead. You've been warned.]

Forget what I said about UVSC student Sean Vreeland in yesterday's comments on the Michael Moore controversy. If you'll recall, I complimented Vreeland on his statement that student fees would've been better spent on people from the presidential campaigns than on a celebrity like Moore. When I said that, I believed that Vreeland was simply a "guy on the street" who had voiced a reasonable-sounding opinion to a reporter and been quoted in the article I linked to. Apparently I didn't read the article closely enough. Today's article on this whole Moore-at-UVSC imbroglio clarified the situation for me. It turns out that Vreeland is in large part responsible for the stink that's being raised over this event. He is the mastermind of a petition to "recall" (i.e. cancel) Moore's appearance and oust Jim Bassi and Joe Vogel, the student body officers who invited Moore to speak.

Continue reading "More on Moore" »

Posted by at 3:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I tuned out the local news last week while I was doing so much running around, so it's only now come to my attention that liberal firebrand Michael Moore has been hired to speak at Utah Valley State College on October 20. Interesting. That means the grinding sound I've been hearing for the past few days is either the gnashing of teeth or villagers sharpening the points on their pitchforks. Anyone call Home Depot recently to check on the availability of torch oil?

Continue reading "Hurricane Michael" »

Posted by at 6:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I imagine that with the Republican National Convention starting tonight and the associated counterprotests already in progress, a load of fresh bile and new arguments will soon nudge aside the Swift Boat controversy that has dominated national discourse over the past few weeks. In fact, I'm probably at least a week past the sell-by date for this particular topic. Nevertheless I would like to voice a few thoughts before the Next Big Thing hits the airwaves.

Continue reading "Of Swift Boats and Campaigns" »

Posted by at 8:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Comic-book writer Peter David maintains a blog that, much like Simple Tricks, is a mishmash of whatever happens to be on the guy's mind, including David's rather, ahem, strong political opinions. These opinions (which are of the liberal variety) tend to ruffle the feathers of those who disagree with him (conservatives), leading to some interesting discussions in the blog's comments section. Most of the time, these discussions are fairly rational and extend no farther than the blog itself. In today's entry, however, David rages over the efforts of one of his detractors who wasn't content to hash out their differences on the website. This dipshit instead sent a letter to Joe Quesada, David's editor at Marvel Comics, to inform Joe that he would never again buy a book written by David because of the opinions expressed on David's site.

Continue reading "The First Amendment, Dissent, and Being An American" »

Posted by at 1:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (9)

I'm a little slow getting around to blogging about this, but here we go anyway. I saw on the local TV news a few nights ago that Vice President Dick "Go F*** Yourself" Cheney paid a visit to my hometown on Wednesday to rally the troops. He needn't have bothered. To paraphrase Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman, Utah is kind of a sure thing for the Republican Party. Our electoral votes would go to the GOP if they ran a one-legged platypus as their candidate, just so long as that platypus wore an American flag pin and mouthed the appropriate slogans about "family values." (Insert wisecrack about family values and publicly telling senators to perform anatomical impossibilities on themselves here.)

Continue reading "Can We All Grow Up a Bit?" »

Posted by at 11:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

On Monday night, Bill Clinton addressed the Democratic National Convention in Boston. I'm willing to bet that most of the people I know were not watching him, either because they hold certain, shall we say, strong feelings about the former president, or because my friends are the types that would consider watching a national political convention comparable to having their eyes melted out with an acetylene torch. And that's a shame because it really was a remarkable speech, possibly the best one this man has ever given, and that's saying a lot. In an age when public speaking is a lost art and discourse has been reduced to rancorous barbs, his elegant, carefully chosen and well-spoken words reminded me of what political statements should be like. More importantly, they painted a picture of what America should be like.

I'll be honest: I'm not a huge fan of John Kerry. He'll be getting my vote less for what he represents than for what he does not represent, which is four more years under an administration that I don't trust and don't believe in. But Clinton managed to make me feel far less grudging of a vote for Kerry, and he managed to articulate many of my feelings about how I think this country should be run and why the last four years have been a failure.

Therefore, as a public service for those who didn't see the speech but need to hear its words, I am going to reprint the text of it here on Simple Tricks, slightly edited to eliminate the tedious "thank-you's" and greetings that always precede the meat of any political address.

Continue reading "Choose to Form a More Perfect Union" »

Posted by at 8:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (8)

[Ed. note: The following political rant contains adult language and mature situations. Parental discretion is advised.]

Continue reading "Returning Honor and Dignity to the White House" »

Posted by at 11:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

If anyone out there is wondering what I thought of the President's speech last night about the present and future of Iraq, I have to be honest: I didn't watch it. I don't know what he said and I have no opinion about it at the moment. I spent the evening stuffing myself with Italian food in honor of my friend Amber's birthday, and, aside from a little good-natured ribbing of the one and only fan of GeeDub who was present at our table, politics was the farthest thing from my mind. This morning, however, I have heard that Bush called for the demolition of the Abu Ghraib prison and the construction of a new facility, untainted by the memory of either Saddam's atrocities or our own. That's absolutely the correct move to make, symbolically speaking. It's just too bad that it's being done now instead of a year ago when the symbol would have been seen as a proactive gesture instead of damage control. Now it's nothing more than a classic case of closing the barn door after the cow has escaped.

Posted by at 10:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'm sitting here watching the nightly news and my stream-of-consciousness is more active than usual, so I'm going to blog some of this stuff. I can't guarantee that this will make a lot of sense, so consider yourself warned...

Continue reading "Random Thoughts" »

Posted by at 10:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

I think I may have found a new hero in the unlikeliest of places (or, more accurately, the unlikeliest party). Yesterday, during the Congressional hearings on this this Iraqi prison mess, Republican sentator Lindsey Graham, a former Air Force JAG, rose above the partisan horseshit and spoke volumes with but a single sentence. He said what I have been thinking ever since this scandal first broke: "When you are the good guys, you've got to act like the good guys."

(If you're masochistic enough to want to see the complete transcript of those hearings, click here.)

Josh Marshall's comment on Graham's statement was, "Another way to put this might be to say that being the good guys is about what you do, not who you are. That's a truth that the architects of this war, in subtler but I suspect more damaging ways, frequently failed to understand."

Posted by at 7:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I know I said I wasn't going to keep hammering at this Abu Ghraib thing, but the Internet is awash in commentary on the subject and I'm finding a lot of thought-provoking material out there. If you're interested in this subject, please read on for some quotes and links; otherwise, I invite you to come back later.

Continue reading "The Blogosphere Speaks" »

Posted by at 2:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I don't want to continue flailing away at this Iraqi prison scandal -- I figure the professional journalists will do a more-than-adequate job of that over the next few weeks. Nevertheless, there's an op-ed that I'd like to bring to the attention of my loyal readers. Its author is Thomas Friedman, the Foreign Affairs correspondant for The New York Times.

Continue reading "Another Perspective on Abu Ghraib" »

Posted by at 10:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I was planning to write a Light 'n' Fluffy™ piece about my TV viewing habits today, but the news about American soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners keeps intruding into my thoughts. I have to admit that this story took me by surprise, partly because I've kind of tuned out the war news over the past couple of weeks and this has forcibly reclaimed my attention, but also because this sort of thing just isn't supposed to be how Americans behave. I am disappointed by my countrymen and I am gravely concerned about what this incident will mean in the long-term.

Continue reading "Have We Lost the War?" »

Posted by at 1:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

So, last night I got my weekly fix of 24 in a special Sunday night presentation instead of its usual Tuesday time slot. As loyal viewers of the series no doubt know already, the adventures of Jack Bauer and the gang at CTU were pre-empted this week for one of President Bush's infrequent press conferences (actually, it was more of a short speech followed by a Q-and-A session, but subtle distinctions have never been the President's strong suit).

The pre-emption was no big deal, really. Sorry to disappoint those who were hoping to read a good rant about my favorite TV show getting bumped because some politician needed the airtime. I haven't done that since Jimmy Carter interrupted the premiere of Battlestar Galactica way back in 1978, and I was only seven then. I'm a big boy now, and I recognize that it's not the end of the world if you must wait a few days to catch a TV show (hey, at least they reschedule stuff now; I didn't see the complete Battlestar pilot for years after that first disastrous broadcast). Acceptance aside, however, I have been thinking a lot about Bush's appearance last Tuesday and the reasons behind it.

Continue reading "The Blame Game" »

Posted by at 7:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

As I expected, the last post in which I revealed my feelings about President Bush sparked off a comments-section round of sparring between myself and my friend Cheno. That action continued on the phone this morning and was mostly good-natured, as political discussions go. We've known each other a long time and we both value our friendship enough not to take a difference of opinion too far. Nevertheless, there seemed to be a fair amount of tension between us, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't just me feeling it. We defused it – or attempted to, anyway – by making jokes, largely at each other's expense, and in the end we never really discussed why we feel the way we feel about the president or the issues that surround him. And that has me wondering: why is it so difficult to talk politics with even our close friends?

Continue reading "No Hard Feelings?" »

Posted by at 3:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

For several days now I've been wrestling with the question of whether I should mention the book I recently finished here on Simple Tricks. It's a political book, you see, and my mother always told me that you should never discuss religion or politics in public. That's good advice, particularly when you live in a place where conformity is valued more than diversity and your personal views tend to run against the grain. I learned early that it's usually better to keep your mouth shut than to say what's on your mind and risk alienating your friends. In sum, I've been hesitant to mention my latest reading because I haven't wanted to pick a fight, especially with those friends who I'm certain probably don't share my opinions on current events.

However, I truly believe that the times are grave enough to justify the risk of a confrontation, and with this election year already heating up and so much felgercarb about the candidates already flying, I've decided to go ahead and write about this subject and hope that no one reading this blog will take offense. Instead, I hope my readers (all three of you) will carefully consider the issues that may be raised by what I'm about to say. Hear me out, and if you disagree with me when I'm finished, then we'll shake hands, thank whichever version of God we worship that we live in America, and remain friends.

Continue reading "Book review: The Book on Bush" »

Posted by at 11:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (7)