Saturday, September 30, 2006

this will only take a second....

And it's a good thing too. An article on MSNBC last week reports that there has been a decline in reading proficiency among college graduates over the past ten years. The article cites a report that indicates that only 31% of college graduates can read a complex book and extrapolate information from it.

Before I go any further with this, I would like to digress for a moment and point to the ever-increasing cost of a college education and apparently the ever decreasing value of said, and observe that perhaps a good vo-tech certification really is as good as gold.

Why, one might ask, are we falling behind in this very significant regard. First, I would ask if there is a demographic breakdown of the results of this study. Students from around the world come to the U.S. to pursue a higher education, I wonder if a sampling of foreign students was included in this study and how they generally fared as compared to domestic metriculators. That may seem trivial, but it might point to the root cause or causes of this situation. The deficiencies of American public education are well documented, though it is usually from a partisan perspective. If foreign graduates are performing at a significantly higher or lower level, a closer examination of their preperatory education might help in diagnosing any faults in our own system.

I wonder how much the growth o the internet and other popular media may have contributed to this development. At no other time in human history could a person get a briefing on as wide an array of subjects as one can today on Google's new page. But that is all one gets, a briefing, pretty much the equivelent of a commercial on some topic. We may know what is important, but we probably don't know why they are important, or what factors influence that level of importance. In addition to this, we are bombarded with information from all fronts, and we are also being queried for information from quite a few sources, (can you say 'spyware', 'data-mining', identity theft and 'homeland security'?). Even our entertainment often seeks to slant our views and thinking. By themselves, most of those things are not bad, but in combination, it is hard to keep ones mental footing on something real.

So, lets look at one popular conception of the college experience:






Are things coming together now?

Now, people of my general demographic will grin, as it was us that actually defined this era and gave rise and legitimacy to the image that is projected here. I can attest that during my first attempt at college, (and this was before the movie came out), the consumption of all manner of propellents was given priority above nearly all other pursuits, (the exceptions usually involving encounters with the opposite sex). We thought that we were entitled to sow our wild oats while we could, for a lot of reasons, and in doing so, many of us did only what was required to get by. Others, such as myself, were not as industrious, (hence my reference to a first attempt).

Let's fast forward a few years to the twenty-first century and check in with the best and brightest that are running the country now.

Are things falling into place now?

Apparently, our government, (actually, our bureaucracy), is moving to eliminate in some cases, and 'dumb down' in others, those reports that seem to cause some anxiety in our bureaucracy when assembled data does not match today's illusion of reality. The Daily Kos sees this from a conspiratorial angle, (and there is probably some truth there), but I have to wonder if it is because our leadership (and many of the rest of us) simply cannot digest large amounts of data, follow the drift of the reports and draw logical conclusions. After all, these are the good ol' boys (and girls) from the Animal House era. This really deserves some thought. As we attempt to shape the lives of our progeny, we really do need to evaluate things in terms of what will directly benefit them, and the society that they will live in.

Right now, I am going to watch a some more cartoons.






Friday, September 29, 2006

what is a guy to do?

It is that time of the year again, and I have been getting copious calls from pollsters wanting my opinion on all manner of inconsequential things. The latest, just an hour or so ago, was from a group called Focus on the Family. I answered the very leading questions as truthfully as possible, including those that inquired as to whether I had ever heard of FotF. I wonder if my answers might have been thrown out as I reluctantly admitted that I had indeed heard of the group. I would like to note here that two of the five questions were issue oriented, (and that is being charitable), the other three seemed to be aimed at who I am and have I heard of this group.

Interesting.

From here on in, my own policy will be to try to ascertain the bias of whoever it is that is calling, and then skew my answers in such a way that it might lead that group or party to make even more of an ass of itself.

And speaking of ass......

CNN is reporting that Congressman Mark Foley, (R-Florida), resigned today in the face of a possible scandal pertaining to his, eh, relationship, with certain pages in the U.S. House of Representatives. This is not the first time that a Congressman has been tripped up by a page, but that is not what caught my eye. I noticed at the end of the article that the state GOP will name a substitute candidate very soon, and that any votes that Mr. Foley manages to accumulate will be awarded to the new candidate. That strikes me as odd at best, and unconstitutional at worst. But what do I know?

There is only one poll that matters, it is November 7th.

Be there, or be less than round.

Stay focused.

Thursday, September 28, 2006

...truer words....

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

....the wit & wisdom of Jay Leno

"Oil has fallen to $60 a barrel. Experts predict it will continue to fall until exactly one minute after the polls close on November 7th."
- Jay Leno, during a Tonight Show monologue

I think that the man is right about that, but it remains to be seen. Gas prices are as low as they have been in recent memory, (about a year for me), and seem to be dropping still, albeit incrementally. The reaction from the driving public appears to be a huge sigh of relief, but I have to believe that it will not last.

When/if prices go up again, ask yourself why it is happening. To be sure, the oil producing states that don't like us have a little to do with it, but not as much as one might imagine, (particularly when one is angry at one thing or another---or even quite a few 'single' things).

The price of oil is largely controlled by the large cartels that profit from it, encouraged by some governments, and simply not spoken about by others. The relief that we are seeing today is more of a reaction to the bad economic news and the danger to the party in power that public sentiment seems to portend. When that danger passes, (or comes to pass), that incentive to keep the public at bay will no longer exist and those concerns will be free to do what they will.

I offer this as an observation, and as an experiment of sorts. The relationship between the date of our elections and the new rise in gas prices will demonstrate to some degree the influence that these unseen hands have on our lives. Think about that. Whatever your opinion, it is an important factor to consider.






Did you ever, during the 90's, think that prices like these were a cause for celebration?

Stay focused.


Tuesday, September 26, 2006

not much new happening

There seems to be a bit of finger pointing and name calling going on between the former President, Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Condi Rice. Clinton is claiming that he did all that he could to reign in bin Laden and al-Quaida during his term and that the current administration did little until the cold realities of 9/11 struck. The Secretary of State disputes those charges, and notes that the Bush administration had done "as least as much" as the Clinton regime prior to 9/11.

Read it here.

That is all well and good, but it really sounds a bit like "we are all taking a break from campaigning today, so we will sling a little mud and engage in some light "did not - did so" stuff and then pick up later.

There is enough blame in this to go around. And the expectations that we have of the government are exceedingly high in this regard. There are some things that simply cannot be done within the bounds that we the people and the world establish as norms of governmental behavior. Read this from the Delco Times.

Stay focused.

Saturday, September 23, 2006

that's not funny, that's prophetic!

A friend of mine sent this to me this past week, a link to an article on The Onion, (imho, one of the best satire sites going). Take a quick look at this, and see just how true it turned out to be. (And this was pre 9/11 to boot).

The New York Times reports that the GOP plans to stress how much has changed from the Clinton era. I hope that they do, but wonder if Joe/Josephine Voter will see the forest for all the damn trees.

Folks, it is clear to me that we need a change, and the sooner the better. The party of the Jackass is no prize, but nonetheless, the simple act of turning things over in the Congress and White House will do some good. Then it will be time to throw them out, and go for a reform effort.

Stay focused.

Friday, September 22, 2006

it's an everyday thing

We need to be vigilant, each and every day.

How's that for a manic-paranoid conversation starter?

I see in the news that the IRS is investigating an Episcopal Church in Pasadena, CA over a sermon delivered by a guest pastor two days prior to the election in 2004. The sermon was unequivocally opposed to the war in Iraq, and is being viewed by the IRS as an abuse by the church of its tax-exempt status. Keep in mind that the sermon endorsed no candidate or party, but attempted to put the debate over the war in the frame of its own perspective.

Apparently, that is a no-no.

Now had they talked about real important issues, such as abortion or gay marriage, (naturally, in the correct perspective), that would have been OK, as it is speech protected by the Constitution, and even encouraged by the party-in-power. Just can't talk about anything that runs counter to the parties position. Read about it here.

So much for the first amendment.

This is not new. The Clinton administration pulled some of this as well, but stopped short of attempting to pull a tax-exempt status from an organization. This is NOT an example of some monolithic Republican conspiracy, it is a demonstration of the axiom that any bureaucracy will become self-sustaining and put its own survival ahead of all other interests.

so there.

But since I am on the religion kick, I would like to point out that a faction of American Christianity appears to be trying to establish itself as a class in itself. The FOX media organization is establishing a separate division to supply media and entertainment to this sub-demographic group, possibly in the same way that it now provides 'fair & balanced' news reporting and common sense editorials, also aimed at that particular segment of the population.

Better watch out, in the same way that the iPod became the darling of personal music players, FOX could be seen as the voice of the average American. All in the marketing.

And who is this demographic? I can't really say, but the same group that FOX is pandering, eh, marketing to is also awash in a new theology of success. You can read a bit about it here.

Apparently its OK to be real well off, it is seen (once again) as a sign of God's approval. And if you are not one of those blessed successful types? Fear not, help is only a donation and/or subscription away.

We are awash in answers to questions that many of us haven't posed yet, (or, already had answered). Stay focused. Keep an open mind, these people are not wrong, but they are also not 100%, the be all and end all of right either.

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Ok, so let's see how this will affect our moral standing

The President and the so-called 'rebels' in the GOP have reached a deal on the treatment of detainees in the war on terror. Just what the deal entails, or how it will be seen by the party in opposition remains to be seen.

You can read about it here and here.

Funny how the real big issues tend to melt away in an election year.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

The truth according to me

So, what is the role of faith in our society, What should it be?

I use the term faith because it lends itself to my own beliefs far better than the term religion, which, to me, is the bureaucratic and dogmatic structure of a widely held belief system. Nothing wrong with that mind you, as one does tend to lead to another, but at what point does the cart begin to lead the horse?

The value of faith, or religion is in what it does for you, the individual, and you alone. It is OK to share the experience, (I irreverently liken it to passing a j, eh, cigarette), but it has no value when used as a means of regulation or coersion. Its value to society is in how it empowers the individual to fruitful thought, word and deed. Period.

We live in a society that likes to call itself plural or secular, but the truth is, we don't. The tradition that governs our legal system and the logic that we apply to our body of case law is
firmly rooted in the Bible, in what is commonly called the Old Testamant. That's right, we are all Hebrew's (or Hebrew wannabe's). I would not advocate changing that for one second,
as it has served us well, and, can be dressed up in many ways to suit those who cannot think of our heritage as being basically Jewish. (Some take some comfort in the term Judeo-Christian ----- kinda like adding "...and the Pips").

The logic that built our business laws, the codes of conduct that we call criminal law tends to wrestle with issues, often swinging in widely disparate directions before finally finding equilibrium. Many have no patience for this, and it leads them to a state of apathy. Others have no patience, and it leads them to a state of seemingly manic zealotry for whatever the
cause or issue. Both of those conditions, (while less than ideal), are OK because they tend to balance each other out. There is often injustice while things work themselves out, and the
process of adjudicating these things is at best frustrating, but they do find balance. (In another arena, it is called "letting the market sort things out"). We find turmoil when any man or
woman, or any group of some ideological stripe attempts to impose some form of order on the rest, in the name of <>.

In my respectful opinion, it is good that government borrows from the deeply held beliefs and traditions that bind us together, but only to the extent that it does not exclude other traditions from being recognized, observed, and sometimes assimilated. The tradition, (if it can be called that), that binds zealots of all persuasions together is a universal intolerance for anything but
thier own version of the truth. It can be found as a subset of Christianity, (see the Inquistion, the Crusades, Prohibition, the rise of the religious right and the Rosie O'Donnell episode
referenced in the previous post), in Islam, (see Taliban, Iran, Khomeini and al Quaida) and in the Jewish community, (see Zionism), as well as in politics, (again, see the video referenced
in the last post), in business and in social groups.

I don't know how to defeat that, save to render it irrelevant, and I am not sure that we are big enough as a people to pull that off. In the mean time, we need to judge our associations and
relationships, social, political, religious by the effect that they have on the community and the people around them.

Nothing like a little public discourse

There are quite a few news stories out there that are directly tied to religion or religious affiliation of one stripe or another. I have about fifteen minutes and room for a couple of paragraphs, so I thought I would clear it all up for you.


................. just kidding.

First, the Pope has created some controversy in the Islamic world by citing a medieval document that called the teachings of the Prophet evil and inhumane. Right now, stories abound on the internet, mostly reporting the shock and anger of the Islamic world, as well as a few rather weak disclaimers from the Vatican.

This may be one of those cases where the perceiption of the Pope's meaning is hitting rather close to home for many people. What he actually meant is anyones guess at this point. The gist of the speech referenced the interpretation of the prophets teachings that Islam is to be spread by force. The Islamic world seems to suffer from the same malady that many Christian sects do, specifically having skin too thin to withstand even the possibility of that someone else does not share their views. One of the points that the Pope made that did not make headlines was that Islam needs to show the same respect to Christianity that it expects from it. In all fairness though, the Christian world needs to take a cue from the late Pope John Paul II, and speak in support of the things that bind us, while studiously ignoring those articles of faith that can divide us.

No matter what the Pope said or meant, the aftermath seems to speak for itself. Read about it practically anywhere. Or here, here, and here.

Then there is the turmoil in the Christian world.

Rosie O'Donnell made headlines this week when she compared 'radical Christianity' in this country to 'radical Islam' in the mideast. The comment was immediately vilified by certain spokesmen for the Christian movement.

You can see a video from MSNBC here.

Note please, that this is a long video as these things go, and that this is on the internet equivilent of talk radio. I will let you draw whatever conclusion you like from it, (like you wouldn't anyway...).

The role of Christianity in American politics is well known and documented, and, I am sure we all have opinions, one way or another, to one degree or another, and I don't expect that will change in the near future.

My point is that Ms O'Donnell's point was twisted and torqued from the get go. Agree with it or not, she specifically noted that "radical Christianity was as much of a threat in the U.S. as radical Islam is in the mideast". The operative term here is threat. The guy from MSNBC then proceeded to paint all Christians, (he termed them as "followers of Jesus Christ"), with the same brush, (implicating that they were a threat to our way of life), thus starting the fire, and then prodding a couple of guests to throw emotional gasoline on the flames.

Like the reaction in the Islamic world to a percieved slight, (whether it be the Pope's recent remarks or editorial cartoons in a Danish newspaper), the very notion of an insult to Christianity, (not an insult, just the possibility that there might have been one) provoked a reaction that was almost off the map, even for the realm of talk radio/internet video. The attitude that is on display from all camps in these incidents is pretty much the same--that their view of things is sacrosanct and above critique or reproach from any quarter, and anyone crossing that line is evil and unworthy of any consideration.

Then MSNBC--God Bless em!--focuses on the moral equivilence issue. What bearing dos this have on anything? It was established that al Quaida killed almost 3000 people on 9/11, and the radical Christians haven't yet killed that many people, so they are clearly not as bad. That is like saying that if Hitler had only killed a million Jews, he would not be nearly as evil. The issue that was danced around on the video is where is the line drawn?

In my mind, even one death or abuse by al Quaida or the KKK or the Christian Right, or PETA, or the NRA or the PTA, or whoever is too many. The idea that any individual can be justifiably deprived of life and basic human dignity for not adhering to or showing sufficient respect for any cause is revolting. That is not to say that it does not happen in an imperfect world, or, in some cases, that the deaths serve a higher purpose, (I am thinking specifically about death in a military conflict), it sometimes happens, but it is, nonetheless, an attrocity against all of us.

Monday, September 18, 2006

Saturday, September 16, 2006

One or Two Things to (NOT) think about

9/11 seems almost synonymous with the word terrorism, (and with good reason). But 9/11 is not the entire story. Does anyone recall the anthrax incidents of 2001? Do we ever hear about the progress being made on these cases?

I have to wonder about that. Is there more to the informational vacuum than the feds just don't have a clue?

Truth is, we as individuals have no way of knowing, but it is a pretty good bet that the issue has dropped off our collective radar. I will thank a commenter, JB, for bringing it back up.

In the late 1980's, I worked in an urban environment, was deskbound for the most part, and like many others in similar circumstances, I listened to a lot of radio, (when I could), and read the daily papers as well as any other periodicals that I could get my hands on, (usually for free). I recall reading a news story regarding a protest regarding the rights of AIDS patients. The article interviewed a man who seemed quite stable, (not prone to shouting out damnation and backing it with quotes from Leviticus), and he spoke at length about HIV, and how the virus had been observed in laboratory conditions to be mutating into a form that would allow it to be air borne, (that is, passed from human to human without sexual contact). That notion startled me, and I kept looking for more information, but that was the last that I saw of that issue. My impression at the time was that somebody got to the man, and shut him up.

I bring that anecdote up because it illustrates that sometimes, things just seem to go away.

The anthrax story is another example, although it still gets some coverage by independents on the internet.

But why is the government not keeping us up on this? Is it possible that they really have no clue, or is it a case where solving the case creates more problems than it cures?

If I were following up on this, I believe I would first check on the suspects, (are they still living, and if so, where?). I would also check up on the current status of 'research' in that particular field, (not that one would ever get anywhere with these questions), and finally, I would inquire about any similar incidents, wordwide, since 9/11.

You can read a little about the anthrax incidents here and here.

It might be that there was little drama attached to these actions, and thus, they did not get a large audience from the get-go. But I have to say that the basence of news here is almost deafening.

There used to be a game show called "Who Do You Trust?". That is a very good question.

Who can we trust?

A dog that can read

Friday, September 15, 2006

A little something to start your weekend

This is for those old enough to remember the song.

It got quite a bit of radio play in its day, may even have been on the family TV show.

Enjoy.

Comment.

Have a good weekend.

Thursday, September 14, 2006

Just what we need to hear this week

Aside from the usual barrage of opinions and news tidbits, from time to time we see articles of one stripe or another that, without taking a position, or even mentioning an issue, will color our thinking in some significant but indirect way. This is a powerful form of literature/journalism, and it has been employed for centuries. Some written works, (Charles Dicken's novels, the commentaries of Mark Twain and Eric Blair--writing as George Orwell, as well as Hitler's Mein Kampf, stand out), when seen in the context of the times that they were written and read in, are greatly elevated in their significance.

In the 21st century, in the age of instant information and issues whose lives are measured sometimes in days or hours, we have the internet and a plethora of printed periodicals whose writings lend guidance to out thoughts, by giving us factual information, interpretations of events and trends, or by shifting the perceiption of those in some way or another. These are the literature of our era. The value of books, novels, essays and treatises produced this year cannot be fairly judged for a long time. These things take time to research and produce, they cannot keep pace with the times that we live in.

With that in mind, I offer these articles that appeared in Slate, the online news and commentary site.


1) How To Survive a Nuclear Bomb

Just thinking through this scenario will intellectually and emotionally link to our impressions of world events, and possibly influence our reactions to the information we ingest and digest.

2) How To Survive the Avian Flu, Smallpox, or Plague

This article will also influence or perceiptions and possibly reactions to events, but in a different way. There is no intellectual illusion of a solution to that problem, only the omniscient probability of its coming to pass, therefore it will tend to ratchet up tensions and emotions in all other issues that we as individuals and as a society deal with.

3) How To Survive an Earthquake

This article will have a similar effect, albeit not quite as much owing to the fact that this is not new, or hitherto unexperienced. Most of us figure that we will roll with the punches and see what happens next.


The first of these, while informational and probably true, will have a tendency to color our thinking on current events. The second and third, while related, do not have the impact in our world that the first does. This is not to assign any motivations to the publishers, it is simply to note that our thinking might be temporarily or permanently affected, (temporarily = until we take in other information to reinforce previously held views, thus negating the attitudinal shift or new information that shifts thinking in another direction).

The presentation of these topics, the timing and the venue may serve some motive that is not immediately clear, or not. The relevance of these articles to anything in particular is also unclear.


I am going shopping now, to stock up on potassium iodine pills.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Just a small demonstration of character



If you see this guy, consider lobbing a neutron bomb at him, or possibly firing a conventional-warhead equipped Trident D2 missile at his house.

This is Michael Wynne, the Secretary of the Air Force who yesterday advocated using certain new, non-lethal, ( whew! ) weaponry on U.S. citizens before turning it loose on peoples overseas, in order, you know, to avoid criticism.

Read about it here.

Actually, the notion has some precedent. Our government was overthrown by belligerent ideologues with no respect for established law before we sent troops to Iraq to do the same thing.

You know, it was just a matter of time before the closing of those secret prisons and the cessation of torture would catch up with us.

Now we are to be the guinea pigs for the Pentagon's new toys.

The Tipping Point

Two news reports caught my eye yesterday, one regarded the current war in Iraq, the other, the state of the war on the Taliban in Pakistan. Neither was encouraging. It appears that one province in Iraq is all but lost. A report to the Pentagon from the top Marine officer in the zone notes that the coalition forces are not defeated militarily, but are all but defeated politically---in other words, the battle for the hearts and minds of the locals has been won by the Islamic insurgency. This is bad news for the coalition. No deadlines have yet been set by anyone, but the impending resignation of Tony Blair in the UK tells me that the Brits will be pulling out shortly thereafter, and with them I suspect the Canadians and Australians as well.

We will be at war alone, without support from our erstwhile friends or the indigenous peoples of that country. (I am hesitant to say Vietnam here...).

The other report concerned the areas of Pakistan that border Afghanistan, and are thoughtto harbor bin Laden and other noteworthy targets. The trouble with these areas is that even Pakistan does not hold sway with these people, they are Islamic to the core and loyalto those who serve their needs, namely, the Taliban and al-Quaida, whose stated aims andmodus operandi happen to adhere to the standards of the region. Coalition troops cannot enter these areas as the presence of any non-Muslim troops might cause a backlash that would throw the (relatively) moderate regime (a military dictatorship), out on its collective ass, leaving the government of that country, its army and weapons capable infratructure in the hands of those that we cannot abide.

This is not encouraging. There are those in the media who take a different view of things, and I worry that they may have the ear of those who are actually running things. Here is a good example. These people take the position that what we have done up to this point is failing, so lets keep doing it, and do more of it.

What seems to be developing in the region is the emergence of an Islamist caliphate regime , centered in Iran, and stretching from India on the east, to Lebanon on the Mediteranean sea. If this comes to fruition, it will be difficult for Saudi Arabia to remain neutral towards the west. If it falls, then Egypt and North Africa will follow. Let me say that it is my sincere hope that this can be avoided, but the cost of stopping that development now seems almost unthinkably high. If events continue to spiral in the manner that they are today, what will be the end of it?

In the past few weeks there has been a lot of talk about a lot of things military, missile defense, using refitted submarine launched ICBM's against terrorist targets, the need todeny nuclear weapons to the extremist factions in the region, the sale of new submarines to Iran by Germany, (with allies like that, why do we need enemies?....). A military action will not solve this problem. Our coalition has to sell itself to the peoples of the region as something besides "crusaders". Our troops should be educated in the customs and practicesof the region, and should be understanding orders to respect those traditions. Women should not be permitted on Islamic soil. That is contrary to our way of seeing things, (at least to the letter of our laws), but we are trying to convince them, not ourselves. And we should be putting much more materials and time into relief efforts, tangible things that can build a level of trust. That notion may not be realistic, at least in the minds of those who manage the military, but the alternative appears to be alot worse.

The Tipping Point, part 2

We need to ask a few hard questions of our political and through them, our military leadership. I have no illusions that anyone with any authority or power in government is looking at a free blog written by a disaffected voter, but, I suppose anything is possible. I am going to list a few questions in no particular order.

a) What do we hope to accomplish with a 'victory' in Iraq? What will the government and social structure of the country look like?

b) What are the benefits to us, and to the world at large, of such a victory? What arethe consequences of not achieving that goal?

c) How can our military forces become more effective at both routing the insurgency and cultivating a positive impression in the eyes of the people in the war zone?

d) What are the dangers to the American people of continuing to prosecute this war?

e) What is the Congress and the President willing to do to win? How will our civil liberties be protected? If the American people must individually bear the cost of thisaction, what safeguards will be put in place, what steps taken to relieve these burdens when the need passes; how is that point defined?


Right now, this is not a Democrat vs Republican issue. There is much blame to lay at the feet of the current administration, but by no means all of it. The Bush administrationis simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. True, they are zealots with a far too simplistic view of things, and priorities that put the hoarding and preservation of wealth and advantage in the hands of the few ahead of all other things, but this situation has been coming for a long time, decades or even centuries. Blame them for ignoring it, or not recognizing it, underestimating it, or even for attempting to manipulate it for other ends, but they certainly did not create it.

The issue is who will best address this situation, and act to both remedy the inequities of the past, and to build a stable framework for the future. That is a nice neat little phrase, you might hear it or something close to it in one or more campaign speeches over the next few years, but actually putting such an initiative in place will be complicated and ugly. It will require leaders whose integrity is unimpugned, who have the trust and confidence of those that they represent.

We will have an opportunity in a few months to make our voices heard.

Please do.

Do NOT assume that the party in power will be ousted, they are more durable than you think. Do NOT assume that they are safe either, nobody knows until the votes are counted. Use your intuition and judgement, (you can't go by what is said and how it is said in a campaign). If you are happy with the way things are, support those who brought you here. If not, then get somebody else.

It really is up to you.

Monday, September 11, 2006

9/12

Well, we have been through the anniversary now, and have seen the politicization, the polarizing commentary, and, thankfully, those editorialists who seek to find the common ground among us and build on it.

I am glad that Sept 11th has come and past. I grieve for the lost, and offer my sincere condolences to those families who have lost a loved one, on that day, or those days before or after 9/11.

What did you think of the days observations?

As far as I can tell, ABC's much discussed docu-drama came in second behind the NFL. I don't know what to make of that, whether we are moving on, exercising rational discrimination towards a slightly skewed version of a still-ongoing news story, or are simply burned out--overloaded with factoids and information bits and bites, but very little hard news. People naturally gravitate towards ideologies in times of uncertainty, and the barrage of information that we get day in and day out certainly creates an enormous sense of uncertainty. Who and what does one believe?

I happened across this blog and this article while taking my evening stroll through the blogsphere. Talk about uncertainty! I think that a lack of communications skills may be at the heart of a lot of what I am talking about here, (but it is hard to communicate while talking out of both sides of the mouth...). First we are not at war, and need to go about our normal lives, then, we are at war, and need to stay the course.

I feel slightly empty right now, in terms of any more things to say, so I will simply call on all voters, (either of you reading this), to get out and hold your candidates to account. Formulate two short but direct questions, (a primary and a backup). Ask or email your candidates, and see what they say. Those fit to lead will offer a factual answer in a paragraph or less.

Stay focused.




I may consider certain requests for background tunes in coming days. Get em lined up!

Sunday, September 10, 2006

9/11

Today is likely to be a day of much commentary and expression of views. For that reason, I will stay out of the fray and leave the chatter to everyone else. No tune today, come back again tomorrow.

If you would like to share your own recollections of that day, please leave a comment. Where were you? How did you hear the news? How did things look different in your town afterwards?

Sunday Update

Tonight, ABC will air part 1 of a two-part miniseries called "The Path to 9/11". I will not watch. I consider myself to be fairly informed and already know what was in the Kean Report, I don't need to see it dramatized. In the last few days, since the stories began to break about certain inaccuarcies in the teleplay, much hyperbole and vitriol has surfaced, usually taking the form of the standard right or left wing view. It makes me wonder if the "news" was nothing more than a cheap advertising ploy by the network, designed to increase viewers, (even if the viewers are looking for that one little lie...). It is nearly impossible today to have a dialogue about anything without having it quickly degenerate to name calling and a circling of the partisan wagons.

As hard as it is to admit, the Bush administration is not completely wrong about everything, though the way that they process and filter information, and then jump to conclusions seems a bit ludicrous, (and I am being generous here). Across the fence, the loyal opposition is not often anything to brag about either. It seems that they, (like the US as a whole on so many fronts), are always in a reactive or defensive mode, jumping on every perceived misstep or verbal gaffe as evidence of incompetence. They never even attempt to build a case for their arguments, proceeding as though the logic of their position is infallible and above such things. Both sides first take and defend the party line, then probe outward towards the issues at hand.

Moving on.

Vide president Cheney today defended the war in Iraq, attempting to nullify the arguments that the data that the case for invasion was faulty or (possibly) contrived. He noted that it did not matter whether Saddam had WMD's or not, he had a record of barbarism against his people and a demonstrated willingness to use chemical and biological weapons in the field.

So what?

I think Saddam is a low level scumbag, but he mistreated only his own people, (and, on some occasions, a few Iranians). As crass as it sounds, it is up to them to defend themselves and to overthrow the regime that oppresses them. The situation we have today is not a lot better for the Iraqi people, and a lot worse for us. Saddam kept Iran in check, (so we don't have to); the best we can hope for now is the imposition of a new militarist regime in Iraq that is opposed to Iran's dominance. Fat chance.

These arguments fail to differentiate between the war on terror and the war in Iraq. Many see them as being the same thing, but they are not. Were the war in Iraq to end today, with an outcome favorable to the administration, I fear that the legitimate war on terrorism would suddenly become a null issue, much to our detriment.

On an different, but slightly related front, Ynet, a Jewish daily published this report. The gist of the article is that the PM of Israel as well as the Palestinian leader are in a position now of mutual dependence, and that the opportunities to advance the peace process between Israel and Palestine are now as ripe as thay have been.

A peace between the Palestinians and Israeli's would go a long way towards defusing much of the tension and motivation to violence in the Islamic world. I wonder if the U.S., the U.N., the European Union and the other interested economic/political entities in the world would actively support such a peace were it to be agreed upon. This situation will not end with a treaty, it will require support and nurture for a long time, (if for no other reason than to negate the efforts of those opposed to Israel at all costs to undermine such an arrangement).

OK, would one of either of you reading this comment some time? Its lonely typing all this stuff and watching it disappear into the black hole of cyberspace.


update: As I type this, the President & Mrs. Bush are laying a wreath at 'Ground Zero', in commemoration of the anniversary of the attacks. They are accompanied by all manner of dignitaries. I cannot help but notice that all are Republican.

Nothing is sacred. There is nothing that will not be exploited for partisan advantage, (by all sides). I have no confidence in our leaders, or the system that produces them.

Through that, I will try to:

stay focused.

Friday, September 08, 2006

it's like a buffet table, loaded down with ..... nothing

I saw a TV commercial last night, for a gentleman who is seeking re-election to the U.S. Senate. The man was dressed in jeans and an open collared shirt, smiling (naturally), and displaying a "isn't this cool" kind of demeanor while he recited a fast paced paragraph that was supposed to sound like a list of accomplishments, but was in fact, a load of aural paper mache', (aren't you impressed that I didn't say BULLSHIT!) designed to fool the mind for the duration of the 30 second spot.

I expected no less from this candidate, whose chief credential is that he is a member of the party in power, hasn't been convicted of anything, and sends an email newsletter regularly.

This commercial highlighted the fact that the Senator was tough on internet porn and its availability to minors, (yeah, I've seen a real drop in porn-related spam, pop-ups & etc), tax relief, (robbing from the poor and as yet unborn to revieve the rich), bankruptcy reform, (a HUGE act of judicial fiat from those who would reign in the power of the court system), and energy independence, (drilling for oil in ANWR--just in time too, BP might not have had anything to spill had it not been for this guy). This guy also specifically opposed the net neutrality amendment to the telecomm act, (he benefits greatly from AT&T and Verizon). What a joke.

What depresses me is that his opponent, (who I am not crazy about, but has the dubious virtue of not being the incumbent) has yet to show up and say anything, let alone anything substantive. I am hoping that when that finally happens, (money is an issue, according to published reports, the incumbent is funded about five times what the challenger is), I hope to hear something besides the standard party line of the jackass party, but I am keeping my fingers crossed).

What is a voter to do?

Everybody is getting into the act

Even bin Laden, the guy we are supposed to hate most n the world, (if you except the others, like John Kerry or W, or the domestic Villian of the Week....). Al Jazeera claims to have a 90 minute tape of the dude showing him actually plotting the 9/11 attacks, and meeting with some or all of the hijackers at some indeterminate location.

He's baiting us, trying to goad us into deeper (or wider) military action. Osama himself has become expendable, his greatest value would be as a martyr whose life was lost in a fight with the American crusaders. At all costs, he must be denied that role.

The president made a speech yesterday regarding (of all things) the war on terror, but he said nothing new, (his tone however was more somber, persuasive if you will). He still does not have it right though. Guns, bombs, helicopters and soldiers will not win this war. He need to take the lead in winning the hearst and minds of those people whose lives and communities breed the hatred that drives terrorism. Until that point sinks in, the war is just so much headline fodder.

Thursday, September 07, 2006

there is no relief from the bullshit

There is a news report today regarding a 'docu-drama' that ABC will air this weekend about the 9/11 tragedy. The gist of the reports is that the production takes way too many liberties with certain facts, circumstances and even events to create an impression that the Bill Clinton administration failed to heed the 'writing on the wall', and it is said that the production leaves a viewer with the impression that any blame for the tragedy should fall on administrations the preceeded the GW Bush administration, (yeah, you know who I mean, and they bring first bimbo Monica into the scenario too).

It is noted that ABC has distributed advance copies of the production to various Republican leaning pundits, Rush Limbaugh among them, but declined to allow the former President or any Democratic leaning journalists to see the program.

Is this an effort to shape public opinion, to shift some (or all) of the blame away from the party in power prior to a pivotal election? As much as I loathe falling into the conspiracy trap, I have to say that I believe so. Too many things in our world are distorted in very subtle ways, and what worries me is that these distortions almost inevitably confer advantage to the party in power. The truth is what they say it is.

Read and watch these reports and videos for yourself; if you watch the drama try to note any inconsistencies between the TV program and what you know or believe.

update: add this NY Times article, and this from the Chicago Tribune, (they think it's a stinker).

Vote.

and stay focused.


update: see this story regarding ABC's reaction to the protest of this production. By some accounts, ABC is editing the series, by others, it may be pulled altogether.

what useful information can be gleaned from this kind of thing? to be sure, we can see that TV and other forms of mass-market media are used as the tools of one side or another in any given debate, but what does this all say about the culture that we live in? is the U.S. simply a Potempkin village, an illusion maintained to keep the natives docile? do we, as individuals, as voters, know what reality is? do our leaders?

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

another casualty in the war on terror

Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of Great Britain is under a great deal of pressure from within his own Labour Party to resign his post well before his term expires in 2010 and before the local elections next May.

Whether or not that is a bellwether for the American administration remains to be seen, but it is clear that new leadership is required, (even if it comes from the sitting president or PM).

In a related front, the Bush administration has opened up a bit on a secret that everyone already knew, that the CIA has and is operating secret prisons abroad, and that the Guantanamo tribunals are about to resume. I believe this is simply one aspect of a multipoint strategy that will put a softer, more reasonable GOP up before the voters, while pulling unseen strings and levers to pull public opinion away from the hardcore 'dump the bastards' mentality.

On the election front here in the US of A, there is a rumor afloat the Joe Lieberman might be named as Secretary of Defense, succeeding Don Rumsfeld, who, as of today, had the Presidents complete confidence. (Having the Presidents complete confidence is as much of a political obituary as one is likely to find). The idea makes some sense, the confirmation battle would not be quite as bloody as it could be if a dyed-in-the-wool Republican was nominated for the post, and, it would not be the first time that Bush has selected an (apparently) washed up senator for his cabinet, (can you say 'Ashcroft'?). The rumor might also be Karl Rove's way of attempting to put a little spin on the Connecticutt senatorial race.

Stay focused.

Monday, September 04, 2006

ask yourself, why?

Always one to look a gift horse in the mouth, I ask myself why are gasoline prices dropping as they are? surely the world situation has not changed to the point that the supply is considered to be a bit more secure, so why the 20% drop in the last two weeks?

While I am at it, why are the financial markets making modest gains in the face of all the leading economic indicators looking so glum?

Why are we seeing fewer news reports about potential terrorist attacks, fewer overt threats from overseas, (the last video that appeared on al jazeera involved more prosletyzing than ennunciation of fatwa's...) and fewer dismal stories about how the war in Iraq goes and the general state of our military force?

Again, I ask why?

Because it is an election year.

I cannot help but believe that what we have here is an effort to mitigate some of those factors that might cost the party in power a good portion of their hegemony.

That notion in itself has a lot of ramifications, that I will avoid for now, but it does appear to me that strings are being pulled, favors called in or granted to keep the edge off things, thus antagonizing likely swing voters just a shade less. I believe that we will see a more restrained, (I hesitate to use the word sober) monologue coming from the White House and its various agencies regarding the war on terror, as well as a steady ratcheting of the national security issue, just to show us that the president is still at the wheel.

This is an unscientific way of seeing things, but if things go back to what we have come to expect come the week after the election, remember, I told you so.

Sunday, September 03, 2006

why, whoever would have thought such a thing?

The Washington Post reported that the IRS is not as likely to catch tax cheats of the wealthier variety, apparently due to the methodology that they use in these things.

Damn! Another bastion of democracy tumbles....

Beware of overconfidence

There is a lot of speculation on the upcoming elections, many headlines, blogs and websites have already ceded a takeover of the Congress (at least one side if not both) by the Democrats.

I hope so. I have noted on this page that real change occurs with a changing of the guard, during the tearing down of the old, but before the construction of the new same-old-sh_t. I would like to see some of that this year.

On the other hand, in the media rich environment that we live in, this could backfire. More than just a few voters get their news and opinions from the news, and not just in an uptake sort of way. To many, to see something printed in the paper (or on TV, or the internet) as an almost foregone conclusion will cause them to rebel, and vote their own noses off, just to spite the media.

Just a thought there.

My prediction (and fear) is that the Dem's will once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by running on the platform that "we're not the Republicans". Can you say B_F_D_? It is high time that the party of jackasses distinguish themselves in a meaningful way from the party of the pachyderms. It won't take much, it needs to be short, coherent and rational. That's the part that scares me.

as yet untitled

Saw a news report this morning regarding a new, (and from what I understand, somewhat pre-hyped), video has surfaced that features an ex-patriate American exhorting soldiers to quit the losing side and join with the Islamists in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. The video also invites Americans to either convert to Islam or to withdraw, and to keep our 'poison' from the world.

It made me wonder what we are up against.

I will say, without reservation, that the tone of the prosletyzing sounded a lot like what I can get here at home, from the various evangelists in the media and in various churches. Nothing really wrong with that, it is good to be adamant about ones faith, and to act on it with bravado. I am going to stop right there for now, but I wonder, is that what all of this is about?

The short answer is, I don't think so, but there are some marked similarities.

Here in our own little cultural cocoon, the publicized religious instruction/comentary and what have you is strictly about power and influence, the ends to which these means are to be employed is not always clear. It seems that might be at least partially the case in the mideast as well, although wealth and international influence are also at play, owing to the regions reserve of hydrocarbons.

It sometimes appears that faith in ones own abilities and interpretations of scripture and history seem to play an occasional role in the domestic religious agenda----once these people gain adequate influence and/or power, they will set things right, to the benefit of all. At other times, the acquisition of wealth seems to be a motivator; (at least that is fairly easily recognized, understood and dealt with). But what of the situation in the mideast? we as a people tend to see things in both black and white and monolithic terms, in other words, we tend to lump all of Islam into the same bucket, and judge it by our own experience and interpretation of truth, but I think we are short-changing ourselves here.

I have often accused our political leadership of being woefully ignorant of the ways of the world, (particularly this part of the world), but at this moment, I realize that my base of knowledge is not too much better. In coming week, I wil try to rectify that somewhat.

Does anyone have a comment on this, or possibly some knowledge of Islam and how it relates to terrorism and the current war?

Is there a unified front to the Islamic threat that we face? Or, are we fighting a series of smaller skirmishes with a factionalized enemy, with slightly differing or even competing agendas? Are we at war with a belief system, or with the perceiption of wrongs committed against them? Is it possible to be accepted for what we are, (and conversely, can we accept them), rather than as an infidel whose ways are to be changed?

These are questions that are larger than I am, but it seems incumbent on me, as well as us, to try to grapple with them, before we leap to conclusions about this war and how it should end.

well, we are in it now

And what is it?

Election season. For the next two months or so, we will see copious ad's in all mediums, BS in every conceivable corner of our collective consciousness, as well as a general drift away from specific issues into soft and largely undefined clouds of ideological bliss.

Stay focused.

Make a point of attending at least one appearance of a Congressiona or Senatorial candidate and have a question ready, just in case. Embarass them with the basics, try to get a specific answer to a simple question, and if you don't, then follow it up. Illuminate your candidates level of awareness, not the actual question or answer.

At the very least it will be entertaining, at best you might put them into a media spotlight that will cost a good portion of their PAC money to get out of.

Have a nice day.