There's a story the mainstream media loves to tell to illustrate housing bubble follies, and it goes a little somethin' like this:
Family sees friends' fancy house and fancy cars and buys matching toys without the income to back it up. Banks avert their eyes, lend the money. Family's debts come due and they opt to refinance to put the bill on the house, which eliminates their easily earned equity. Banks avert their eyes, lend the money. Housing market crashes. Family freaks out. So does the bank. Mayhem ensues.
(Maybe you know someone who fell into a similar trap. Maybe you find parts of your own story above. Don't be embarrassed.)
Turns out, the early part of this decade saw plenty of Americans crash and burn in such a way. (Other families, those whose income actually did grow to match their expenses, those folks landed softly, as per their plan, but they don't get a lot of play in the national media.) A good chunk of Americans got foreclosed on or had to declare bankruptcy or sold their homes at a six-figure loss. Lots of people got burned whether they "deserved" it or not. Which is a great topic for a future post.
The economic pain is ongoing. too: just pick up a newspaper, while you still can, and read five stories about how the economy is ruining dreams.
But you've heard all this before... what might not be clear yet is that we're pursuing a similar strategy on a national level.
We, the family U.S.A., owe an unconscionable sum to lenders. It's an unfathomable figure, but I'll link to it anyway. I refuse to type it. It's bigger now than when I typed the final "e" of the word that ends this sentence. (I just re-read that, and that's a pretty nifty mind trick, if I say so myself.)
Anyway, not only do we owe enough money to dedicate about $450 billion this year to INTEREST payments on that debt, but our annual pay. i.e., tax revenue, is inconveniently shrinking. You might have noticed we are in a steep recession. Just FYI.
So, because cause and effect are very real forces, our family is projected to be over $1.75 trillion in the hole this year. Reagan, Daddy Bush and Bushito were immorally careless to the tune of $8 trillion combined, but that nation-crippling project took them 20 years. (And they had to work around Bill Clinton's annoying penchant for balancing the budget.) Obama is shattering some hideous records here at a frightening pace. 1.75 trillion this year, maybe over a trillion again next year.
But if rosier times ARE around the corner, if health care reform passes and rescues countless households, if the giga-stimulus stops the bleeding, if home prices ever bounce back, if the stock market slowly but surely gets back on its horse, if consumer confidence rebounds soon enough, then we, the family U.S.A., could avoid forecluptcy at the hands of our creditors. And bankrosure, too, we could avoid that too.
In fact, not only could we emerge from Obama's presidency in a healthier, greener, energy-independentier lifestyle, but the long-term dividends from such moves could far eclipse our deficits this year and next. We could reverse the course set by so many shortsighted "leaders."
And that's Obama's bet. He's said to be a fair poker player; he's preparing to put us all in. Let's hope, for our kids' sake, that our hand is good enough.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Michael Vick: Not in my doghouse / 5-21-09
Just in case you've been living at 123 Subterranean Ave., Underrock, Earth (ZIP code: -83686), you'll be pleased/aggrieved to learn that Mike Vick is out of the slammer. Yeah, the guy who used to be the NFL's next big thing, the guy who was supposed to revolutionize the QB position, the best thing since high fructose corn syrup, the guy on the cover of Madden 2004, that guy. He got out on Wednesday.
"Didn't he just serve time for running a cockfighting ring?"
It was dogfighting. But close enough. He just completed a relaxing 19-month stint at Leavenworth. The one in Kansas, where the federal pen is. Not the German-themed tourist trap in Central Washington. (Though there are striking similarities.)
So the guy's a gifted athlete. He's a free agent. Emphasis on free. But NFL commissioner Roger Goodell is certain to place certain, um, conditions on his return to the league. You might say, tastelessly, that Michael Vick has been (ahem) put on a short leash.
Where does he land? The Raiders have a reputation for signing players with checkered pasts. The Seahawks' new head coach was Vick's coach in Atlanta. The Falcons' fan base still has feelings for him.
Well, let's kick it off at home: Michael Vick has an exactly 0.0 percent chance of landing in Seattle. This region is known for its lovery of dogs. ("Love" was just too weak of a word, it needed a suffix or two.) Seattle has the highest rate of dog treat bakeries per capita in the nation. Not. Happ. Ening. There would be a revolt.
My personal opinion is that a team will take a chance on him. He's too explosive of a talent for EVERYONE to pass on him. And there are too few good QB's in the league as it is. Or someone will plug him in at receiver or kick returner. (New England. Minnesota. Chicago. Jacksonville. Miami. One of those places. For what it's worth.)
And swiftly, he'll screw it up somehow. Vick's a classic knucklehead: he was busted for pot possession AFTER being hit with the dogfighting charges. You know me, I'm enthusiastically in favor of legalizing pot. But it takes a special kind of stupid to tempt fate by lighting up while awaiting other charges. And there's no indication he would have stopped with the caninicide anytime soon. Any regret, any remorse he expressed at sentencing -- or since -- is purely due to his getting caught, not a product of his conscience.
He'll last a year or so. Then a DUI or an assault charge will do him in. And we'll remember him as a flash-in-the-pan, when he could have been so much more.
"Didn't he just serve time for running a cockfighting ring?"
It was dogfighting. But close enough. He just completed a relaxing 19-month stint at Leavenworth. The one in Kansas, where the federal pen is. Not the German-themed tourist trap in Central Washington. (Though there are striking similarities.)
So the guy's a gifted athlete. He's a free agent. Emphasis on free. But NFL commissioner Roger Goodell is certain to place certain, um, conditions on his return to the league. You might say, tastelessly, that Michael Vick has been (ahem) put on a short leash.
Where does he land? The Raiders have a reputation for signing players with checkered pasts. The Seahawks' new head coach was Vick's coach in Atlanta. The Falcons' fan base still has feelings for him.
Well, let's kick it off at home: Michael Vick has an exactly 0.0 percent chance of landing in Seattle. This region is known for its lovery of dogs. ("Love" was just too weak of a word, it needed a suffix or two.) Seattle has the highest rate of dog treat bakeries per capita in the nation. Not. Happ. Ening. There would be a revolt.
My personal opinion is that a team will take a chance on him. He's too explosive of a talent for EVERYONE to pass on him. And there are too few good QB's in the league as it is. Or someone will plug him in at receiver or kick returner. (New England. Minnesota. Chicago. Jacksonville. Miami. One of those places. For what it's worth.)
And swiftly, he'll screw it up somehow. Vick's a classic knucklehead: he was busted for pot possession AFTER being hit with the dogfighting charges. You know me, I'm enthusiastically in favor of legalizing pot. But it takes a special kind of stupid to tempt fate by lighting up while awaiting other charges. And there's no indication he would have stopped with the caninicide anytime soon. Any regret, any remorse he expressed at sentencing -- or since -- is purely due to his getting caught, not a product of his conscience.
He'll last a year or so. Then a DUI or an assault charge will do him in. And we'll remember him as a flash-in-the-pan, when he could have been so much more.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Park yer gun / 5-20-09
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Or:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Both are "official" versions of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (Perhaps you've heard of it.) Bonus trivia: there are two versions above because Congress passed the first, the states ratified the second.
Reasonable people disagree on the precise meaning of each term and each clause. If you're on the side that claims the Second Amendment gives ordinary citizens the right to have a gun or two or more, I have to give you your due and say that's a legitimate reading of the text. I mean, it DOES say "shall not be infringed" right after the part where it presumably grants people the right of gun ownership. I do have rudimentary literacy skills, and I'm not in complete denial.
Still, punctuation matters, and so I'd like to offer that the right to "keep and bear arms" is contingent on the necessity for a militia. (And a well-regulated one at that.) To be brief, the first 13 words matter as much as the last 14. Prove to me this country's security depends on a militia of private citizens, and I will drop all argument. Until then, I do NOT think the Second Amendment bestows on pretty much everyone the right to own a gun.
But again, you do have the words of the text on your side and all I have is interpretation, so I can't very well say you're definitively wrong.
OK, now that our detour is complete, let's get on with it: Both houses of Congress have now cleared the way for citizens to legally carry loaded and concealed firearms into national parks.
I should be more upset about this, but I'm not. I should be foaming at the mouth, enraged at the NRA's repugnant takeover of a supposedly Democratic-controlled legislative branch. Except I think it's good legislation, from a purely constitutional point of view, if you believe strongly in individual gun rights.
I think it's horrible legislation on its face, and it makes me more reluctant to take my family camping in a national park, but if you believe the Second Amendment provides rights, and if you think concealed weapons should be legal for qualifying Americans, then you kind of should not mess with that right.
Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn (yes, he's a Republican) snuck this in as an amendment to the hugely popular credit-card consumer rights bill that passed this past week; since President Obama insisted that the main bill get to him quickly, the Democratic congressional "leadership" elected to not start the whole process over again. Coburn brazenly said, on the Senate floor no less, that the move "isn't a gotcha amendment." Okay.
And existing state laws trump the new gun law, so there's always that to fall back on.
In the end, though, people will die as a result of this legislation. We'll see if that ends up mattering.
Or:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Both are "official" versions of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (Perhaps you've heard of it.) Bonus trivia: there are two versions above because Congress passed the first, the states ratified the second.
Reasonable people disagree on the precise meaning of each term and each clause. If you're on the side that claims the Second Amendment gives ordinary citizens the right to have a gun or two or more, I have to give you your due and say that's a legitimate reading of the text. I mean, it DOES say "shall not be infringed" right after the part where it presumably grants people the right of gun ownership. I do have rudimentary literacy skills, and I'm not in complete denial.
Still, punctuation matters, and so I'd like to offer that the right to "keep and bear arms" is contingent on the necessity for a militia. (And a well-regulated one at that.) To be brief, the first 13 words matter as much as the last 14. Prove to me this country's security depends on a militia of private citizens, and I will drop all argument. Until then, I do NOT think the Second Amendment bestows on pretty much everyone the right to own a gun.
But again, you do have the words of the text on your side and all I have is interpretation, so I can't very well say you're definitively wrong.
OK, now that our detour is complete, let's get on with it: Both houses of Congress have now cleared the way for citizens to legally carry loaded and concealed firearms into national parks.
I should be more upset about this, but I'm not. I should be foaming at the mouth, enraged at the NRA's repugnant takeover of a supposedly Democratic-controlled legislative branch. Except I think it's good legislation, from a purely constitutional point of view, if you believe strongly in individual gun rights.
I think it's horrible legislation on its face, and it makes me more reluctant to take my family camping in a national park, but if you believe the Second Amendment provides rights, and if you think concealed weapons should be legal for qualifying Americans, then you kind of should not mess with that right.
Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn (yes, he's a Republican) snuck this in as an amendment to the hugely popular credit-card consumer rights bill that passed this past week; since President Obama insisted that the main bill get to him quickly, the Democratic congressional "leadership" elected to not start the whole process over again. Coburn brazenly said, on the Senate floor no less, that the move "isn't a gotcha amendment." Okay.
And existing state laws trump the new gun law, so there's always that to fall back on.
In the end, though, people will die as a result of this legislation. We'll see if that ends up mattering.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Mr. Huntsman Goes to Beijing / 5-19-09
Hard to find a moderate Republican these days? So check the Dems' party! Check. Then check China! Check. Huh?
Erstwhile Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, Jr. got himself appointed to the post of ambassador to the People's Republic last weekend, and it's tempting to brush this off as Obama smoothly exiling a moderate Republican out of the country. But there's more at play here.
The dude was close to entering the field for the 2012 GOP nomination. Listen to a guy who was in the know, one of McCain's strategists in 2000 and 2008: "He had not made a decision to run for president, but he had made a decision to prepare to run. We were probably a month away from announcing the formation of a political action committee, so we were pretty far down the road," said John Weaver.
Don't be fooled by Huntsman's old job as chief exec of the reddest state in the union. He came out for civil unions last year. He liberalized liquor laws. He's considered a friend of the environment. He was term-limited and in his second term.
And it appears Huntsman's political future is hardly harmed by this appointment; it boosts his bipartisan cred, gets him out of that small-state-governor box (you watching, Sarah?) and it gives him additional foreign policy experience. And who wants to run against BHO in 2012? Big gamble. Especially with another Mormon (Mitt Romney) in the field? Oh yeah, fun fact: Huntsman completed his LDS mission in Taiwan almost 30 years ago.
Erstwhile Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, Jr. got himself appointed to the post of ambassador to the People's Republic last weekend, and it's tempting to brush this off as Obama smoothly exiling a moderate Republican out of the country. But there's more at play here.
The dude was close to entering the field for the 2012 GOP nomination. Listen to a guy who was in the know, one of McCain's strategists in 2000 and 2008: "He had not made a decision to run for president, but he had made a decision to prepare to run. We were probably a month away from announcing the formation of a political action committee, so we were pretty far down the road," said John Weaver.
Don't be fooled by Huntsman's old job as chief exec of the reddest state in the union. He came out for civil unions last year. He liberalized liquor laws. He's considered a friend of the environment. He was term-limited and in his second term.
And it appears Huntsman's political future is hardly harmed by this appointment; it boosts his bipartisan cred, gets him out of that small-state-governor box (you watching, Sarah?) and it gives him additional foreign policy experience. And who wants to run against BHO in 2012? Big gamble. Especially with another Mormon (Mitt Romney) in the field? Oh yeah, fun fact: Huntsman completed his LDS mission in Taiwan almost 30 years ago.
Hard at Work / 5-19-09
Sometimes, the party out of power works just as hard as the party in power.
Like today. The Democratic-controlled Senate wasted its time passing a bill that protects consumer rights from predatory practices of credit-card companies. From now on, banks won't be allowed to send bills as little as 14 days before their due date, nor will they be able to retroactively raise interest rates, or charge you a late fee if your payment due on a Sunday or holiday arrives one day late. Among other things. Those are just the highlights.
Not to be outdone, top Washington-area Republicans, including party chair Michael Steele, gathered at a luncheon to debate passing a resolution calling on the D's to rename their party the "Democrat Socialist Party."
Good work everyone.
Like today. The Democratic-controlled Senate wasted its time passing a bill that protects consumer rights from predatory practices of credit-card companies. From now on, banks won't be allowed to send bills as little as 14 days before their due date, nor will they be able to retroactively raise interest rates, or charge you a late fee if your payment due on a Sunday or holiday arrives one day late. Among other things. Those are just the highlights.
Not to be outdone, top Washington-area Republicans, including party chair Michael Steele, gathered at a luncheon to debate passing a resolution calling on the D's to rename their party the "Democrat Socialist Party."
Good work everyone.
The Satanism argument / 5-19-09
First of all, this blog is not going to become a same-sex marriage forum for all eternity. But that issue is probably the pre-eminent social flash point of this decade, and it elicits such strong emotions on both sides... if this were the 70's I'd probably write every other day about feminism and abortion.
But we're us and it's now, and future generations will look back on the SSM debate in much the same way we look back at the interracial marriage "debate." (Of course, just because our grandkids will excoriate the haters in the anti-gay crowd is no reason to support same-sex marriage.)
So the voices in my head have spent the last couple days offering this hypothetical conversation as a good argument to trot out when locked in disagreement with a Christian opposed to SSM.
Me: "So why shouldn't gays be allowed to marry? And don't give me that worn-out dung about how if we permit gay marriage, then it's only a matter of time before polygamy or bestiality or pedophilia show up on the legalization list. Nobody is asking to marry a mule or both their 12-year-old twin great-nieces here.
Anti-SSM person: "I won't go that hateful route. I just think God intended for marriage to be between a man and a woman. No other combos allowed."
Me: "All right. You can read the Bible that way. I've seen the same passages you're about to quote me. But since we're talking about what should be illegal in this country, let me ask you this: Should worshipping Satan be legal?"
Anti-SSM person: "I don't see why not. Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights."
Me: "We agree! But then, why apply God's laws to gays but afford constitutional protections to Satanists? Seems to me that God also intended worship to be for God alone, not for Satan."
Anti-SSM person: "Ummm..."
Me: "Applying orthodox Christian dogma to politics is tricky. It's fine to use Judeo-Christian values as a building block for the law. But it's just another ingredient, otherwise it quickly becomes illegal to pray to Allah, or to curse God. And if we're going have a Constitution which allows people to worship unhindered, we ought to allow adults to love in the same way. The two just go hand in hand."
Anti-SSM person: "Ummm..."
Please fill in the Ummms for me with reasonable replies. I can't think of any.
But we're us and it's now, and future generations will look back on the SSM debate in much the same way we look back at the interracial marriage "debate." (Of course, just because our grandkids will excoriate the haters in the anti-gay crowd is no reason to support same-sex marriage.)
So the voices in my head have spent the last couple days offering this hypothetical conversation as a good argument to trot out when locked in disagreement with a Christian opposed to SSM.
Me: "So why shouldn't gays be allowed to marry? And don't give me that worn-out dung about how if we permit gay marriage, then it's only a matter of time before polygamy or bestiality or pedophilia show up on the legalization list. Nobody is asking to marry a mule or both their 12-year-old twin great-nieces here.
Anti-SSM person: "I won't go that hateful route. I just think God intended for marriage to be between a man and a woman. No other combos allowed."
Me: "All right. You can read the Bible that way. I've seen the same passages you're about to quote me. But since we're talking about what should be illegal in this country, let me ask you this: Should worshipping Satan be legal?"
Anti-SSM person: "I don't see why not. Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights."
Me: "We agree! But then, why apply God's laws to gays but afford constitutional protections to Satanists? Seems to me that God also intended worship to be for God alone, not for Satan."
Anti-SSM person: "Ummm..."
Me: "Applying orthodox Christian dogma to politics is tricky. It's fine to use Judeo-Christian values as a building block for the law. But it's just another ingredient, otherwise it quickly becomes illegal to pray to Allah, or to curse God. And if we're going have a Constitution which allows people to worship unhindered, we ought to allow adults to love in the same way. The two just go hand in hand."
Anti-SSM person: "Ummm..."
Please fill in the Ummms for me with reasonable replies. I can't think of any.
Monday, May 18, 2009
When Bush comes to shove / 5-19-09
NOT a post about the Accidental President's next career as a MMA pro.
But OH YEAH a post about Obama dealing with the realities of the Oval Office.
Obama the campaigner decried the use of military tribunals to try terror suspects. He called for Abu Ghraib photos to be released.
Obama the Prez has kind of changed his mind on those issues.
We won't call it a flip-flop, out of respect for John Kerry.
Now there exists a naughty theory that explains Obama's reversal, and it boils down to calling BHO a fraud for running against Bush policies he had no intention of overturning. I think the truth is a little grayer than that. (Shocking. Almost as shocking as a politician ditching a campaign promise.)
One, Obama is no dummy. He knew that so long as he reflexively opposed everything a historically unpopular Bush stood for, then even he, as a black man, could travel the yellow brick road, true-blue, to the White House.
But secondly, I feel that the responsibility of keeping the country safe is causing Obama to reconsider his convictions. I think it more likely that daily intelligence briefings and such things are, gulp, encouraging him to continue some Bush policies that he may deem more useful now.
And, re-gulp, Mitch McConnell could be right. (Insert proverb about blind squirrels and nuts.) On Fox News two days ago, the Senate Minority Leader opined: "I think he's adjusting his sails on all of these issues now that he is President and knows that one of his principal responsibilities is to keep the American people safe."
Let's also not forget that BHO has already called for a stop to interrogation techniques equivalent to torture, and seems committed to closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.
He could simply be reaching out to Republicans on the national-security level, forging a compromise here or there as he lays groundwork for future give-and-take on issues closer to his heart. I like that option the best. That makes it right, no?
But OH YEAH a post about Obama dealing with the realities of the Oval Office.
Obama the campaigner decried the use of military tribunals to try terror suspects. He called for Abu Ghraib photos to be released.
Obama the Prez has kind of changed his mind on those issues.
We won't call it a flip-flop, out of respect for John Kerry.
Now there exists a naughty theory that explains Obama's reversal, and it boils down to calling BHO a fraud for running against Bush policies he had no intention of overturning. I think the truth is a little grayer than that. (Shocking. Almost as shocking as a politician ditching a campaign promise.)
One, Obama is no dummy. He knew that so long as he reflexively opposed everything a historically unpopular Bush stood for, then even he, as a black man, could travel the yellow brick road, true-blue, to the White House.
But secondly, I feel that the responsibility of keeping the country safe is causing Obama to reconsider his convictions. I think it more likely that daily intelligence briefings and such things are, gulp, encouraging him to continue some Bush policies that he may deem more useful now.
And, re-gulp, Mitch McConnell could be right. (Insert proverb about blind squirrels and nuts.) On Fox News two days ago, the Senate Minority Leader opined: "I think he's adjusting his sails on all of these issues now that he is President and knows that one of his principal responsibilities is to keep the American people safe."
Let's also not forget that BHO has already called for a stop to interrogation techniques equivalent to torture, and seems committed to closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.
He could simply be reaching out to Republicans on the national-security level, forging a compromise here or there as he lays groundwork for future give-and-take on issues closer to his heart. I like that option the best. That makes it right, no?
Thank you Chrissie G / 5-18-09
Governor Christine Gregoire is easily one of my least favorite Democrats. Her lack of leadership in local transportation issues and her inaction as the Sonics left town last year... those two things have soured me quite a bit on her skills. But at least she knows her civil rights.
Today she signed Senate Bill 5688, which grants gay couples joined by civil union ALL the same rights as married couples. And it's about time.
To dust off a rancid phrase and rebrand it a little, this bill ensures that gay partners are separate but equal to their straight counterparts. Truly equal -- in all but name. Only one separation remains between united gay couples and straight ones: the latter get to call themselves married and fill out some fancy forms to get their fancy certificate to put in their fancy frame.
Today's step is not enough, but I'm a pragmatist, and this is more than a small incremental victory for the respect and observation of civil rights in our state. At least now we all have the same rights, which gives me a little more hope for the future of the nation. If I were gay, I'd probably pop a bottle of champagne, but not the expensive stuff: I'd save that one for in two or three or four years, when same-sex marriage is legalized here.
(Gregoire is in my camp. She likes big incremental victories, a series of crisp 15-yard passes, if you will, rather than a 70-yard heave down the field. But if you read this mininterview, you'll see I'm also right about her complete lack of initiative.)
The Faith and Freedom Network -- which is exactly what it sounds like, an organization seeking to shame Jesus Christ and hinder freedom at the same time -- will attempt to gather enough signatures to put the issue on the November ballot so it can be OVERTURNED. They'll need 120,577 signatures between May 25 and July 25 to get their hate on the ballot. Please tell your family and friends that we don't need a referendum on whether or not to grant the same set of civil rights to all Washingtonians.
Today she signed Senate Bill 5688, which grants gay couples joined by civil union ALL the same rights as married couples. And it's about time.
To dust off a rancid phrase and rebrand it a little, this bill ensures that gay partners are separate but equal to their straight counterparts. Truly equal -- in all but name. Only one separation remains between united gay couples and straight ones: the latter get to call themselves married and fill out some fancy forms to get their fancy certificate to put in their fancy frame.
Today's step is not enough, but I'm a pragmatist, and this is more than a small incremental victory for the respect and observation of civil rights in our state. At least now we all have the same rights, which gives me a little more hope for the future of the nation. If I were gay, I'd probably pop a bottle of champagne, but not the expensive stuff: I'd save that one for in two or three or four years, when same-sex marriage is legalized here.
(Gregoire is in my camp. She likes big incremental victories, a series of crisp 15-yard passes, if you will, rather than a 70-yard heave down the field. But if you read this mininterview, you'll see I'm also right about her complete lack of initiative.)
The Faith and Freedom Network -- which is exactly what it sounds like, an organization seeking to shame Jesus Christ and hinder freedom at the same time -- will attempt to gather enough signatures to put the issue on the November ballot so it can be OVERTURNED. They'll need 120,577 signatures between May 25 and July 25 to get their hate on the ballot. Please tell your family and friends that we don't need a referendum on whether or not to grant the same set of civil rights to all Washingtonians.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Fathers and sons and baseball / 5-17-09
All four of us went to the game at Safeco today. Mariners vs. Red Sox.
With our family's ties to Boston, Aaron elected to wear the Sox cap, which clashed violently with my M's gear. It was adorable. The boys spent the morning explaining to me who they were going to root for at which times, and what it means when you put the cap on backwards. (It means you're temporarily switching allegiances, come on, don't you know, Dad? Turn yours around so you can root for Boston! Come on Dad!)
So anyway, got to the game early, plunked ourselves down in our upper deck seats. And what do we see... row right in front of us: Father in M's paraphernalia, son in Red Sox t-shirt. Row right behind us: Dad wearing Seattle stuff, kid with the Boston shirt.
Classic.
By the way, Mariners won, 3-2, on a two-out, bottom-of-the-ninth hit. Must have been an early Father's Day special.
With our family's ties to Boston, Aaron elected to wear the Sox cap, which clashed violently with my M's gear. It was adorable. The boys spent the morning explaining to me who they were going to root for at which times, and what it means when you put the cap on backwards. (It means you're temporarily switching allegiances, come on, don't you know, Dad? Turn yours around so you can root for Boston! Come on Dad!)
So anyway, got to the game early, plunked ourselves down in our upper deck seats. And what do we see... row right in front of us: Father in M's paraphernalia, son in Red Sox t-shirt. Row right behind us: Dad wearing Seattle stuff, kid with the Boston shirt.
Classic.
By the way, Mariners won, 3-2, on a two-out, bottom-of-the-ninth hit. Must have been an early Father's Day special.
No to incompetent gods / 5-17-09
There is, in my stunted mind, one unhurdable problem with the traditional Judeo-Christian view of God, and it's precisely that problem which steers me toward Taoist philosophy.
It's the fact that orthodox Christianity posits a God who is supremely involved in the lives of humans. That doctrine befuddles me. Ordinarily, befuddlement would be fine, since I don't pretend to understand concepts like the Trinity. But then, the idea of a roll-up-your-sleeves deity goes a step farther and flat-out repulses me, and that's quite a bit more problematic.
Don't be mistaken. My beef with regular-old Christianity is NOT the oft-asked "How can a loving God allow sh!t to happen!?" No, it goes more like this: I can't believe in a God who's managing the day-to-day operations of Earth, Inc. It's too cruel, too arbitrary, too incompetent on God's part.
Answer this one: "How does a person believe that God actively protects their four-year-old child while the four-year-old across the street gets inoperable cancer, or the six-year-old across town shoots himself with his dad's gun?" (That's not the same question as "Why does God allow evil to do its thing?")
So let's grant that you're a good, upstanding believer. Let's grant that you believe God has the power to influence events. (Otherwise, well, your God isn't very Judeo-Christian, is He?)
Either you believe this Divine Being sometimes exercises that power and steps in to interact positively with people, or you believe that Being doesn't ever go that route.
If you believe that Being doesn't, you kind of have to ask yourself if your god cares about people at all, and if a "personal relationship" is possible with such a god. You might also want to rethink your understanding of the Bible.
Put it another way: Either you believe God intervenes, or you believe God set the world in motion and then stepped out of the way to let events run their course.
But I can't have it this way: God gets occasionally involved, and sometimes lifts a finger to prevent calamity, and sometimes God can't be bothered. That way leads to madness. For me. Maybe you can deal.
And I don't think I'm falling prey to an either/or logical fallacy here. (Please point it out, if I am.)
I know it sounds like I'm saying, "The world sucks a lot for a lot of people, through no fault of their own, so if you think God's in charge, that's a mighty sadistic/lazy/incompetent God you got there."
If you think that, congratulations, you are getting warmer. But you're off the mark. Mostly, I don't have the patience to put my faith in a lousy God. And that makes me feel so much more at home in a philosophy where the divine is experienced through wonder and meditation, where the divine is not knowable on a personal level like I know my wife, but on a deeper plane, in a mystical communion.
And yet I'm a Christian; the more I read the Gospels, the more I fall in love with the essence of the Christ figure. Still trying to figure out what that means.
It's the fact that orthodox Christianity posits a God who is supremely involved in the lives of humans. That doctrine befuddles me. Ordinarily, befuddlement would be fine, since I don't pretend to understand concepts like the Trinity. But then, the idea of a roll-up-your-sleeves deity goes a step farther and flat-out repulses me, and that's quite a bit more problematic.
Don't be mistaken. My beef with regular-old Christianity is NOT the oft-asked "How can a loving God allow sh!t to happen!?" No, it goes more like this: I can't believe in a God who's managing the day-to-day operations of Earth, Inc. It's too cruel, too arbitrary, too incompetent on God's part.
Answer this one: "How does a person believe that God actively protects their four-year-old child while the four-year-old across the street gets inoperable cancer, or the six-year-old across town shoots himself with his dad's gun?" (That's not the same question as "Why does God allow evil to do its thing?")
So let's grant that you're a good, upstanding believer. Let's grant that you believe God has the power to influence events. (Otherwise, well, your God isn't very Judeo-Christian, is He?)
Either you believe this Divine Being sometimes exercises that power and steps in to interact positively with people, or you believe that Being doesn't ever go that route.
If you believe that Being doesn't, you kind of have to ask yourself if your god cares about people at all, and if a "personal relationship" is possible with such a god. You might also want to rethink your understanding of the Bible.
Put it another way: Either you believe God intervenes, or you believe God set the world in motion and then stepped out of the way to let events run their course.
But I can't have it this way: God gets occasionally involved, and sometimes lifts a finger to prevent calamity, and sometimes God can't be bothered. That way leads to madness. For me. Maybe you can deal.
And I don't think I'm falling prey to an either/or logical fallacy here. (Please point it out, if I am.)
I know it sounds like I'm saying, "The world sucks a lot for a lot of people, through no fault of their own, so if you think God's in charge, that's a mighty sadistic/lazy/incompetent God you got there."
If you think that, congratulations, you are getting warmer. But you're off the mark. Mostly, I don't have the patience to put my faith in a lousy God. And that makes me feel so much more at home in a philosophy where the divine is experienced through wonder and meditation, where the divine is not knowable on a personal level like I know my wife, but on a deeper plane, in a mystical communion.
And yet I'm a Christian; the more I read the Gospels, the more I fall in love with the essence of the Christ figure. Still trying to figure out what that means.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Stupid strategy by stupid people / 5-15-09
Let's think about this one.
Say you're a Republican. (Easier for some of you than for others.) You're not crazy about Obama, and it has to do with your pro-life views.
Now say Obama is going to speak at your university's commencement tomorrow.
You are angry. You protest. You sign a petition. Maybe you even go so far as to do this. You do your darndest to fight back.
But that makes you stupid. (Not because you're pro-life. Abortion is a horrendous procedure. One that needs strict limits on its legality. I have nothing against most of the anti-abortion crowd.)
No, you're stupid because you just drew EVEN MORE attention to an event at which President Obama will shine. You do realize he's given a couple of speeches before? Some have been well received, rumor has it.
Seriously, this faux scandal (Catholics voted 54-45 for BHO last November) will have one main outcome. Bunches of people who wouldn't have paid attention Sunday will now. Care to guess what they'll see? (Oooooo, oooooo, pick me, I know, pick me, pick me!) A well-thought-out, reasonable, intelligent, funny speech in which Obama will probably even address this teapot tempest of a controversy.
Good thinkin' people.
Say you're a Republican. (Easier for some of you than for others.) You're not crazy about Obama, and it has to do with your pro-life views.
Now say Obama is going to speak at your university's commencement tomorrow.
You are angry. You protest. You sign a petition. Maybe you even go so far as to do this. You do your darndest to fight back.
But that makes you stupid. (Not because you're pro-life. Abortion is a horrendous procedure. One that needs strict limits on its legality. I have nothing against most of the anti-abortion crowd.)
No, you're stupid because you just drew EVEN MORE attention to an event at which President Obama will shine. You do realize he's given a couple of speeches before? Some have been well received, rumor has it.
Seriously, this faux scandal (Catholics voted 54-45 for BHO last November) will have one main outcome. Bunches of people who wouldn't have paid attention Sunday will now. Care to guess what they'll see? (Oooooo, oooooo, pick me, I know, pick me, pick me!) A well-thought-out, reasonable, intelligent, funny speech in which Obama will probably even address this teapot tempest of a controversy.
Good thinkin' people.
Jury out on the M's / 5-15-09
Oh, that jury is not coming in anytime soon.
Observations:
1a. The Mariners are not as bad as they looked this past week.
1b. The Mariners are not as good as they looked in April.
2. These guys are practically never out of a game. Lester working on a shutout? So what? We have Ichiro. Down 7-4 in the 12th? Let's play 15.
3. Aardsma is our closer. I need no more Morrow sorrow.
4. Wish we could get a steadier diet of Kenneth Griffey. Purely for sentimental reasons. This is probably a .500 team, and if so, I want to see the old dude play. But if we're tied for the division lead on Labor Day, I don't care if he rides the bench the whole month.
5. But realistically, too many holes across the roster to win the division.
6. The M's lead the league in three categories: Most tons of fingernails collectively chewed by fan base; most heart meds sold to fan base; most theoretical Scrabble points garnered by playing the names of the manager and general manager and pitcher-catcher combo. (Wakamatsu / Zduriencik / Jakubauskas / Johjima)
Taking the whole family to Sunday's game vs. Boston. Good times.
Observations:
1a. The Mariners are not as bad as they looked this past week.
1b. The Mariners are not as good as they looked in April.
2. These guys are practically never out of a game. Lester working on a shutout? So what? We have Ichiro. Down 7-4 in the 12th? Let's play 15.
3. Aardsma is our closer. I need no more Morrow sorrow.
4. Wish we could get a steadier diet of Kenneth Griffey. Purely for sentimental reasons. This is probably a .500 team, and if so, I want to see the old dude play. But if we're tied for the division lead on Labor Day, I don't care if he rides the bench the whole month.
5. But realistically, too many holes across the roster to win the division.
6. The M's lead the league in three categories: Most tons of fingernails collectively chewed by fan base; most heart meds sold to fan base; most theoretical Scrabble points garnered by playing the names of the manager and general manager and pitcher-catcher combo. (Wakamatsu / Zduriencik / Jakubauskas / Johjima)
Taking the whole family to Sunday's game vs. Boston. Good times.
The Taoist Christian / 5-15-09
Lots of posts coming on this topic.
First, some quotes. Selected totally at random. No agenda at work here.
Lao Tzu: "Great indeed is the sublimity of the Creative, to which all beings owe their beginning and which permeates all heaven."
Yahweh: "I am that I am."
Lao Tzu: "I have just three things to teach: simplicity, patience, compassion. These three are your greatest treasures."
St. Paul: "And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."
Lao Tzu: "If you would take, you must first give, this is the beginning of intelligence."
St. Luke: "It is more blessed to give than to receive."
Lao Tzu: "Treat those who are good with goodness, and also treat those who are not good with goodness. Thus goodness is attained. Be honest to those who are honest, and be also honest to those who are not honest. Thus honesty is attained."
Yeshua: "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."
Me: "Lots of posts coming on this topic."
First, some quotes. Selected totally at random. No agenda at work here.
Lao Tzu: "Great indeed is the sublimity of the Creative, to which all beings owe their beginning and which permeates all heaven."
Yahweh: "I am that I am."
Lao Tzu: "I have just three things to teach: simplicity, patience, compassion. These three are your greatest treasures."
St. Paul: "And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."
Lao Tzu: "If you would take, you must first give, this is the beginning of intelligence."
St. Luke: "It is more blessed to give than to receive."
Lao Tzu: "Treat those who are good with goodness, and also treat those who are not good with goodness. Thus goodness is attained. Be honest to those who are honest, and be also honest to those who are not honest. Thus honesty is attained."
Yeshua: "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."
Me: "Lots of posts coming on this topic."
Monday, May 11, 2009
Almost random politics potpourri / 5-12-09
I still spend plenty of time on fivethirtyeight.com, even though polling is at a virtual standstill since THE election.
So when I found this nugget there, I had to spout off.
As you can see, whites were somewhat of a drag on the Obama ticket.
That's not trenchant analysis from yours truly, to say the least. You have eyes too. But what's telling is that once you remove the 2008 variables from the picture, the near future starts to look quite bleak for the Republicans. Between 2016 and 2024, the Democrats are likely to nominate a white candidate; after all, they tend to do so most years. A white candidate, presumably, might not suffer from the exact same sort of prejudice BHO faced last year. And let's say Obama doesn't self-destruct and historians continue to condemn Bush for the abominable job he did in the Oval Office. And if the candidate's Hillary, think "historic election" all over again. So to recap: Less racism + Obama coattails = Democrat coasting to victory.
(Oh wow! Look at all my unhatched chickens!! One, two, three...)
And then, in a not-too-distant election year, nonwhite voters will begin to outnumber white voters. 2040, 2042 and 2044 are good candidates.
So in my fantasy world, the GOP has a mini-window of 2024-2040 to regain the White House. Yes, I understand that the presidency is not the end-all of American politics. But not having it for, oh, decades -- that might reduce a party to a great deal less relevance than it currently enjoys. (I use the term "enjoy" loosely. Liberally, if you will.)
It's entirely possible, then, that come 2024, every voter under age 50 will only have W. as a frame of reference for Republican presidents. Ouch. If you thought 23 percent of the population self-identifying as Republicans was bad...
So I happen to think that a marginalization of the GOP is a good thing for the future of politics in America. That's because I'd really like to see the Democrats break up... whaaa?
"John, that's not really what you mean. You call yourself a Democrat. Your beliefs line up pretty well with those leftist SOB's. You're just saying that for effect."
Ah, but I DO mean it. We are a centrist country. We don't need the balance of power to swing from guys like Dick Cheney to Nancy Pelosi. I just don't believe that's healthy. What we need is a centrist party.
My evil dream scenario goes like this: R's become the party of the white angry male evangelical and assorted random humans. R's stop winning elections. D's consolidate power in all three branches. D's infight until the party splits. New party in the center, the Liberty Party, is king of a three-party system and builds coalitions with reasonable members of the two leftover radical parties. When health care needs reform, Liberty Party members can negotiate with the left and push something through Congress... when states' rights or gun ownership rights are threatened, they can work with the right.
Oh yeah, this Liberty Party is an amalgam of the dozen or so good facets of the current Democratic Party and the three or so good qualities of the GOP. More on it later. When I'm not suffering from the blogarrhea you just crawled through to get here, I'm working on an America 2050 post. I need to write it before I'm a 75-year-old cranky old fart living in 2050.
So when I found this nugget there, I had to spout off.
As you can see, whites were somewhat of a drag on the Obama ticket.
That's not trenchant analysis from yours truly, to say the least. You have eyes too. But what's telling is that once you remove the 2008 variables from the picture, the near future starts to look quite bleak for the Republicans. Between 2016 and 2024, the Democrats are likely to nominate a white candidate; after all, they tend to do so most years. A white candidate, presumably, might not suffer from the exact same sort of prejudice BHO faced last year. And let's say Obama doesn't self-destruct and historians continue to condemn Bush for the abominable job he did in the Oval Office. And if the candidate's Hillary, think "historic election" all over again. So to recap: Less racism + Obama coattails = Democrat coasting to victory.
(Oh wow! Look at all my unhatched chickens!! One, two, three...)
And then, in a not-too-distant election year, nonwhite voters will begin to outnumber white voters. 2040, 2042 and 2044 are good candidates.
So in my fantasy world, the GOP has a mini-window of 2024-2040 to regain the White House. Yes, I understand that the presidency is not the end-all of American politics. But not having it for, oh, decades -- that might reduce a party to a great deal less relevance than it currently enjoys. (I use the term "enjoy" loosely. Liberally, if you will.)
It's entirely possible, then, that come 2024, every voter under age 50 will only have W. as a frame of reference for Republican presidents. Ouch. If you thought 23 percent of the population self-identifying as Republicans was bad...
So I happen to think that a marginalization of the GOP is a good thing for the future of politics in America. That's because I'd really like to see the Democrats break up... whaaa?
"John, that's not really what you mean. You call yourself a Democrat. Your beliefs line up pretty well with those leftist SOB's. You're just saying that for effect."
Ah, but I DO mean it. We are a centrist country. We don't need the balance of power to swing from guys like Dick Cheney to Nancy Pelosi. I just don't believe that's healthy. What we need is a centrist party.
_03.jpg){kind=link}
My evil dream scenario goes like this: R's become the party of the white angry male evangelical and assorted random humans. R's stop winning elections. D's consolidate power in all three branches. D's infight until the party splits. New party in the center, the Liberty Party, is king of a three-party system and builds coalitions with reasonable members of the two leftover radical parties. When health care needs reform, Liberty Party members can negotiate with the left and push something through Congress... when states' rights or gun ownership rights are threatened, they can work with the right.
Oh yeah, this Liberty Party is an amalgam of the dozen or so good facets of the current Democratic Party and the three or so good qualities of the GOP. More on it later. When I'm not suffering from the blogarrhea you just crawled through to get here, I'm working on an America 2050 post. I need to write it before I'm a 75-year-old cranky old fart living in 2050.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Things that go "bong" in the night / 5-8-09
The rumors are all true: I've never smoked any weed. Never touched any illegal drugs, and I mean that literally. Caught a whiff of a joint once in an adjacent room. Didn't inhale.
But people, come on, really, can't we just stop prosecuting Americans who smoke pot?
I will leave the moral dimension of the argument for another day. I will leave the dilemma of impaired drivers by the wayside. For now. What I WILL do is talk about finances.
It costs this nation about $8 billion annually in prosecution costs and another billion in incarceration to wage war on potheads.
Certainly, mandated treatment is a real cost. Surely there exists a burden on business, when employees are jailed and/or terminated for weed-related offenses.
And think of the other side of the balance sheet: all that lost revenue. The grass tax. It's not just a catchy slogan. It could pay for programs. In a real shocker, California is considering this course of action.
Oh, and you want to make a real impact in the long-term budget, Mr. President? Legalize weed. (He's not going to do it. But maybe someday, someone in power will have the balls or the ovaries to try.)
And by the way, this crackdown on pot users, how well is it working? This well: 94 million of us are or have been users. But now I'm in Tangentville, and I semi-promised to argue for legalization on financial merits only. It'll take an awfully good counterargument to change my mind, but bring it on.
Bonus item: A variety of polls shows a variety of levels of support for legalization. What these polls don't show is that the issue is cut-and-dried.
Finally, a bit of full disclosure is in order: This post was not sponsored by Frito-Lay.
But people, come on, really, can't we just stop prosecuting Americans who smoke pot?
I will leave the moral dimension of the argument for another day. I will leave the dilemma of impaired drivers by the wayside. For now. What I WILL do is talk about finances.
It costs this nation about $8 billion annually in prosecution costs and another billion in incarceration to wage war on potheads.
Certainly, mandated treatment is a real cost. Surely there exists a burden on business, when employees are jailed and/or terminated for weed-related offenses.
And think of the other side of the balance sheet: all that lost revenue. The grass tax. It's not just a catchy slogan. It could pay for programs. In a real shocker, California is considering this course of action.
Oh, and you want to make a real impact in the long-term budget, Mr. President? Legalize weed. (He's not going to do it. But maybe someday, someone in power will have the balls or the ovaries to try.)
And by the way, this crackdown on pot users, how well is it working? This well: 94 million of us are or have been users. But now I'm in Tangentville, and I semi-promised to argue for legalization on financial merits only. It'll take an awfully good counterargument to change my mind, but bring it on.
Bonus item: A variety of polls shows a variety of levels of support for legalization. What these polls don't show is that the issue is cut-and-dried.
Finally, a bit of full disclosure is in order: This post was not sponsored by Frito-Lay.
So I heard this ad on the radio... / 5-8-09
...touting the fuel efficiency of the Cadillac Escalade hybrid. I understand that putting a gas-electric hybrid engine in any vehicle, no matter how inefficient that car is, reduces its carbon output. I really do. I get it. The SUV that once got 10 mpg now gets 20. That's fantastic. It's great. In fact, it's so great, it reminds me of the story of the guy making minimum wage who wises up and stops making four daily trips to Starbucks. Now he just visits twice and only plunks down $10 a day. Yeah. He's still going to go broke. So's the planet, if that's our idea of an automotive revolution.
(Read this, too, if you want a complementary opinion.)
(Read this, too, if you want a complementary opinion.)
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Manny being... well, everyone / 5-7-09
Baseball's latest drug scandal: Manny Ramirez is impersonating Octomom to gain a competitive edge.
Yeah, another superstar is juicing. Raise your mouse if you were astonished. Maybe you were disappointed, maybe you were a little angry, maybe you were indifferent. But shocked? Please.
So for fun, let's grab a few MLB stars not entirely at random from the Canseco era, say, 1988-2008. Let's classify them into clever categories that represent my hypothetical reaction to the hypothetical news (for now) that they're on a performance enhancer.
FICST (Fine, I Can See That)
Randy Johnson. Bret Boone. Ryan Howard. David Ortiz. Pedro Martinez. Joe Carter. Dave Winfield. Johan Santana. Brandon Webb. Roy Halladay. Adrian Beltre. Sammy Sosa. Luis Gonzalez. Vlad Guerrero. Juan Gonzalez. Rickey Henderson. Frank Thomas. Larry Walker.
RATS (Really, A Tiny Surprise)
Jamie Moyer. Derek Jeter. Maddux-Smoltz-Glavine. Nolan Ryan. Kirby Puckett. Albert Pujols.
BITES (Baseball Is Tarnished EverlaStingly)
Junior. Ichiro. Edgar. Ripken.
So, so many big names are missing from these lists. For good reason. They've been caught already.
It pains me to associate some of my favorite players with the stench of cheating, even in a tongue-in-cheek way. On the other hand, steroid use has only ever bothered me on a statistical level. I'm pretty sure half the guys or more on each team were juicing, so I tend to believe the competitive integrity of the game was not grossly compromised. The playing field was level, so to speak, by the scope of the cheating. It's just that 762 really ticks me off, as does this entire page.
I'm not going to demand that "baseball clean up its act" or that it change its ways "for the good of the children." I'm going to helplessly shake my head and hope that the BITES list never comes to pass. That's the only good outcome left.
Yeah, another superstar is juicing. Raise your mouse if you were astonished. Maybe you were disappointed, maybe you were a little angry, maybe you were indifferent. But shocked? Please.
So for fun, let's grab a few MLB stars not entirely at random from the Canseco era, say, 1988-2008. Let's classify them into clever categories that represent my hypothetical reaction to the hypothetical news (for now) that they're on a performance enhancer.
FICST (Fine, I Can See That)
Randy Johnson. Bret Boone. Ryan Howard. David Ortiz. Pedro Martinez. Joe Carter. Dave Winfield. Johan Santana. Brandon Webb. Roy Halladay. Adrian Beltre. Sammy Sosa. Luis Gonzalez. Vlad Guerrero. Juan Gonzalez. Rickey Henderson. Frank Thomas. Larry Walker.
RATS (Really, A Tiny Surprise)
Jamie Moyer. Derek Jeter. Maddux-Smoltz-Glavine. Nolan Ryan. Kirby Puckett. Albert Pujols.
BITES (Baseball Is Tarnished EverlaStingly)
Junior. Ichiro. Edgar. Ripken.
So, so many big names are missing from these lists. For good reason. They've been caught already.
It pains me to associate some of my favorite players with the stench of cheating, even in a tongue-in-cheek way. On the other hand, steroid use has only ever bothered me on a statistical level. I'm pretty sure half the guys or more on each team were juicing, so I tend to believe the competitive integrity of the game was not grossly compromised. The playing field was level, so to speak, by the scope of the cheating. It's just that 762 really ticks me off, as does this entire page.
I'm not going to demand that "baseball clean up its act" or that it change its ways "for the good of the children." I'm going to helplessly shake my head and hope that the BITES list never comes to pass. That's the only good outcome left.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Barack and the Supremes / 5-4-09
Before we bleeding hearts rejoice that our Chosen One will anoint a new Supreme Court justice this year, we ought to remember that David Souter was nominated by... LBJ, right? Uh, Carter? Clinton, yeah, Clinton, fo-sho. What's that, you say? Twas Daddy Bush?
No, but seriously. Souter's a liberal. He votes with Baby Ruth Ginsburg, Something Kennedy, Stevie Breyer, and Pope John Paul Stevens most the time, right? Helps us America-haters keep on killin' babies and burnin' flags. He's a reliable pot-smokin' hugger of trees and would run over his own mother, in a Prius of course, before displacing a single spotted owl. Doesn't sound like a Bush guy to me.
Well, you can Google it as well as I. Bush The Elder put Souter on the court. What's more, Anthony Kennedy's turning out to be the so-called swing vote on many cases, and Reagan's responsible for him.
There's an old song, goes something like this: "You can't always get / What you want" and although it's not officially the theme song of SC nominations, you could do worse.
So let's not just assume BHO will get it right and find a reasonable left-of-center woman to replace Souter. He's a constitutional law prof by trade, our president is, so he'll at least try, which should be enough. 'Cause if you try sometimes, people, you just might find, maybe, you get what you need.
No, but seriously. Souter's a liberal. He votes with Baby Ruth Ginsburg, Something Kennedy, Stevie Breyer, and Pope John Paul Stevens most the time, right? Helps us America-haters keep on killin' babies and burnin' flags. He's a reliable pot-smokin' hugger of trees and would run over his own mother, in a Prius of course, before displacing a single spotted owl. Doesn't sound like a Bush guy to me.
Well, you can Google it as well as I. Bush The Elder put Souter on the court. What's more, Anthony Kennedy's turning out to be the so-called swing vote on many cases, and Reagan's responsible for him.
There's an old song, goes something like this: "You can't always get / What you want" and although it's not officially the theme song of SC nominations, you could do worse.
So let's not just assume BHO will get it right and find a reasonable left-of-center woman to replace Souter. He's a constitutional law prof by trade, our president is, so he'll at least try, which should be enough. 'Cause if you try sometimes, people, you just might find, maybe, you get what you need.
Swine Song / 5-4-09
It's like I said yesterday.
Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano at a press conference on Monday: "We have started to see encouraging signs that this virus may be mild, and its spread may be limited." And also: "What the epidemiologists are seeing now with this particular strain...is that the severity of the disease, the severity of the flu -- how sick you get -- is not stronger than regular seasonal flu."
Someone should tell CNN.
To be fair (but not balanced), Napolitano and others offered the caveat that a mutated H1N1 may return in the fall to wreak additional havoc. With the headlines, at least.
Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano at a press conference on Monday: "We have started to see encouraging signs that this virus may be mild, and its spread may be limited." And also: "What the epidemiologists are seeing now with this particular strain...is that the severity of the disease, the severity of the flu -- how sick you get -- is not stronger than regular seasonal flu."
Someone should tell CNN.
To be fair (but not balanced), Napolitano and others offered the caveat that a mutated H1N1 may return in the fall to wreak additional havoc. With the headlines, at least.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Specter dispirited with GOP / 5-3-09
And now, for something completely different: some half-baked political analysis!
A couple things come to mind regarding a certain Senator's party switch. (I speak, of course, of last week's decision by PA Republican Arlen Specter to become a Democrat.)
First, the guy may well have done it for self-preservation, as he admitted himself. That doesn't change the fact that a party that loses moderates is going in the wrong direction. We'll see if this move causes the GOP leadership to reach out more to the center or to move even further to the right. (Assuming that's possible.) In any case, I'm going to write a massive post on the plight of the Republican Party later this month. But that issue needs a lot more mulling first.
Second, the hidden effects of Specter's reDemocratification may be greater than the obvious ones. He'll vote to advance many bills and appointments forward in the legislative process, even if he ends up voting against the bill or the appointment... which will move Obama's agenda forward quite a bit faster. Civics lesson: The U.S. Senate can approve a bill or a presidential appointment by a 51-49 vote, but the minority party can vote against "cloture," or against ending debate, and thus prevent a vote from ever taking place. (The Democrats did this plenty under W., who then just pushed his judges through in recess appointments anyway.)
So a committed group of 41 Senators can block whatever they want for a while. But Specter's defection leaves the R's with a scant 40, which will not be enough when Al Franken is seated later this year as the D's 60th Senator. And Specter is in an enviable position in his new digs. He can vote for cloture with his caucus buddies, then vote against the bill itself and campaign next year on his moderateness. With Obama's promised endorsement. In a state where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by 1.2 million, yes, million.
(Bonus point: Both of Maine's Senators are moderate Republicans. Keep an eye on them. Just saying.)
A couple things come to mind regarding a certain Senator's party switch. (I speak, of course, of last week's decision by PA Republican Arlen Specter to become a Democrat.)
First, the guy may well have done it for self-preservation, as he admitted himself. That doesn't change the fact that a party that loses moderates is going in the wrong direction. We'll see if this move causes the GOP leadership to reach out more to the center or to move even further to the right. (Assuming that's possible.) In any case, I'm going to write a massive post on the plight of the Republican Party later this month. But that issue needs a lot more mulling first.
Second, the hidden effects of Specter's reDemocratification may be greater than the obvious ones. He'll vote to advance many bills and appointments forward in the legislative process, even if he ends up voting against the bill or the appointment... which will move Obama's agenda forward quite a bit faster. Civics lesson: The U.S. Senate can approve a bill or a presidential appointment by a 51-49 vote, but the minority party can vote against "cloture," or against ending debate, and thus prevent a vote from ever taking place. (The Democrats did this plenty under W., who then just pushed his judges through in recess appointments anyway.)
So a committed group of 41 Senators can block whatever they want for a while. But Specter's defection leaves the R's with a scant 40, which will not be enough when Al Franken is seated later this year as the D's 60th Senator. And Specter is in an enviable position in his new digs. He can vote for cloture with his caucus buddies, then vote against the bill itself and campaign next year on his moderateness. With Obama's promised endorsement. In a state where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by 1.2 million, yes, million.
(Bonus point: Both of Maine's Senators are moderate Republicans. Keep an eye on them. Just saying.)
The M's are for real. Or maybe not. / 5-3-09
So the Mariners have a winning record one month into the season, and everyone is asking if they're for real. Pardon me while I restrain a giggle and pinch myself a little -- I just reread that first sentence.
Well, for the disbelievers, here's this nugget: the M's are in first place, but so are the Kansas City Royals.
For the believers: Felix Hernandez, Erik Bedard and Jarrod Washburn are a combined 9-2 with a combined ERA in the mid-twos.
Naysayers: Junior and Adrian Beltre are at the Mendoza line. Beltre hasn't hit a homer yet. Washburn's success won't last. Morrow's hurt, who knows for how long. Carlos Silva and Miguel Batista have pulses and are drawing obscene paychecks. There's no proven lefty in the pen.
Ayesayers: Griffey and Beltre are about to heat up. Russell Branyan is a stud, .320 with 6 HR through Sunday. Have you heard of a little guy we like to call I-chi-RO? The bullpen is deep. In fact, the team in general is deeper than any time since 2002.
I'm a fan, so I have the fog of bias clouding up my lens. But I know this team will get shut out fairly often, it will lost plenty of games 3-2, and the bullpen will walk its way to more than a few losses.
This club also won't lose eight in a row all year. The starting pitching talent won't allow it. And the West is woefully weak this year.
It's not impossible to spend a glorious summer watching the M's get as lucky as the 2006 Cardinals, who scraped together a forgettable 83-78 record, won a crummy division, and then rode an unexpected hot streak to a perfectly valid World Series title. Hey, stop laughing! It's baseball. I'm told anything can happen.
Well, for the disbelievers, here's this nugget: the M's are in first place, but so are the Kansas City Royals.
For the believers: Felix Hernandez, Erik Bedard and Jarrod Washburn are a combined 9-2 with a combined ERA in the mid-twos.
Naysayers: Junior and Adrian Beltre are at the Mendoza line. Beltre hasn't hit a homer yet. Washburn's success won't last. Morrow's hurt, who knows for how long. Carlos Silva and Miguel Batista have pulses and are drawing obscene paychecks. There's no proven lefty in the pen.
Ayesayers: Griffey and Beltre are about to heat up. Russell Branyan is a stud, .320 with 6 HR through Sunday. Have you heard of a little guy we like to call I-chi-RO? The bullpen is deep. In fact, the team in general is deeper than any time since 2002.
I'm a fan, so I have the fog of bias clouding up my lens. But I know this team will get shut out fairly often, it will lost plenty of games 3-2, and the bullpen will walk its way to more than a few losses.
This club also won't lose eight in a row all year. The starting pitching talent won't allow it. And the West is woefully weak this year.
It's not impossible to spend a glorious summer watching the M's get as lucky as the 2006 Cardinals, who scraped together a forgettable 83-78 record, won a crummy division, and then rode an unexpected hot streak to a perfectly valid World Series title. Hey, stop laughing! It's baseball. I'm told anything can happen.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Fight H1N1 hysteria... what, with facts? / 5-3-09
Don't think of me as the guy who glosses over the so-called danger of swine flu, or the death it has caused.
But do think of me as the facts guy on H1N1.
U.S. Deaths from swine flu, 2009: 1
Mexico deaths from swine flu: 19
U.S. deaths from non-swine flu, typical calendar year: 36,000
Total hospitalizations in U.S. due to regular old flu flu, typically: 200,000
Total cases of swine flu in Mexico: 506
Total cases of swine flu in U.S.: 226
Quote from Center for Disease Control chief Dr. Richard Besser:
"The good news is when we look at this virus right now, we're not seeing some of the things in the virus that have been associated in the past with more severe flu. That's encouraging, but it doesn't mean we're out of the woods yet."
Mexico Health Secretary Jose Cordova on the lethality of H1N1: "The attack rate is not as broad as was thought." Only about 1.2 percent of those hospitalized with "acute respiratory symptoms" were dying, he said.
More info: CDC page on swine flu is right here.
Just so you and I have the facts.
But do think of me as the facts guy on H1N1.
U.S. Deaths from swine flu, 2009: 1
Mexico deaths from swine flu: 19
U.S. deaths from non-swine flu, typical calendar year: 36,000
Total hospitalizations in U.S. due to regular old flu flu, typically: 200,000
Total cases of swine flu in Mexico: 506
Total cases of swine flu in U.S.: 226
Quote from Center for Disease Control chief Dr. Richard Besser:
"The good news is when we look at this virus right now, we're not seeing some of the things in the virus that have been associated in the past with more severe flu. That's encouraging, but it doesn't mean we're out of the woods yet."
Mexico Health Secretary Jose Cordova on the lethality of H1N1: "The attack rate is not as broad as was thought." Only about 1.2 percent of those hospitalized with "acute respiratory symptoms" were dying, he said.
More info: CDC page on swine flu is right here.
Just so you and I have the facts.
Can we just have one class of citizens please? / 5-2-09
One of the greatest things about America is the premise that we all have the same rights as citizens. We take that for granted, which is fairly revolutionary if you peruse the history of civilization. (Oh, for sure, we haven't always lived up to that premise, but we're getting better at it all the time.)
See, though, when we created a subset of supercool privileges that you had to be married to access, then we restricted certain adults from claiming those rights, we broke our promise to equality. Yes, I'm talking about the ongoing discrimination against our gay population.
Legally, it's an advantage to be married: visitation rights, parental rights, inheritance rights all are enhanced within the (mostly) friendly confines of marriage. In effect, to deny gays the right to marry is to block their path to a whole series of rights the rest of us married folk take for granted. That's not right, and I'm tired of pretending that it's OK.
There is a simple answer to this dilemma, and it calls for less government, not more. (Bad Democrat! BAD Democrat!!) It goes like this: we could just retire the government from the marriage business altogether.
What you do is, you let the state simply grant civil unions to all pairs of consenting adults. You let each church or each denomination or each religion grant marriage licenses. But no additional rights are conferred on the happy couple who chooses to wed in the church/synagogue/mosque/generic gym-sanctuary-concert hall-house of God. No, the civil unions give all couples the same rights. Regardless of sexual orientation. It's a clean solution.
It's called equality, and it's about time we started living up to it.
(EDIT 9:30 p.m.: Click here for a look at how uberpollmeister Nate Silver breaks down the polling trends on this issue.)
See, though, when we created a subset of supercool privileges that you had to be married to access, then we restricted certain adults from claiming those rights, we broke our promise to equality. Yes, I'm talking about the ongoing discrimination against our gay population.
Legally, it's an advantage to be married: visitation rights, parental rights, inheritance rights all are enhanced within the (mostly) friendly confines of marriage. In effect, to deny gays the right to marry is to block their path to a whole series of rights the rest of us married folk take for granted. That's not right, and I'm tired of pretending that it's OK.
There is a simple answer to this dilemma, and it calls for less government, not more. (Bad Democrat! BAD Democrat!!) It goes like this: we could just retire the government from the marriage business altogether.
What you do is, you let the state simply grant civil unions to all pairs of consenting adults. You let each church or each denomination or each religion grant marriage licenses. But no additional rights are conferred on the happy couple who chooses to wed in the church/synagogue/mosque/generic gym-sanctuary-concert hall-house of God. No, the civil unions give all couples the same rights. Regardless of sexual orientation. It's a clean solution.
It's called equality, and it's about time we started living up to it.
(EDIT 9:30 p.m.: Click here for a look at how uberpollmeister Nate Silver breaks down the polling trends on this issue.)
Friday, May 1, 2009
About the Blogger / 5-1-09
Embarked on a discussion today concerning torture, which led to an interesting back-and-forth with a number of friends. The conversation didn't happen in person with any of them. Just used facebook... but the point is, a simple thing like that made me homesick for the days that ended with serious or nonserious banter, rather than with a random sitcom or even the Daily Show.
(For the record: You could do a lot worse than concluding your day with a careful listen to Jon Stewart.)
But can we use this space to return, semi-artificially, to those days? I'd like that. That's why I'll try to engage you, my purposeful or accidental reader, with topics that range from how best to fight the war on terror to Ichiro's awesomeness.
To do so more effectively, you should know a few things about me. (Not unlike the viral 25 Things About Me social-networking note.)
I'm a Christian. Philosophically. But Taoism is intriguing and liberating. Much more on this later.
I'm extraordinarily happily married with two incredible kids, and that colors everything else in my life. (Obviously.)
I read a lot. I like big words. I'm kind of a nerd. I even have glasses.
I have a collection of bad habits. I bite my nails and my cuticles. I play too many video games. I can outprocrastinate you. I drink too little water. I get easily sidetracked by new projects. I'm generally messy. I fall into patronizing mode too easily. I overthink things. I don't do well with conflict -- I want everyone to get along. I eat too many sweets. I crave approval.
But I have a couple good traits. I am generous. I love meeting new people. I'm patient. I'm slow to anger. I have quite a bit more musical talent than most people. I like to learn and I love to laugh. I'm open-minded, which I'll define as... I like to hear stuff that challenges my worldview and if it's really good stuff, I'll buy it and throw out my old opinion.
I recently came to the conclusion that I am a Democrat. (I used to think of myself as an independent. I voted for Ross Perot in 92, Colin Powell in 96 and Ralph Nader in 2000, so that should explain things a little.) But on issues such as the environment, social programs, taxation, gay rights, abortion rights, gun rights, and many others, I fall proudly into the liberal camp. I donated to the Obama campaign before the Iowa caucuses, so I have some misplaced sense of ownership in his presidency.
I can't wait to write about each of those topics. Several times. I am transfixed by politics.
I teach piano. It's my third, and final, career choice.
I'm addicted to expensive coffee.
I love all sports except horse racing and auto racing.
I'm writing a novel and a workbook on how to teach yourself to arrange songs and improvise at the piano.
I am constantly thankful for the blessings of family, be they my parents, my brothers, my in-laws (no joke) or the whole extended bunch of them. I don't deserve them. In a good way.
If I forgot something crucial, and you're a helpful friend, you'll add it to this list.
But let's get this going, shall we?
(For the record: You could do a lot worse than concluding your day with a careful listen to Jon Stewart.)
But can we use this space to return, semi-artificially, to those days? I'd like that. That's why I'll try to engage you, my purposeful or accidental reader, with topics that range from how best to fight the war on terror to Ichiro's awesomeness.
To do so more effectively, you should know a few things about me. (Not unlike the viral 25 Things About Me social-networking note.)
I'm a Christian. Philosophically. But Taoism is intriguing and liberating. Much more on this later.
I'm extraordinarily happily married with two incredible kids, and that colors everything else in my life. (Obviously.)
I read a lot. I like big words. I'm kind of a nerd. I even have glasses.
I have a collection of bad habits. I bite my nails and my cuticles. I play too many video games. I can outprocrastinate you. I drink too little water. I get easily sidetracked by new projects. I'm generally messy. I fall into patronizing mode too easily. I overthink things. I don't do well with conflict -- I want everyone to get along. I eat too many sweets. I crave approval.
But I have a couple good traits. I am generous. I love meeting new people. I'm patient. I'm slow to anger. I have quite a bit more musical talent than most people. I like to learn and I love to laugh. I'm open-minded, which I'll define as... I like to hear stuff that challenges my worldview and if it's really good stuff, I'll buy it and throw out my old opinion.
I recently came to the conclusion that I am a Democrat. (I used to think of myself as an independent. I voted for Ross Perot in 92, Colin Powell in 96 and Ralph Nader in 2000, so that should explain things a little.) But on issues such as the environment, social programs, taxation, gay rights, abortion rights, gun rights, and many others, I fall proudly into the liberal camp. I donated to the Obama campaign before the Iowa caucuses, so I have some misplaced sense of ownership in his presidency.
I can't wait to write about each of those topics. Several times. I am transfixed by politics.
I teach piano. It's my third, and final, career choice.
I'm addicted to expensive coffee.
I love all sports except horse racing and auto racing.
I'm writing a novel and a workbook on how to teach yourself to arrange songs and improvise at the piano.
I am constantly thankful for the blessings of family, be they my parents, my brothers, my in-laws (no joke) or the whole extended bunch of them. I don't deserve them. In a good way.
If I forgot something crucial, and you're a helpful friend, you'll add it to this list.
But let's get this going, shall we?
Welcome / 5-1-09
Hi and welcome. Read up. But I'm not writing for you. I'm writing for me. It's a mostly selfish endeavor, this blog.
Please read along if the topic du jour catches your eye. Visit often. Bookmark me! Comment all you want. Let's get some debate going. But all I'm trying to do here is slow down the atrophification (not a word) of my brain. Join the ride.
I'll be controversial, sarcastic, serious, provocative, boring, predictable, fresh and stale. (Not all at once, I hope. That would be confusing.) Feel free to play along. Thanks!
Please read along if the topic du jour catches your eye. Visit often. Bookmark me! Comment all you want. Let's get some debate going. But all I'm trying to do here is slow down the atrophification (not a word) of my brain. Join the ride.
I'll be controversial, sarcastic, serious, provocative, boring, predictable, fresh and stale. (Not all at once, I hope. That would be confusing.) Feel free to play along. Thanks!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)