With Al Franken set to be sworn in to the U.S. Senate as early as next week, the D's will outnumber the R's 60-40 in that hallowed chamber. That's a filibuster-proof majority.
So, as every living human with cable news will know within two weeks' time, Franken's arrival gives the Democrats carte blanche to ramrod every existing piece of legislation they can dream of through Congress, sending bills authorizing the annihilation of America to the Oval Office, where President-Dictator Barack Karl Lenin Hussein Zedong Castro Kim-Jong-Obama will sign them gleefully before dancing naked atop a tattered, slightly singed, crumpled-up Old Glory. Do I smell weed?
The reality is somewhat different.
Some moderate Democrats are going to balk at bills that sway too far to the left. Some moderate Republicans -- there have to be a few left, the EPA probably has a list somewhere in its Endangered Species files -- will straddle the fence.
As Franken himself said today: "Sixty is a magic number, but it isn't, because we know that we have senators who -- Republicans who are going to vote with the Democrats, with a majority of Democrats on certain votes, and Democrats that are going to vote with majority Republicans on others. So it's not quite a magic number as some people may say. But I hope we do get President Obama's agenda through."
What WILL happen a lot is, Democrats will vote along party lines for the little stuff, the stuff that doesn't break through the force field of "Michael Jackson: Still Dead" 24-hour coverage or through continuous "Brett Favre: Still semi-almost-unretired! Or not! Haha!" loops on ESPN. The little stuff includes things like hundreds and thousands of confirmations of federal court judges and low-level administration appointees. You know, the stuff that needs to happen for the government to function, but is being presently blocked out of spite and childish game-playing.
"Oh, John, you're such a hater. Republicans aren't that petty. They save the filibuster for the big stuff, the controversial bills they need to stop for the good of they country." Except they don't. As the Democrats did from 2002 to 2006, the R's make the majority party fight for every last inch of territory, no matter how insignificant. For better or for worse, that's how the game is played nowadays. Only the GOP lost one of its game pieces. Oops.
Not only that, but as I mentioned in a post not too long ago, centrist Democrats are free to vote against bills that they dislike. But keeping the legislation from coming to the Senate floor at all is a different animal. You have to buck your party's leadership to do so; then you're risking even more than re-election. You're jeopardizing your committee chairmanship. Egads! Anyway, the safe political course, as a moderate, is to vote for cloture (meaning the end of debate) then vote against the bill you dislike... even as said bill passes by a 52-48 vote. Look for that outcome to happen plenty of times.
P.S.: Now that the 2008 election season has officially ended, that means 2010 has officially begun... and my money right now is on the D's INCREASING their Senate majority to 63 or 64. That would be true filibuster-proof material. But don't take my word for it -- go to Lord of the Poll Dance Nate Silver. Silver publishes, on his site fivethirtyeight.com, monthly rankings that show the most contested Senate races. And four of the top five races feature incumbent Republicans. Month after month after month. A new ranking comes out any day now. Cheers!
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Filibuster Parfait, Part 1 / 6-30-09
A scant 34 weeks after Election Night, the 2008 election season has concluded.
Yes, you can close the books on Minnesota's epic Senate race; incumbent Norm Coleman conceded today. Yes, already. Why the hurry? Well, in the end, the bitter, bitter end, Coleman was deemed to have received fewer votes than challenger Al Franken. Yup, THAT Al Franken. (Oh yes, he is good enough, smart enough, and doggone it, just barely enough people like him.)
Granted, Coleman did own a 477-vote lead the morning after the election. That shrunk to 192 a month later after the hand recount. A phase of ballot-challenging ensued, which flipped the margin to Franken +251 and a final review of those ballot challenges settled on Franken owning a 312-vote advantage.
Messy? Uncertain? You bet. But that's why they have recounts. So you can re-count the votes, even more carefully than before, and guess what? The numbers change when you recount them.
Is the outcome "fair" to Coleman? Probably not... but a Franken victory is just as "fair." If you ran this whole convoluted scenario -- Election Night to tonight -- 101 times on a computer simulation, I get the impression that each candidate would win 50 times and one tie would occur. When the margin of error is in the triple digits in a 2.5-million basket of votes, some shrinkage and leakage and foul play is bound to occur. (I'm leaving out the fact that Coleman's legal team is generally agreed to have been incompetent. In my make-believe simulation, the interested parties hire legal teams of varying skill. It's a very fancy imaginary simulation. Obama still wins every time, though.)
Oh yeah, Coleman's the Republican. Franken's the Democrat. That gives the D's 60 Senators, theoretically enough to quash filibusters. With that in mind, let's hop over to part 2.
Yes, you can close the books on Minnesota's epic Senate race; incumbent Norm Coleman conceded today. Yes, already. Why the hurry? Well, in the end, the bitter, bitter end, Coleman was deemed to have received fewer votes than challenger Al Franken. Yup, THAT Al Franken. (Oh yes, he is good enough, smart enough, and doggone it, just barely enough people like him.)
Granted, Coleman did own a 477-vote lead the morning after the election. That shrunk to 192 a month later after the hand recount. A phase of ballot-challenging ensued, which flipped the margin to Franken +251 and a final review of those ballot challenges settled on Franken owning a 312-vote advantage.
Messy? Uncertain? You bet. But that's why they have recounts. So you can re-count the votes, even more carefully than before, and guess what? The numbers change when you recount them.
Is the outcome "fair" to Coleman? Probably not... but a Franken victory is just as "fair." If you ran this whole convoluted scenario -- Election Night to tonight -- 101 times on a computer simulation, I get the impression that each candidate would win 50 times and one tie would occur. When the margin of error is in the triple digits in a 2.5-million basket of votes, some shrinkage and leakage and foul play is bound to occur. (I'm leaving out the fact that Coleman's legal team is generally agreed to have been incompetent. In my make-believe simulation, the interested parties hire legal teams of varying skill. It's a very fancy imaginary simulation. Obama still wins every time, though.)
Oh yeah, Coleman's the Republican. Franken's the Democrat. That gives the D's 60 Senators, theoretically enough to quash filibusters. With that in mind, let's hop over to part 2.
Wal-Martal Kombat / 6-30-09
My personal boycott of Wal-Mart is in serious jeopardy.
Like any good bleeding-heart, latte-sipping, hybrid-driving, capitalism-hating, Mao-worshipping liberal, I've been properly appalled at the way Wal-Mart treats its workers and expands its empire. The anecdotal evidence is staggering: stories of crews being locked in the store all night with no exiting permitted, employees' hours being managed to prevent them from qualifying for health care benefits, oh so many harassment claims, driving locally owned mom-and-pops out of business while requesting special tax breaks from the municipality it infects... all that stuff is googlable. (New word? Someone before me has surely invented it. I should do a search...)
Well, my mortal enemy has struck back. Negotiations with the Obama White House on health care issues have led to this: The company just declared it FAVORS requiring employers to extend medical insurance to employees.
Yeah, yeah, you're probably thinking, "Wait now, aren't businesses of a certain size ALREADY required to do so?" They are not.
Well then, how do I know the mandate is a good idea? One very big clue, a quote I lifted from the Wall Street Journal:
"The National Retail Federation, the industry's main lobby, said it was 'flabbergasted' by Wal-Mart's move. 'We have been one of the foremost opponents to employer mandate,' said Neil Trautwein, vice president with the Washington-based trade group. 'We are surprised and disappointed by Wal-Mart's choice to embrace an employer mandate in exchange for a promise of cost savings.'
Mr. Trautwein said an employer mandate is 'the single most destructive thing you could do to the health-care system shy of a single-payer system.' "
If Mr. Trautwein says an employer mandate is a terrible, horrible, catastrophic idea, I am excited to see it come to fruition. The sooner, the better, I say.
More from the WSJ:
"As the White House and Congress began floating proposals, Wal-Mart felt it needed to shape the debate, said Leslie Dach, Wal-Mart's executive vice president of corporate affairs and government relations.
'As a company, we believe the present health-care system is unsustainable and making the country's businesses less competitive in the global economy,' said Mr. Dach."
Translation: Wal-Mart recognized that it risked being shut out of negotiations and could be stuck with a system far scarier, to it, than a simple employer mandate. I'll stay tuned to the rest of this story. Maybe I'll even lose an enemy. Or Wal-Mart will try and game the system, and I can keep hatin' on 'em. Oooh, win-win for me!
Like any good bleeding-heart, latte-sipping, hybrid-driving, capitalism-hating, Mao-worshipping liberal, I've been properly appalled at the way Wal-Mart treats its workers and expands its empire. The anecdotal evidence is staggering: stories of crews being locked in the store all night with no exiting permitted, employees' hours being managed to prevent them from qualifying for health care benefits, oh so many harassment claims, driving locally owned mom-and-pops out of business while requesting special tax breaks from the municipality it infects... all that stuff is googlable. (New word? Someone before me has surely invented it. I should do a search...)
Well, my mortal enemy has struck back. Negotiations with the Obama White House on health care issues have led to this: The company just declared it FAVORS requiring employers to extend medical insurance to employees.
Yeah, yeah, you're probably thinking, "Wait now, aren't businesses of a certain size ALREADY required to do so?" They are not.
Well then, how do I know the mandate is a good idea? One very big clue, a quote I lifted from the Wall Street Journal:
"The National Retail Federation, the industry's main lobby, said it was 'flabbergasted' by Wal-Mart's move. 'We have been one of the foremost opponents to employer mandate,' said Neil Trautwein, vice president with the Washington-based trade group. 'We are surprised and disappointed by Wal-Mart's choice to embrace an employer mandate in exchange for a promise of cost savings.'
Mr. Trautwein said an employer mandate is 'the single most destructive thing you could do to the health-care system shy of a single-payer system.' "
If Mr. Trautwein says an employer mandate is a terrible, horrible, catastrophic idea, I am excited to see it come to fruition. The sooner, the better, I say.
More from the WSJ:
"As the White House and Congress began floating proposals, Wal-Mart felt it needed to shape the debate, said Leslie Dach, Wal-Mart's executive vice president of corporate affairs and government relations.
'As a company, we believe the present health-care system is unsustainable and making the country's businesses less competitive in the global economy,' said Mr. Dach."
Translation: Wal-Mart recognized that it risked being shut out of negotiations and could be stuck with a system far scarier, to it, than a simple employer mandate. I'll stay tuned to the rest of this story. Maybe I'll even lose an enemy. Or Wal-Mart will try and game the system, and I can keep hatin' on 'em. Oooh, win-win for me!
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Out / 6-27-09
Three disclaimers are in order here, before we get going.
1. This isn't going to happen in your mainstream Sunday morning worship service.
2. Exorcisms are documented in the Bible.
3. The teenager is said to have requested the "procedure."
With that out of the way...
"Rip it from his throat! Come on, you homosexual demon!" a woman yells. "You homosexual spirit, we call you out right now! Loose your grip, Lucifer!"
She's addressing the body of a 16-year-old boy.
"Come out of his belly," someone commands. "It's in the belly. Push."
The teenager submits. Several people are holding him immobile. He vomits.
"Get another bag," a voice calls out. "Make sure you have your gloves."
Those are the "highlights" from the casting out of a homosexual demon. It happened recently in a small Connecticut church. The video got posted on youtube but the church took it down soon thereafter. Not soon enough.
(For the video, by the way, click here, that should do it. I feel like I should include a warning, but I guess we're all big boys and girls here.)
So the church's pastor, later, offers this explanation, which I got from msnbc.com, so take it for what it's worth.
"He was out of control in the church," she said. "This young man came to us. We didn't go to him." She wasn't calling it an exorcism, choosing instead to term it a casting out of spirits. "He was dressing like a woman and everything. And he didn't want to be like that," she said.
It's easy to get mad at all kinds of people here. The pastor, the churchgoers, the larger Christian community, the kid himself. For my part, I wonder if the church routinely performs other exorcism-type services. Like for stealing. Or for pride, or maybe even for adulterous behavior. For lust? It sounds like I'm being flippant, but I'm not -- maybe they do. I can see that happening... some congregations are pretty immersed in the Angels vs. Demons business. So maybe during this particular "casting out" adventure, everyone got a little carried away because of the gayness factor? No... my gut tells me this is just another way for small minds to brand homosexuals as the scary subhuman other.
The video leaves me a little sad, plenty angry and more than a little ashamed, as a guy who still likes to call himself a Christian. But maybe the fact it got publicized nationally and then got mentioned on a few thousand blogs here and there will change something somewhere.
I'm left shaking my head. And thinking the same thing as this gay rights advocate, quoted in the same msnbc.com story: "What saddens me is the people that are doing this think they are doing something in the kid's best interests, when in fact they're murdering his spirit."
1. This isn't going to happen in your mainstream Sunday morning worship service.
2. Exorcisms are documented in the Bible.
3. The teenager is said to have requested the "procedure."
With that out of the way...
"Rip it from his throat! Come on, you homosexual demon!" a woman yells. "You homosexual spirit, we call you out right now! Loose your grip, Lucifer!"
She's addressing the body of a 16-year-old boy.
"Come out of his belly," someone commands. "It's in the belly. Push."
The teenager submits. Several people are holding him immobile. He vomits.
"Get another bag," a voice calls out. "Make sure you have your gloves."
Those are the "highlights" from the casting out of a homosexual demon. It happened recently in a small Connecticut church. The video got posted on youtube but the church took it down soon thereafter. Not soon enough.
(For the video, by the way, click here, that should do it. I feel like I should include a warning, but I guess we're all big boys and girls here.)
So the church's pastor, later, offers this explanation, which I got from msnbc.com, so take it for what it's worth.
"He was out of control in the church," she said. "This young man came to us. We didn't go to him." She wasn't calling it an exorcism, choosing instead to term it a casting out of spirits. "He was dressing like a woman and everything. And he didn't want to be like that," she said.
It's easy to get mad at all kinds of people here. The pastor, the churchgoers, the larger Christian community, the kid himself. For my part, I wonder if the church routinely performs other exorcism-type services. Like for stealing. Or for pride, or maybe even for adulterous behavior. For lust? It sounds like I'm being flippant, but I'm not -- maybe they do. I can see that happening... some congregations are pretty immersed in the Angels vs. Demons business. So maybe during this particular "casting out" adventure, everyone got a little carried away because of the gayness factor? No... my gut tells me this is just another way for small minds to brand homosexuals as the scary subhuman other.
The video leaves me a little sad, plenty angry and more than a little ashamed, as a guy who still likes to call himself a Christian. But maybe the fact it got publicized nationally and then got mentioned on a few thousand blogs here and there will change something somewhere.
I'm left shaking my head. And thinking the same thing as this gay rights advocate, quoted in the same msnbc.com story: "What saddens me is the people that are doing this think they are doing something in the kid's best interests, when in fact they're murdering his spirit."
Friday, June 26, 2009
What, did someone die? / 6-26-09
Big news this week. A major death, really.
When the House of Representatives narrowly passed a bill containing so-called "cap-and-trade," an ugly way of life died. A decades-long (centuries-long?) effort by major polluters to reap short-term profits at the expense of the environment began to be rolled back.
I will delve deeply into cap-and-trade at some point, maybe when it actually becomes the law of the land, after it clears the Senate in some mutilated form. (President Obama will sign the bill, which will turn out to be, in the long run, the most significant accomplishment of his eight years in office.) I'll get into the costs to individuals, to businesses and I'll balance those against the long-term benefits we will begin to reap. I'll mine the details for clues as to the winners and losers under the new system. But for now, this very concise explanation, lifted from the L.A. Times, will have to do:
"The bill would create a system for buying and selling emission permits that give the bearer the right to send carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Major sources of those gases, such as power plants and factories, would need to obtain enough permits to cover their emissions. Or they would need to cover their emissions with 'offsets,' such as planting trees, that scrub carbon dioxide from the sky."
Translation: major polluters will be allowed to proceed with business as usual, but the financial incentive to mend their ways will be too large to pass up. They will face a choice between throwing millions away each month, each WEEK, on permits... or innovating and investing in greener processes. They will choose option B, out of survival AND responsibility to their shareholders.
Ah, the free market. It's a beautiful thing when properly harnessed.
(Impact on small businesses: that's what I have to research. I'm looking forward to it. Early signs are good, as in "not-too-onerous" as of yet.)
So for the first time in a long time, the nation's most obscene polluters are not setting environmental policy. This means we can begin, with this bill, to reverse course from the wanton destruction -- for nothing more than money! -- of our country and of our planet.
That's cause for celebration.
Now, this from April 2009: "I am a supporter of a strong cap-and-trade system, but I will not and cannot align myself with a giant government slush fund that will further burden our businesses and consumers." That's Senator John McCain. Remember him? He's come out, in the past few years, all over the place on the concept of cap-and-trade. A Google search of his position yields plenty of contradictory articles. If he gets what he wants in the Senate version, it will pass and handily. If he doesn't, we're in for a doozy of a fight.
When the House of Representatives narrowly passed a bill containing so-called "cap-and-trade," an ugly way of life died. A decades-long (centuries-long?) effort by major polluters to reap short-term profits at the expense of the environment began to be rolled back.
I will delve deeply into cap-and-trade at some point, maybe when it actually becomes the law of the land, after it clears the Senate in some mutilated form. (President Obama will sign the bill, which will turn out to be, in the long run, the most significant accomplishment of his eight years in office.) I'll get into the costs to individuals, to businesses and I'll balance those against the long-term benefits we will begin to reap. I'll mine the details for clues as to the winners and losers under the new system. But for now, this very concise explanation, lifted from the L.A. Times, will have to do:
"The bill would create a system for buying and selling emission permits that give the bearer the right to send carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Major sources of those gases, such as power plants and factories, would need to obtain enough permits to cover their emissions. Or they would need to cover their emissions with 'offsets,' such as planting trees, that scrub carbon dioxide from the sky."
Translation: major polluters will be allowed to proceed with business as usual, but the financial incentive to mend their ways will be too large to pass up. They will face a choice between throwing millions away each month, each WEEK, on permits... or innovating and investing in greener processes. They will choose option B, out of survival AND responsibility to their shareholders.
Ah, the free market. It's a beautiful thing when properly harnessed.
(Impact on small businesses: that's what I have to research. I'm looking forward to it. Early signs are good, as in "not-too-onerous" as of yet.)
So for the first time in a long time, the nation's most obscene polluters are not setting environmental policy. This means we can begin, with this bill, to reverse course from the wanton destruction -- for nothing more than money! -- of our country and of our planet.
That's cause for celebration.
Now, this from April 2009: "I am a supporter of a strong cap-and-trade system, but I will not and cannot align myself with a giant government slush fund that will further burden our businesses and consumers." That's Senator John McCain. Remember him? He's come out, in the past few years, all over the place on the concept of cap-and-trade. A Google search of his position yields plenty of contradictory articles. If he gets what he wants in the Senate version, it will pass and handily. If he doesn't, we're in for a doozy of a fight.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Mariners continue to tread water / 6-20-09
Mariners made it back to .500 today with a 7-3 victory. Thought you'd like to know.
Everyone wants to talk about home runs, great pitching performances, and bad calls as avenues to winning or losing.
Tonight illustrated the importance of defense.
An error in the first leads to a run for Arizona; a misplay in the outfield leads to Seattle's first run later on. A nice running catch by Arizona's left fielder saves two runs at the time. A dumb error by Seattle's second baseman allowed another run to score for Arizona and left the outcome of the game if not in doubt, at least within worrying range. Arizona's shortstop made two excellent plays. The game ended when Seattle's left fielder climbed the short wall in foul territory and reached in between two fans to make the final out. Seattle's catcher scored by evading a lackluster tag at the plate after a poor throw by an Arizona outfielder. Arizona's pitcher deflected a batted ball off his own glove, preventing his teammates from turning a double play.
The M's would have won this one 1-0 in a cleanly fielded game. Or lost it 2-1 if the Diamondbacks had been less sloppy.
The next few weeks will illustrate just how important defense is to the Mariners: starting left fielder Endy Chavez is out for the season when a poor defensive teammate ran into him and blew up his knee; third baseman Adrian Beltre, considered one of the top gloves at his position, is less than 100 percent with shoulder issues; and both middle infielders run the risk of being traded midseason, in part because of their subpar defense.
If the M's proceed to lose a lot of games 5-4 and 4-3 in the next few weeks, it should be easy to point nightly at a defensive meltdown that cost them a run. Don't automatically assume Ichiro should have gotten another hit or Griffey should have launched another homer, or Felix should have struck out one more batter.
Everyone wants to talk about home runs, great pitching performances, and bad calls as avenues to winning or losing.
Tonight illustrated the importance of defense.
An error in the first leads to a run for Arizona; a misplay in the outfield leads to Seattle's first run later on. A nice running catch by Arizona's left fielder saves two runs at the time. A dumb error by Seattle's second baseman allowed another run to score for Arizona and left the outcome of the game if not in doubt, at least within worrying range. Arizona's shortstop made two excellent plays. The game ended when Seattle's left fielder climbed the short wall in foul territory and reached in between two fans to make the final out. Seattle's catcher scored by evading a lackluster tag at the plate after a poor throw by an Arizona outfielder. Arizona's pitcher deflected a batted ball off his own glove, preventing his teammates from turning a double play.
The M's would have won this one 1-0 in a cleanly fielded game. Or lost it 2-1 if the Diamondbacks had been less sloppy.
The next few weeks will illustrate just how important defense is to the Mariners: starting left fielder Endy Chavez is out for the season when a poor defensive teammate ran into him and blew up his knee; third baseman Adrian Beltre, considered one of the top gloves at his position, is less than 100 percent with shoulder issues; and both middle infielders run the risk of being traded midseason, in part because of their subpar defense.
If the M's proceed to lose a lot of games 5-4 and 4-3 in the next few weeks, it should be easy to point nightly at a defensive meltdown that cost them a run. Don't automatically assume Ichiro should have gotten another hit or Griffey should have launched another homer, or Felix should have struck out one more batter.
Friday, June 19, 2009
The Taoist Christian, Part 3
Part 3 of many.
I suppose I've never really believed... no, scratch that, I've been moving away in the past 15 years from the idea of God as a superhuman being. And toward the idea of God as fundamentally other.
"Well, John, nobody really believes God is just a omnipotent, invisible dude. Of course God is other. He's God!"
Okay. Then what IS God? I mean, if not a personality-laden being with chemical processes interacting synergetically with conscious thought, then what? (And you can drop the "He" from God anytime you like. You yourself don't even believe God is male. So lose the self-deception already.)
I land, straight from that unsolvable question, into Taoism, where the unsolvable nature of the Tao is a given. And I feel at home. From the Tao Te Ching:
"The Tao never does anything, yet through it all things are done."
"Immersed in the wonder of the Tao,
you can deal with whatever life brings you,
and when death comes, you are ready."
And then, from Hua Hu Ching, ostensibly Lao Tzu's other book:
"How can the divine Oneness be seen?
In beautiful forms, breathtaking wonders, awe-inspiring miracles?
The Tao is not obliged to present itself in this way."
Back to the Tao Te Ching, for the kicker:
"The Tao is called the Great Mother:
empty yet inexhaustible,
it gives birth to infinite worlds.
It is always present within you.
You can use it any way you want."
I sense the objections coming.
"You've been watching too much Star Wars, John. A Force-like being doesn't care for us, doesn't become incarnate, doesn't even create the world! You're not a heathen... you're a pagan!"
Calm down. I'm a Christian. Jesus is a mysterious guy whose history is grossly incomplete, but I strive to follow what he said, as best as I can tell that he actually said it. You forget that the Gospels are more like a "Greatest Hits of Christ" performed by a cover band, rather than a live recording of J. C. and the Disciples.
And in case you haven't read the Old Testament, there are some timeless stories that illustrate the nature of a very complex and unpredictable God, and some downright wisdom in places. (Not in Leviticus, that's pretty much man-made legalistic drivel.)
Anyway, it is hard to find better scripture than in the Bible. The God laid out in those 66 books is caring, just, loving, involved, and a little tricky. It's a revolutionary concept if you pause to contemplate it.
But if you mean that I eschew the Bible as a complete revelation of God, yes, I'm a frickin' pagan. And there's only so much description of God as "He" that I can take. And of God as Weathermaster Extraordinaire. And as Selective Healer of Cancers. And as Do-Not-Collect-Heaven-Do-Not-Pass-Go-Proceed-Directly-To-Hell Guy.
Once those ideas of God are out the window, and they do tend to happen in that order, I'm left with a stranger, weirder God than I can ever find discussed in mainstream or evangelical churches.
Fortunately, the Tao is there to catch me. Or I fall into it, and it catches me by not catching me.
I suppose I've never really believed... no, scratch that, I've been moving away in the past 15 years from the idea of God as a superhuman being. And toward the idea of God as fundamentally other.
"Well, John, nobody really believes God is just a omnipotent, invisible dude. Of course God is other. He's God!"
Okay. Then what IS God? I mean, if not a personality-laden being with chemical processes interacting synergetically with conscious thought, then what? (And you can drop the "He" from God anytime you like. You yourself don't even believe God is male. So lose the self-deception already.)
I land, straight from that unsolvable question, into Taoism, where the unsolvable nature of the Tao is a given. And I feel at home. From the Tao Te Ching:
"The Tao never does anything, yet through it all things are done."
"Immersed in the wonder of the Tao,
you can deal with whatever life brings you,
and when death comes, you are ready."
And then, from Hua Hu Ching, ostensibly Lao Tzu's other book:
"How can the divine Oneness be seen?
In beautiful forms, breathtaking wonders, awe-inspiring miracles?
The Tao is not obliged to present itself in this way."
Back to the Tao Te Ching, for the kicker:
"The Tao is called the Great Mother:
empty yet inexhaustible,
it gives birth to infinite worlds.
It is always present within you.
You can use it any way you want."
I sense the objections coming.
"You've been watching too much Star Wars, John. A Force-like being doesn't care for us, doesn't become incarnate, doesn't even create the world! You're not a heathen... you're a pagan!"
Calm down. I'm a Christian. Jesus is a mysterious guy whose history is grossly incomplete, but I strive to follow what he said, as best as I can tell that he actually said it. You forget that the Gospels are more like a "Greatest Hits of Christ" performed by a cover band, rather than a live recording of J. C. and the Disciples.
And in case you haven't read the Old Testament, there are some timeless stories that illustrate the nature of a very complex and unpredictable God, and some downright wisdom in places. (Not in Leviticus, that's pretty much man-made legalistic drivel.)
Anyway, it is hard to find better scripture than in the Bible. The God laid out in those 66 books is caring, just, loving, involved, and a little tricky. It's a revolutionary concept if you pause to contemplate it.
But if you mean that I eschew the Bible as a complete revelation of God, yes, I'm a frickin' pagan. And there's only so much description of God as "He" that I can take. And of God as Weathermaster Extraordinaire. And as Selective Healer of Cancers. And as Do-Not-Collect-Heaven-Do-Not-Pass-Go-Proceed-Directly-To-Hell Guy.
Once those ideas of God are out the window, and they do tend to happen in that order, I'm left with a stranger, weirder God than I can ever find discussed in mainstream or evangelical churches.
Fortunately, the Tao is there to catch me. Or I fall into it, and it catches me by not catching me.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
The secret calamities of global climate warming change / 6-17-09
Unrelated introduction:
It is intellectually dishonest to discredit climate change on the basis that it used to be called global warming.
Carry on.
Everyone wants to fret about how climate change will warm the earth in places it should be cold, turn Canada into a rival wheat and corn producer to the U.S., kill off a bunch of cute critters, confuse Alaskan moose, melt some glaciers and turn Siberia into a balmy tourist trap. Some of that is neither here nor there; some of it is alarming.
Two other effects are far doomsdayier, I submit.
One is how a gradual warming of the seas will upset the underwater ecosystem. I'm not technically a biologist by trade, but I invite my billions of readers with advanced science-related degrees to confirm this suspicion of mine: even a tiny change in the balance of oceanic life will have an unforeseen major impact on land life. In the event of a sea change under the sea -- please forgive the lame joke -- the consequences are mysterious at this point, mostly because we haven't been doing the research necessary.
To give you an idea from sciencedaily.com:
"The disparity in focus on land-based compared to marine impacts was highlighted in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which included 28,500 significant biological changes in terrestrial systems but only 85 in marine systems."
And the study's co-author's money quote: "Climate change is affecting ocean temperatures, the supply of nutrients from the land, ocean chemistry, food chains, shifts in wind systems, ocean currents and extreme events such as cyclones. All of these in turn affect the distribution, abundance, breeding cycles and migrations of marine plants and animals, which millions of people rely on for food and income. Development of the Integrated Marine Observing System, announced in 2006, is an important step forward but securing data over the time scales relevant for climate assessment will not occur until near 2030.”
In other words, we're really just waiting for the other shoe to drop. We won't know what kind of effects rising ocean temps will have, and by the time those effects begin to, well, take effect, we won't be able to do much about them, will we now.
Just as grave is the coming toll on the poorest humans. A small rise in sea levels coupled with harsher conditions in barely arable land will displace 200 million people in the next forty years. And we're not talking about people who will calmly pack their worldly effects in a medium-sized U-Haul, leisurely travel cross-country and settle into a nice rental in the suburbs before they buy their next four-bedroom, two-and-a-half-bath home. No, this is Southeast Asia we're mainly talking about here, where abject poverty AND religious extremism AND political oppression reign already. Don't think too hard about where these dispirited nomads will be headed. There are no good answers.
So don't blow off climate change as an abstract bogeyman. The effects will be global, they will be real and the time to act is the day before yesterday.
It is intellectually dishonest to discredit climate change on the basis that it used to be called global warming.
Carry on.
Everyone wants to fret about how climate change will warm the earth in places it should be cold, turn Canada into a rival wheat and corn producer to the U.S., kill off a bunch of cute critters, confuse Alaskan moose, melt some glaciers and turn Siberia into a balmy tourist trap. Some of that is neither here nor there; some of it is alarming.
Two other effects are far doomsdayier, I submit.
One is how a gradual warming of the seas will upset the underwater ecosystem. I'm not technically a biologist by trade, but I invite my billions of readers with advanced science-related degrees to confirm this suspicion of mine: even a tiny change in the balance of oceanic life will have an unforeseen major impact on land life. In the event of a sea change under the sea -- please forgive the lame joke -- the consequences are mysterious at this point, mostly because we haven't been doing the research necessary.
To give you an idea from sciencedaily.com:
"The disparity in focus on land-based compared to marine impacts was highlighted in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which included 28,500 significant biological changes in terrestrial systems but only 85 in marine systems."
And the study's co-author's money quote: "Climate change is affecting ocean temperatures, the supply of nutrients from the land, ocean chemistry, food chains, shifts in wind systems, ocean currents and extreme events such as cyclones. All of these in turn affect the distribution, abundance, breeding cycles and migrations of marine plants and animals, which millions of people rely on for food and income. Development of the Integrated Marine Observing System, announced in 2006, is an important step forward but securing data over the time scales relevant for climate assessment will not occur until near 2030.”
In other words, we're really just waiting for the other shoe to drop. We won't know what kind of effects rising ocean temps will have, and by the time those effects begin to, well, take effect, we won't be able to do much about them, will we now.
Just as grave is the coming toll on the poorest humans. A small rise in sea levels coupled with harsher conditions in barely arable land will displace 200 million people in the next forty years. And we're not talking about people who will calmly pack their worldly effects in a medium-sized U-Haul, leisurely travel cross-country and settle into a nice rental in the suburbs before they buy their next four-bedroom, two-and-a-half-bath home. No, this is Southeast Asia we're mainly talking about here, where abject poverty AND religious extremism AND political oppression reign already. Don't think too hard about where these dispirited nomads will be headed. There are no good answers.
So don't blow off climate change as an abstract bogeyman. The effects will be global, they will be real and the time to act is the day before yesterday.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Rush to Power / 6-12-09
I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that there is a dearth of volunteers for post of "Hey, I run the Republican Party!"
(Insert joke about taking the helm of the post-iceberg Titanic.)
If I were an ambitious Republican, I would consider exile. I would govern my state or represent my district quietly and stay the h*ll away from radioactive politicians.
So nobody should be surprised that IN AN OPEN-ENDED QUESTION, Rush Limbaugh was the most cited name when REPUBLICANS were asked to name the person who speaks for their party.
No surreptitious tricks by left-leaning dirty pollsters here, asking poor confused GOP folk to choose necessarily between Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney, Teddy Roosevelt, John McCain, Michael Steele and Limbaugh. No letting Democrats choose the R's leader (although they did select Limbaugh too, so we can all agree on something for once).
No no, this radio personality was the top vote-getter for national leader of a major party. Times are tough for conservatives. (In the interest of full disclosure, Newt tied with Rush and Cheney was right behind in third place. Not sure if that makes anything better.)
In the same questionnaire, zero percent of Republicans named George W. Bush as the party's voice. That seems odd, but within the realm of believability. Still, zero. Wow.
(Insert joke about taking the helm of the post-iceberg Titanic.)
If I were an ambitious Republican, I would consider exile. I would govern my state or represent my district quietly and stay the h*ll away from radioactive politicians.
So nobody should be surprised that IN AN OPEN-ENDED QUESTION, Rush Limbaugh was the most cited name when REPUBLICANS were asked to name the person who speaks for their party.
No surreptitious tricks by left-leaning dirty pollsters here, asking poor confused GOP folk to choose necessarily between Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney, Teddy Roosevelt, John McCain, Michael Steele and Limbaugh. No letting Democrats choose the R's leader (although they did select Limbaugh too, so we can all agree on something for once).
No no, this radio personality was the top vote-getter for national leader of a major party. Times are tough for conservatives. (In the interest of full disclosure, Newt tied with Rush and Cheney was right behind in third place. Not sure if that makes anything better.)
In the same questionnaire, zero percent of Republicans named George W. Bush as the party's voice. That seems odd, but within the realm of believability. Still, zero. Wow.
Grasping at straws / 6-12-09
I have a buddy who's a Republican, and proud of it. He's a proselytizer, too, always making an argument for his side. I chortled when he claimed earlier this week that Obama was going to ruin the economy. Look at the unemployment figures, he crowed. Where's the stimulation that the stimulus was supposed to stimulate, he raved.
Pick your battles, my friend. If there's one thing that will look better when Obama runs again, it's the economy.
BHO may or may not get us out of either Iraq or Afghanistan, and the country might still be running massive deficits in 2012 when we get to have another presidential campaign. But I can guarantee that when people are asked, during that glorious season of debates and stump speeches, if they are better off now than they were four years ago, it will be the resoundingest "yes" we've heard in a while.
Tie your fortunes to Obama's health care reform agenda. Tie your political fortunes to his foreign policy, which will certainly include a blunder or two. Hope for a debilitating scandal that ensnares Biden and Pelosi and makes the D's look corrupt. But unless you're a complete idiot, don't bet on the economy tanking. Seriously people. It hit rock bottom with the Bush League, but those days are over and the adults are back in charge now.
Pick your battles, my friend. If there's one thing that will look better when Obama runs again, it's the economy.
BHO may or may not get us out of either Iraq or Afghanistan, and the country might still be running massive deficits in 2012 when we get to have another presidential campaign. But I can guarantee that when people are asked, during that glorious season of debates and stump speeches, if they are better off now than they were four years ago, it will be the resoundingest "yes" we've heard in a while.
Tie your fortunes to Obama's health care reform agenda. Tie your political fortunes to his foreign policy, which will certainly include a blunder or two. Hope for a debilitating scandal that ensnares Biden and Pelosi and makes the D's look corrupt. But unless you're a complete idiot, don't bet on the economy tanking. Seriously people. It hit rock bottom with the Bush League, but those days are over and the adults are back in charge now.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Pardon me while I save democracy / 6-9-09
U.S. Congressional terms last two years. Presidents serve for four at a time. Senators get elected to six-year terms. Not breaking any news here.
The most famous slogan in a "change" election year is "Throw the bums out." Oh what a dandy it is... 1994 and 2006 are prime examples of that voters heeding that directive.
Well, I'd like to keep the bums a little longer, please. (Please, sir? C'n I hav' s'moh?)
Terms that short are a colossal waste of resources. From a 2000 study:
"While anecdotal evidence has long suggested that candidates and members of Congress spend increasing amounts of time fundraising, Paul Herrnson [political scientist and director of the Center for American Politics and Citizenship at the University of Maryland] directed a study providing the first hard numbers. Based on candidates' answers to survey questions, 55 percent of those running for statewide office, 43 percent of those running for Congress, and even 33 percent of those running for state legislatures spent one-quarter of their campaign time raising money. Nearly one of every five spent as much as half their campaign time fundraising."
I'll take that to be fairly typical of today's realities -- if anything, I'd bet the percentage of time spent raising money is higher now. A law prof at Stanford puts the figure between 30 and 70 percent. Yes, that 70.
The Constitution's framers most certainly did not envision round-the-clock fundraising and 12-hour news cycles predicated on crystal-balling two or three years out. Maybe they foresaw that shorter terms would keep the representatives and executives from getting too cute too often, because an election would always be just around the corner to keep them honest. But Madison and Jefferson would be aghast at the role fundraising plays nowadays. Aghast, I tell you.
So let's give congresspersons three years at a time, Presidents six and Senators nine. Or 4, 6, and 8 respectively. Just let's not have elections every two years, because then every new Congress begins its session in January with news coverage explaining how every vote impacts their re-election chances the following fall. And if you haven't noticed, or cared to notice, talk of who will challenge Obama in 2012 is heating up. I grow nauseous thinking about it... and I'm a political junkie, for Taosakes.
There are obstacles to getting this done.
Roadblock No. 1: Some dude or lady has to introduce the bill. Come down Prediction Lane with me to read the ensuing headlines.
Daily Kos: Imagine 12 years of W
Huffington Post: Where was this in 2008 when we needed it?
New York Times: Throw The Bums In? No, Thank You
Washington Post: Senator X aims to abolish elections; Senator Y already senile as it is
538.com: Three in five voters oppose longer terms, excepting own home state's delegation
MSNBC, Olbermann-Maddow syndicate: Let's do this quick, before the GOP stages a comeback
Fox News: Pelosi seeks lifetime term
Town Hall: Not over my dead Constitution's body
CNN: Tom Cruise arrested for DUI; Jolie adopts Tanzania; Rat flu will kill us all!
I can't imagine that any Congress(wo)man thinks that such a move could enhance their bid for re-election.
Roadblock No. 2: Americans like changing their mind. Or at least the ability to change their mind. Not to be underestimated.
I understand that if terms are extended -- through a constitutional convention or an amendment to the U.S. King James Constitution -- then fund-raising would extend from a two-year cycle to three. And that there would still be chatter about a presidential election five years in the future. But it would be muted for a while. And the frantic, consuming pace of money-grabbing would be temporarily quelled. That alone has to be good thing, so we should give it a try. For the sake of our democracy. Which isn't a democracy, but a republic. I knew that.
The most famous slogan in a "change" election year is "Throw the bums out." Oh what a dandy it is... 1994 and 2006 are prime examples of that voters heeding that directive.
Well, I'd like to keep the bums a little longer, please. (Please, sir? C'n I hav' s'moh?)
Terms that short are a colossal waste of resources. From a 2000 study:
"While anecdotal evidence has long suggested that candidates and members of Congress spend increasing amounts of time fundraising, Paul Herrnson [political scientist and director of the Center for American Politics and Citizenship at the University of Maryland] directed a study providing the first hard numbers. Based on candidates' answers to survey questions, 55 percent of those running for statewide office, 43 percent of those running for Congress, and even 33 percent of those running for state legislatures spent one-quarter of their campaign time raising money. Nearly one of every five spent as much as half their campaign time fundraising."
I'll take that to be fairly typical of today's realities -- if anything, I'd bet the percentage of time spent raising money is higher now. A law prof at Stanford puts the figure between 30 and 70 percent. Yes, that 70.
The Constitution's framers most certainly did not envision round-the-clock fundraising and 12-hour news cycles predicated on crystal-balling two or three years out. Maybe they foresaw that shorter terms would keep the representatives and executives from getting too cute too often, because an election would always be just around the corner to keep them honest. But Madison and Jefferson would be aghast at the role fundraising plays nowadays. Aghast, I tell you.
So let's give congresspersons three years at a time, Presidents six and Senators nine. Or 4, 6, and 8 respectively. Just let's not have elections every two years, because then every new Congress begins its session in January with news coverage explaining how every vote impacts their re-election chances the following fall. And if you haven't noticed, or cared to notice, talk of who will challenge Obama in 2012 is heating up. I grow nauseous thinking about it... and I'm a political junkie, for Taosakes.
There are obstacles to getting this done.
Roadblock No. 1: Some dude or lady has to introduce the bill. Come down Prediction Lane with me to read the ensuing headlines.
Daily Kos: Imagine 12 years of W
Huffington Post: Where was this in 2008 when we needed it?
New York Times: Throw The Bums In? No, Thank You
Washington Post: Senator X aims to abolish elections; Senator Y already senile as it is
538.com: Three in five voters oppose longer terms, excepting own home state's delegation
MSNBC, Olbermann-Maddow syndicate: Let's do this quick, before the GOP stages a comeback
Fox News: Pelosi seeks lifetime term
Town Hall: Not over my dead Constitution's body
CNN: Tom Cruise arrested for DUI; Jolie adopts Tanzania; Rat flu will kill us all!
I can't imagine that any Congress(wo)man thinks that such a move could enhance their bid for re-election.
Roadblock No. 2: Americans like changing their mind. Or at least the ability to change their mind. Not to be underestimated.
I understand that if terms are extended -- through a constitutional convention or an amendment to the U.S. King James Constitution -- then fund-raising would extend from a two-year cycle to three. And that there would still be chatter about a presidential election five years in the future. But it would be muted for a while. And the frantic, consuming pace of money-grabbing would be temporarily quelled. That alone has to be good thing, so we should give it a try. For the sake of our democracy. Which isn't a democracy, but a republic. I knew that.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Gun Fun / 6-8-09
In Kentucky, pastor Ken Pagano has this idea: Let's have a firearms-themed worship service on June 27 and call it "Open Carry Celebration." People can bring their guns that day, there will be gun safety classes, and patriotic tunes. What could possibly go wrong? (Other than God having a coronary.)
Meanwhile, in neighboring Tennessee, we get this: Lawmakers voted to allow citizens to carry their loaded guns into bars. It remains illegal in TN to drink while carrying; meanwhile, bar owners still can ban weapons from their businesses. But am I the only one who sees an enforcement problem? And a preventable tragedy or two on the horizon?
In Pennsylvania, you ask? An airline employee decided to help his buddy out by trying to smuggle a semiautomatic pistol aboard. Good thinkin'.
Meanwhile, in neighboring Tennessee, we get this: Lawmakers voted to allow citizens to carry their loaded guns into bars. It remains illegal in TN to drink while carrying; meanwhile, bar owners still can ban weapons from their businesses. But am I the only one who sees an enforcement problem? And a preventable tragedy or two on the horizon?
In Pennsylvania, you ask? An airline employee decided to help his buddy out by trying to smuggle a semiautomatic pistol aboard. Good thinkin'.
And then, tragic stuff like this happens all the time. The story is heartbreaking, so don't click on the link unless you're ready.
I understand that firearms are part of the culture in this country. (No, I do.) But every effort you make to increase the availability of guns leads to more stupid people making stupid choices. We'll see how long it is before we reverse course as a nation and put some teeth into gun control.Stakes On A Plane / 6-8-09
(Dedicated to Val G.)
So, when we're 35,000 feet above the earth, what laws apply? This riddle came up Friday night in between drinks, and this is my pathetic answer to it.
Whilst "researching" my "answer" after a "hard" "day" of "work," the trip across the Internet took me many places. To the BBC magazine, which examined, thoughtfully and Britanically, the lawfulness of joining the Mile High Club. To a Nevada company's effort to install baccarat tables on international flights. To Baby Sasha, born in Canadian airspace on New Year's Day -- apparently, she's a Canadian citizen, imagine that. To the legendary stories of how flight attendants would relieve you of your cocktail when the plane flew over dry parts of Kansas. I got to read sections of the United States Code as exciting as this:
Sec. 7. Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States defined
(5) Any aircraft belonging in whole or in part to the United States, or any citizen thereof, or to any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or any State, Territory, district, or possession thereof, while such aircraft is in flight over the high seas, or over any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State.
(6) Any vehicle used or designed for flight or navigation in space and on the registry of the United States pursuant to the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies and the Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, while that vehicle is in flight, which is from the moment when all external doors are closed on Earth following embarkation until the moment when one such door is opened on Earth for disembarkation or in the case of a forced landing, until the competent authorities take over the responsibility for the vehicle and for persons and property aboard.
(7) Any place outside the jurisdiction of any nation with respect to an offense by or against a national of the United States.
I'm still looking for an ironclad answer, but my brilliant legal mind can deduce that if the plane is registered in the U.S., U.S. law applies from takeoff to landing. As a result, I don't suggest trying to get away with indecent exposure just because you're flying to Rio. (Or to the moon. By the way, the acronym for that treaty cited in subsection (6) goes like this: TPGASEUOSIMOCB. Rolls deliciously right off your tongue.)
This is all well and good for international travel, but let's get practical: Can or can you not engage in Nevada-approved behavior while in Nevadan airspace? On a flight from Sacramento to Salt Lake City, can you hire a prostitute? Can you gamble at cruise altitude? Can you get a quickie wedding?
I mean, my word, can you say "aboot" with a straight face on a flight from Spokane to Calgary?
Those crucial answers are harder to find. It's possible I may not sleep tonight.
(On the other hand, I DID find this, which was humorous, if unrelated.)
So, when we're 35,000 feet above the earth, what laws apply? This riddle came up Friday night in between drinks, and this is my pathetic answer to it.
Whilst "researching" my "answer" after a "hard" "day" of "work," the trip across the Internet took me many places. To the BBC magazine, which examined, thoughtfully and Britanically, the lawfulness of joining the Mile High Club. To a Nevada company's effort to install baccarat tables on international flights. To Baby Sasha, born in Canadian airspace on New Year's Day -- apparently, she's a Canadian citizen, imagine that. To the legendary stories of how flight attendants would relieve you of your cocktail when the plane flew over dry parts of Kansas. I got to read sections of the United States Code as exciting as this:
Sec. 7. Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States defined
(5) Any aircraft belonging in whole or in part to the United States, or any citizen thereof, or to any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or any State, Territory, district, or possession thereof, while such aircraft is in flight over the high seas, or over any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State.
(6) Any vehicle used or designed for flight or navigation in space and on the registry of the United States pursuant to the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies and the Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, while that vehicle is in flight, which is from the moment when all external doors are closed on Earth following embarkation until the moment when one such door is opened on Earth for disembarkation or in the case of a forced landing, until the competent authorities take over the responsibility for the vehicle and for persons and property aboard.
(7) Any place outside the jurisdiction of any nation with respect to an offense by or against a national of the United States.
I'm still looking for an ironclad answer, but my brilliant legal mind can deduce that if the plane is registered in the U.S., U.S. law applies from takeoff to landing. As a result, I don't suggest trying to get away with indecent exposure just because you're flying to Rio. (Or to the moon. By the way, the acronym for that treaty cited in subsection (6) goes like this: TPGASEUOSIMOCB. Rolls deliciously right off your tongue.)
This is all well and good for international travel, but let's get practical: Can or can you not engage in Nevada-approved behavior while in Nevadan airspace? On a flight from Sacramento to Salt Lake City, can you hire a prostitute? Can you gamble at cruise altitude? Can you get a quickie wedding?
I mean, my word, can you say "aboot" with a straight face on a flight from Spokane to Calgary?
Those crucial answers are harder to find. It's possible I may not sleep tonight.
(On the other hand, I DID find this, which was humorous, if unrelated.)
Saturday, June 6, 2009
A wise Latina once said... / 6-7-09
Clearly the Supreme Court of these United States needs more women. An 8-1 male-female ratio is unhealthy.
Clearly it needs a greater ethnic diversity as well. Eight whites out of nine jurists, in a country that is trending away from lily-whiteness, that's not especially healthy, in my opinion. The Court should in fact reflect the values AND the racial makeup of our country. Without a doubt, the values come first in the pecking order, but background counts too.
With my disclaimers now out of the way, I would like to complain about Sonia Sotomayor's well-publicized unfortunate "wise Latina" comments. (Sotomayor is President Obama's pick to replace Justice David Souter, who has chosen NOT to die on the bench. Good for him.)
Wait, one more caveat! I wish for a speedy, uneventful confirmation process for Sotomayor. It is offensive to me that no Latinos/Latinas have served on SCOTUS yet. That is a serious shortcoming in our justice system. Let's get her on the court ASAP, stat-mmediately. Is yesterday possible?
But I am particularly bothered by her repeated assertion that she hopes a "wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Saying that kind of thing once is excusable; but she wove that bit, sometimes word for word, into other speeches as well. (Yes, I just linked to CNN and... Fox News. It was painful for me too. I apologize. Get over it.)
Anyway... as a white male, I find her line of thinking to be condescending, patronizing and prejudiced. I don't think I need to explain why.
And yet, she has a point. The Court and the courts, they need more Latina voices and Latino ears. Desperately. But her ancestry doesn't make her a better jurist. Her life experience might provide her with insight a white man doesn't have, but let's get real: Gustav O'Leary is perfectly capable of having a history that enwisens him too! ("Enwisens?" Yup. "Gustav O'Leary?" Not a real guy, I hope.)
Clearly it needs a greater ethnic diversity as well. Eight whites out of nine jurists, in a country that is trending away from lily-whiteness, that's not especially healthy, in my opinion. The Court should in fact reflect the values AND the racial makeup of our country. Without a doubt, the values come first in the pecking order, but background counts too.
With my disclaimers now out of the way, I would like to complain about Sonia Sotomayor's well-publicized unfortunate "wise Latina" comments. (Sotomayor is President Obama's pick to replace Justice David Souter, who has chosen NOT to die on the bench. Good for him.)
Wait, one more caveat! I wish for a speedy, uneventful confirmation process for Sotomayor. It is offensive to me that no Latinos/Latinas have served on SCOTUS yet. That is a serious shortcoming in our justice system. Let's get her on the court ASAP, stat-mmediately. Is yesterday possible?
But I am particularly bothered by her repeated assertion that she hopes a "wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Saying that kind of thing once is excusable; but she wove that bit, sometimes word for word, into other speeches as well. (Yes, I just linked to CNN and... Fox News. It was painful for me too. I apologize. Get over it.)
Anyway... as a white male, I find her line of thinking to be condescending, patronizing and prejudiced. I don't think I need to explain why.
And yet, she has a point. The Court and the courts, they need more Latina voices and Latino ears. Desperately. But her ancestry doesn't make her a better jurist. Her life experience might provide her with insight a white man doesn't have, but let's get real: Gustav O'Leary is perfectly capable of having a history that enwisens him too! ("Enwisens?" Yup. "Gustav O'Leary?" Not a real guy, I hope.)
Sotomayor is presumed to be a semi-automatic liberal voice for a long time, which brings me great relief. Thank goodness a Democrat sits in the Oval Office, for this very reason. I wince to imagine another young conservative on the Court, ruling for big business and smacking down the little guy then retiring to the back room to smoke his strict-constructionist cigars.
John Roberts was qualified when mini-Bush nominated him. Now, for sure, Roberts is an unimaginative creep with whom I couldn't disagree more frequently. He probably lied in his confirmation hearing when he said he couldn't recall belonging to the ultra-far-right-wing Federalist Society. But he was qualified; so is Sotomayor. And the President can select whoever he pleases. So let's get on with it, shall we?
And so, I will be interested to see how the Republicans proceed. If they drag it out, delaying Sotomayor's confirmation more than usual, I'll post about how Obama may well have ensnared them in a trap. Which is totally unnecessary -- conservative white males have shown themselves to be plenty self-destructive. Almost as if they haven't learned a blessed thing from their rich life experiences.
Celebrity Deathmatch / 6-6-09
I'm on Google news, at 7:30 p.m. on a Saturday night, browsing for stories to blog about. (I acknowledge there are two problems with my opener: I ended it with a preposition and it contains the embarrassing confession that I have no life.)
I glance at the headlines to the left of the page; there are 4,293 stories at my disposal covering the mysterious death of actor David Carradine.
Since I'm a math geek, I notice that four of the surrounding headlines display a total of related stories somewhere in the 4,000 range. I notice their sum ends with the digit 3, so I chuckle at the possibility that the numbers might match. I do the math. (You'll recall I have no life.)
4,283 is the grand total. I kid you not. Ten more stories out there on a has-been actor's suicide/murder/accident than on the president's approach to health care reform, the launch of new Palm Pre, the day in major league baseball, and a little thing we like to call the demise of the U.S. auto industry.
I'm disturbed. Which I kind of shouldn't be, since this kind of "creative" prioritization happens every single day. But then again, I'm relieved that I'm still disturbed.
Venting complete. Carry on.
(OK, one P.S., but just one: God help us if any serious calamity should befall Jim Carrey or Angelina Jolie. Ever.)
I glance at the headlines to the left of the page; there are 4,293 stories at my disposal covering the mysterious death of actor David Carradine.
Since I'm a math geek, I notice that four of the surrounding headlines display a total of related stories somewhere in the 4,000 range. I notice their sum ends with the digit 3, so I chuckle at the possibility that the numbers might match. I do the math. (You'll recall I have no life.)
4,283 is the grand total. I kid you not. Ten more stories out there on a has-been actor's suicide/murder/accident than on the president's approach to health care reform, the launch of new Palm Pre, the day in major league baseball, and a little thing we like to call the demise of the U.S. auto industry.
I'm disturbed. Which I kind of shouldn't be, since this kind of "creative" prioritization happens every single day. But then again, I'm relieved that I'm still disturbed.
Venting complete. Carry on.
(OK, one P.S., but just one: God help us if any serious calamity should befall Jim Carrey or Angelina Jolie. Ever.)
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Don't get sick / 6-5-09
If you were planning on breaking both your legs, replacing a kidney, or having a couple-three rounds of brain surgery for fun this summer, you might want to rethink things.
Insurmountable medical bills were a factor in 62 percent of bankruptcies last year (meaning 2007). This according to a study in the American Journal of Medicine.
Well, we gotta start gettin some health insurance to these poor saps, then, huh? Well... 75 percent of the newly bankrupt actually HAD medical coverage.
Oh.
And here I was thinking that layoffs and the recessionaryismentation-ness of the economy were to blame. And all the suckers who bought $800,000 homes on $40k jobs. For sure, those things play their role, but it's the medical bills that push people over the edge, it appears.
The data is for 2007, as I said. Which leads some to conclude that the 2008 numbers will be even more striking.
Possibly, health care reform is the biggest challenge we face today. Bigger than terrorism... bigger than Social Security's coming insolvency, bigger than climate change, even. (All that's going to do is displace a billion people and de-stabilize the poor countries of the world and raise sea levels and mess with the food supply. OK, so maybe they're tied.)
Insurmountable medical bills were a factor in 62 percent of bankruptcies last year (meaning 2007). This according to a study in the American Journal of Medicine.
Well, we gotta start gettin some health insurance to these poor saps, then, huh? Well... 75 percent of the newly bankrupt actually HAD medical coverage.
Oh.
And here I was thinking that layoffs and the recessionaryismentation-ness of the economy were to blame. And all the suckers who bought $800,000 homes on $40k jobs. For sure, those things play their role, but it's the medical bills that push people over the edge, it appears.
The data is for 2007, as I said. Which leads some to conclude that the 2008 numbers will be even more striking.
Possibly, health care reform is the biggest challenge we face today. Bigger than terrorism... bigger than Social Security's coming insolvency, bigger than climate change, even. (All that's going to do is displace a billion people and de-stabilize the poor countries of the world and raise sea levels and mess with the food supply. OK, so maybe they're tied.)
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
The Taoist Christian, Part 2 / 6-3-09
Part 2 of many.
Taoism is especially attractive to me because I get so hung up on the un-knowability of the God introduced in the Bible. I mean, seriously, has anyone reading this blog ever had a two-way conversation with that God?
I don't consider receiving a warm fuzzy feeling to be a two-way conversation. Nor does an all-encompassing profound inner peace count. I don't even consider a reading of 1st Thessalonians to be God speaking.
I'm a human being, dagnabit. If a relationship wants to be called a relationship, the communication has to flow in both directions in real time. Otherwise, who are we kidding? What kind of relationship is it? Those of you who are married: Imagine for a second that your spouse communicates with you exclusively through sometimes cryptic writings from centuries past. How long before divorce?
This isn't late-night Bible-trashing. This is out-loud wondering whether "relationship" is the best word to describe how we get along with God.
(And don't you dare trot out the line about "God is so great and you are so small, where do you get off making these kind of demands?" -- that's nothing but a lame cop-out. If a close personal relationship is the ultimate goal, then both parties have to communicate regularly. That's just how we're wired. Or me at least.
"That's why God sent Jesus, John. Don't you know anything? Of course we can't relate to this Universe-Creating Omnieverything God of Timelessness Eternity. Duh. Get to know Christ already." Mmmm. Same dead ends, people. And let's not even get into the questions surrounding how accurately -- or not -- Christ is portrayed in the Gospels we have left.)
One last pre-Tao point: anyone else have trouble developing an authentic "relationship" with a being that might not exist? I mean, I believe in God and all, but sometimes I wonder. And that gets in the way a lot. Consider the possibility that someone you know somewhat well, say, a friend with whom you just reconnected with on facebook after many years of separation, that this friend is imaginary. You made her up. She wasn't real a decade ago and her semi-regular comments on your status updates are a figment of your imagination. I know, crazy, huh? Now try making that friend the central figure of your life, and worship her. Try it out. See how that relationship feels.
I know. Apples to oranges. Although really, more like lemons to limes.
So enter Taoism, which instructs adherents to contemplate the Tao, to be in tune with it, even to love it. That sounds relational. But it's different in this tradition, and I take comfort there. From the Tao Te Ching:
"The Tao gives birth to all beings,
nourishes them, maintains them,
cares for them, comforts them, protects them,
takes them back to itself,
creating without possessing,
acting without expecting,
guiding without interfering.
That is why love of the Tao
is in the very nature of things."
That's juxtaposed with:
"Every being in the universe
is an expression of the Tao.
It springs into existence,
unconscious, perfect, free,
takes on a physical body,
lets circumstances complete it.
That is why every being
spontaneously honors the Tao."
What does that mean for a guy like me who reveres the Christ figure (in an extremely nontraditional way) but balks at the idea of striving to know and be known by God? Maybe I don't have to try so hard to experience God. Maybe I already am, and I just need to wake up to that fact.
[EDIT 6-5-09: The comments section is useful this time around. I actually explain a couple things a wee bit better than in the post itself.]
Taoism is especially attractive to me because I get so hung up on the un-knowability of the God introduced in the Bible. I mean, seriously, has anyone reading this blog ever had a two-way conversation with that God?
I don't consider receiving a warm fuzzy feeling to be a two-way conversation. Nor does an all-encompassing profound inner peace count. I don't even consider a reading of 1st Thessalonians to be God speaking.
I'm a human being, dagnabit. If a relationship wants to be called a relationship, the communication has to flow in both directions in real time. Otherwise, who are we kidding? What kind of relationship is it? Those of you who are married: Imagine for a second that your spouse communicates with you exclusively through sometimes cryptic writings from centuries past. How long before divorce?
This isn't late-night Bible-trashing. This is out-loud wondering whether "relationship" is the best word to describe how we get along with God.
(And don't you dare trot out the line about "God is so great and you are so small, where do you get off making these kind of demands?" -- that's nothing but a lame cop-out. If a close personal relationship is the ultimate goal, then both parties have to communicate regularly. That's just how we're wired. Or me at least.
"That's why God sent Jesus, John. Don't you know anything? Of course we can't relate to this Universe-Creating Omnieverything God of Timelessness Eternity. Duh. Get to know Christ already." Mmmm. Same dead ends, people. And let's not even get into the questions surrounding how accurately -- or not -- Christ is portrayed in the Gospels we have left.)
One last pre-Tao point: anyone else have trouble developing an authentic "relationship" with a being that might not exist? I mean, I believe in God and all, but sometimes I wonder. And that gets in the way a lot. Consider the possibility that someone you know somewhat well, say, a friend with whom you just reconnected with on facebook after many years of separation, that this friend is imaginary. You made her up. She wasn't real a decade ago and her semi-regular comments on your status updates are a figment of your imagination. I know, crazy, huh? Now try making that friend the central figure of your life, and worship her. Try it out. See how that relationship feels.
I know. Apples to oranges. Although really, more like lemons to limes.
So enter Taoism, which instructs adherents to contemplate the Tao, to be in tune with it, even to love it. That sounds relational. But it's different in this tradition, and I take comfort there. From the Tao Te Ching:
"The Tao gives birth to all beings,
nourishes them, maintains them,
cares for them, comforts them, protects them,
takes them back to itself,
creating without possessing,
acting without expecting,
guiding without interfering.
That is why love of the Tao
is in the very nature of things."
That's juxtaposed with:
"Every being in the universe
is an expression of the Tao.
It springs into existence,
unconscious, perfect, free,
takes on a physical body,
lets circumstances complete it.
That is why every being
spontaneously honors the Tao."
What does that mean for a guy like me who reveres the Christ figure (in an extremely nontraditional way) but balks at the idea of striving to know and be known by God? Maybe I don't have to try so hard to experience God. Maybe I already am, and I just need to wake up to that fact.
[EDIT 6-5-09: The comments section is useful this time around. I actually explain a couple things a wee bit better than in the post itself.]
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
I like this / 6-2-09
This is good.
If you want to try and overturn our state's recent decision to grant overdue civil rights to gay couples, it's going to cost you something. Your anonymity, to be exact.
Let's imagine that you put your name on Referendum 71, the petition to overturn Senate Bill 5688; the petition then gathers enough signatures to qualify for the fall ballot; your name gets published on WhoSigned.org. Excellent strategy. Expose the haters for what they are. I love it.
Predictably, these very haters are dismayed. Larry Stickney, of Protect Marriage Washington, the organization driving the Referendum 71 petitions, said in today's Seattle Times: "This seems to be a typical pattern developing around the country where the homosexual lobby employs hostile, undemocratic, intimidating tactics wherever their interests or intent are challenged."
Ah, but signatures on petitions are a matter of public record. What could be more democratic than open records? (Free hint: Do not pose that query to Dick Cheney.) And what exactly is "intimidating" or "hostile" about posting a list of names? Unless you don't want anyone to know you signed the petition... in which case you might want to re-examine your reasons for signing it.
I was accosted last year by an organizer seeking signatures for an initiative to repeal the estate tax. I didn't sign; I happen to enjoy the estate tax's existence. But had I signed, I would have been happy for my name to be listed online.
And it's not really good form, Larry, to call civil rights "interests" or "intents."
As I might have mentioned, I like this development. WhoSigned.org, put together by gay-rights activists, is following the example of other organizations using the same strategy. Here's hoping it works. (I'll track whether Protect Marriage Washington gathers the necessary 120,000-plus signatures in time. If they do, I'll link to the list.)
For bonus points, go to the Decline to Sign 71 Facebook page in the meantime to show your support for civil rights.
If you want to try and overturn our state's recent decision to grant overdue civil rights to gay couples, it's going to cost you something. Your anonymity, to be exact.
Let's imagine that you put your name on Referendum 71, the petition to overturn Senate Bill 5688; the petition then gathers enough signatures to qualify for the fall ballot; your name gets published on WhoSigned.org. Excellent strategy. Expose the haters for what they are. I love it.
Predictably, these very haters are dismayed. Larry Stickney, of Protect Marriage Washington, the organization driving the Referendum 71 petitions, said in today's Seattle Times: "This seems to be a typical pattern developing around the country where the homosexual lobby employs hostile, undemocratic, intimidating tactics wherever their interests or intent are challenged."
Ah, but signatures on petitions are a matter of public record. What could be more democratic than open records? (Free hint: Do not pose that query to Dick Cheney.) And what exactly is "intimidating" or "hostile" about posting a list of names? Unless you don't want anyone to know you signed the petition... in which case you might want to re-examine your reasons for signing it.
I was accosted last year by an organizer seeking signatures for an initiative to repeal the estate tax. I didn't sign; I happen to enjoy the estate tax's existence. But had I signed, I would have been happy for my name to be listed online.
And it's not really good form, Larry, to call civil rights "interests" or "intents."
As I might have mentioned, I like this development. WhoSigned.org, put together by gay-rights activists, is following the example of other organizations using the same strategy. Here's hoping it works. (I'll track whether Protect Marriage Washington gathers the necessary 120,000-plus signatures in time. If they do, I'll link to the list.)
For bonus points, go to the Decline to Sign 71 Facebook page in the meantime to show your support for civil rights.
The squishy center / 6-2-09
Let's face it, a fetus is not a person.
Let's face it, a fetus is not a random collection of cells.
So how 'bout we don't treat it as either.
If it's a person, it is subject to being murdered. So what then -- you want to prosecute would-be mothers for involuntary manslaughter if they miscarry? You want to charge a pregnant woman with assault if her blood type is harmful to the fetus inside her? Or if she smokes in her third trimester? Because those are three extremely viable courses of action, on a purely legal level, that result from giving a fetus the same rights as a born baby. (Actually, that third one sounds kind of borderline OK.)
Now likewise, if this fetus is nothing more than a bunch of tissue contained within another person, then when does it turn into a human? At birth? Really? Not two hours earlier, during labor? Or not a week before? When it crowns? At the first painful contraction? At 28 weeks, when it's considered viable for legal reasons? At 37 weeks, when it's viable pretty much all the time? Or before it's C-sectioned out of its mother who died four minutes ago on the operating table? Do we have a line in the (sand) womb we can draw here?
Let's face more: George Tiller, the abortion doctor murdered Sunday -- is he a creep or a hero?
How 'bout neither.
You'll have heard, by now, that Tiller performed somewhere in the vicinity of 60,000 abortions, that he was charged and acquitted with providing illegal abortions, and that he was fatally shot in the head at his church on Sunday while handing out the bulletin during the service.
In Salon, Kate Michelman, the former head of NARAL, in the wake of Tiller's death, writes to him: "Our world is doing poorly for having lost you. But your courage will inspire us to draw on our own strength and carry out the work for which you gave your life."
As pro-choice as I am, I can't quite squeeze Tiller into the same box she does. Was he fearless? Certainly. Principled? For sure. Brave? Can't deny it. But heroic-slash-courageous-slash-inspirational? I wonder.
And let's not make Tiller into some sort of villain. He provided a legal service few do, under constant threat of violence. He was shot once already, twice actually, in both arms. You may think his profession is despicable, but that doesn't give you the right to kill him. Or the right to rejoice that he died. (Now, different story altogether if he were a lawyer... hardy har har.)
So, in summary, hope you brought your gray Crayolas for this one.
Let's face it, a fetus is not a random collection of cells.
So how 'bout we don't treat it as either.
If it's a person, it is subject to being murdered. So what then -- you want to prosecute would-be mothers for involuntary manslaughter if they miscarry? You want to charge a pregnant woman with assault if her blood type is harmful to the fetus inside her? Or if she smokes in her third trimester? Because those are three extremely viable courses of action, on a purely legal level, that result from giving a fetus the same rights as a born baby. (Actually, that third one sounds kind of borderline OK.)
Now likewise, if this fetus is nothing more than a bunch of tissue contained within another person, then when does it turn into a human? At birth? Really? Not two hours earlier, during labor? Or not a week before? When it crowns? At the first painful contraction? At 28 weeks, when it's considered viable for legal reasons? At 37 weeks, when it's viable pretty much all the time? Or before it's C-sectioned out of its mother who died four minutes ago on the operating table? Do we have a line in the (sand) womb we can draw here?
Let's face more: George Tiller, the abortion doctor murdered Sunday -- is he a creep or a hero?
How 'bout neither.
You'll have heard, by now, that Tiller performed somewhere in the vicinity of 60,000 abortions, that he was charged and acquitted with providing illegal abortions, and that he was fatally shot in the head at his church on Sunday while handing out the bulletin during the service.
In Salon, Kate Michelman, the former head of NARAL, in the wake of Tiller's death, writes to him: "Our world is doing poorly for having lost you. But your courage will inspire us to draw on our own strength and carry out the work for which you gave your life."
As pro-choice as I am, I can't quite squeeze Tiller into the same box she does. Was he fearless? Certainly. Principled? For sure. Brave? Can't deny it. But heroic-slash-courageous-slash-inspirational? I wonder.
And let's not make Tiller into some sort of villain. He provided a legal service few do, under constant threat of violence. He was shot once already, twice actually, in both arms. You may think his profession is despicable, but that doesn't give you the right to kill him. Or the right to rejoice that he died. (Now, different story altogether if he were a lawyer... hardy har har.)
So, in summary, hope you brought your gray Crayolas for this one.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Mariners drop a really, really close one / 6-1-09
OAKLAND - The Mariners just can't catch a break, as evidenced by today's 0-0 loss to the A's.
Five Seattle pitchers combined to hold Oakland to five hits and no runs over 16 innings Sunday afternoon, yet the M's were forced to forfeit the game in the middle of the 17th frame when the umpires scientifically determined that the Mariners had a zero percent chance that day of reaching home plate before making three outs.
The low, low final score sets a new major league record for fewest runs scored without use of a soccer ball.
The Elias Sports Bureau believes this is the first case of a team shutting out its opposition yet losing the game.
"More research is needed on this issue," Elias spokesman Guy Ked said. "But we can confirm that the game set a new record for craptastic suckfestiness. No offense."
Following the umpires' controversial ruilng, the Mariners were serenaded off the field by a loud and delirious contingent of A's fans who chanted "So-do No-jo! (clap, clap, clapclapclap) So-do No-jo!" An irate Jose Lopez had to be restrained from charging the crowd, although he did relieve his frustration by swinging at eleven cups of Gatorade in the dugout. All eleven remain standing.
The Mariners wasted a 8-for-9 night by Ichiro, who tripled twice, doubled twice, stole five bases and was stranded at third base seven times. Starter Felix Hernandez gave up two hits and no walks in eight innings and the bullpen allowed four Oakland baserunners the rest of the way, three of those on errors by shortstop Yuniesky Betancourt (0-2 with three walks and four sacrifices).
Third baseman Adrian Beltre saved three runs with a bases-loaded defensive gem in the bottom of the eighth but finished 0-for-9 with seven strikeouts and 24 men left on base. His batting average fell one point.
"We didn't even have to look that one up," Ked said. "Totally a record for LOB. Not even close."
Eight different Mariners were thrown out at the plate in the game. First baseman Russell Branyan, fresh off a 4-for-5, 3-HR night Saturday, had the day off.
Tonight's umpiring crew will determine ten minutes prior to game time, based on the lineup M's skipper Don Wakamatsu turns in, whether the contest will proceed or another forfeit is forcibly declared.
"I'm thinking of hitting Rob Johnson cleanup and putting YuBet in the two hole again," Wakamatsu said.
Five Seattle pitchers combined to hold Oakland to five hits and no runs over 16 innings Sunday afternoon, yet the M's were forced to forfeit the game in the middle of the 17th frame when the umpires scientifically determined that the Mariners had a zero percent chance that day of reaching home plate before making three outs.
The low, low final score sets a new major league record for fewest runs scored without use of a soccer ball.
The Elias Sports Bureau believes this is the first case of a team shutting out its opposition yet losing the game.
"More research is needed on this issue," Elias spokesman Guy Ked said. "But we can confirm that the game set a new record for craptastic suckfestiness. No offense."
Following the umpires' controversial ruilng, the Mariners were serenaded off the field by a loud and delirious contingent of A's fans who chanted "So-do No-jo! (clap, clap, clapclapclap) So-do No-jo!" An irate Jose Lopez had to be restrained from charging the crowd, although he did relieve his frustration by swinging at eleven cups of Gatorade in the dugout. All eleven remain standing.
The Mariners wasted a 8-for-9 night by Ichiro, who tripled twice, doubled twice, stole five bases and was stranded at third base seven times. Starter Felix Hernandez gave up two hits and no walks in eight innings and the bullpen allowed four Oakland baserunners the rest of the way, three of those on errors by shortstop Yuniesky Betancourt (0-2 with three walks and four sacrifices).
Third baseman Adrian Beltre saved three runs with a bases-loaded defensive gem in the bottom of the eighth but finished 0-for-9 with seven strikeouts and 24 men left on base. His batting average fell one point.
"We didn't even have to look that one up," Ked said. "Totally a record for LOB. Not even close."
Eight different Mariners were thrown out at the plate in the game. First baseman Russell Branyan, fresh off a 4-for-5, 3-HR night Saturday, had the day off.
Tonight's umpiring crew will determine ten minutes prior to game time, based on the lineup M's skipper Don Wakamatsu turns in, whether the contest will proceed or another forfeit is forcibly declared.
"I'm thinking of hitting Rob Johnson cleanup and putting YuBet in the two hole again," Wakamatsu said.
Generally Bankrupt Motors, Inc. / 6-1-09
With Chrysler and GM due to emerge from bankruptcy as leaner, meaner, presumably greener machines, it will be fascinating to see if the companies' main stockholder, the United States government, benefits financially in the long run.
I own two Japanese cars, but I'm rooting for the Amerikan yonrisha seizousha here.
I own two Japanese cars, but I'm rooting for the Amerikan yonrisha seizousha here.
Too much bend for my mind / 6-1-09
To a certain point, I can understand what motivates a guy to load his gun and, in a very premeditated fashion, go out and kill an abortion doctor. Particularly a late-term specialist who is estimated to have performed five figures' worth of abortions.
However, it's horrifying that Dr. George Tiller was shot dead this weekend for essentially performing his job within the confines of the law. (I also think abortion, since it is a gruesome and delicate medical procedure, should only remain legal if reasonable restrictions are in place.)
It's just that I can't bend my mind around how you would rationalize gunning down a man, presumably in God's name, during a Sunday morning worship service.
I've explored this from a couple vantage points. The killer must have believed the doctor was doing Satan's work unwillingly? The killer was convinced the man was in church just for show or out of habit? The killer was a fragile mind easily nursed into vigilante behavior? The killer was an atheist who despised abortion rights?
Either way, Dr. Tiller helped end as many as 60,000 pregnancies. (That's the estimate of the right-wing Washington Times.) With so many people considering him a mass murderer, you have to wonder why the doctor lived as long as he did. And that is a sad commentary.
P.S.: I snagged this from the non-right-wing New York Times:
"Troy Newman, the president of Operation Rescue, an anti-abortion group based in Wichita, said he had always sought out 'nonviolent' measures to challenge Dr. Tiller, including efforts in recent years to have him prosecuted for crimes or investigated by state health authorities.
'Operation Rescue has worked tirelessly on peaceful, nonviolent measures to bring him to justice through the legal system, the legislative system,' Mr. Newman said, adding, 'We are pro-life, and this act was antithetical to what we believe.' "
At least there's that.
However, it's horrifying that Dr. George Tiller was shot dead this weekend for essentially performing his job within the confines of the law. (I also think abortion, since it is a gruesome and delicate medical procedure, should only remain legal if reasonable restrictions are in place.)
It's just that I can't bend my mind around how you would rationalize gunning down a man, presumably in God's name, during a Sunday morning worship service.
I've explored this from a couple vantage points. The killer must have believed the doctor was doing Satan's work unwillingly? The killer was convinced the man was in church just for show or out of habit? The killer was a fragile mind easily nursed into vigilante behavior? The killer was an atheist who despised abortion rights?
Either way, Dr. Tiller helped end as many as 60,000 pregnancies. (That's the estimate of the right-wing Washington Times.) With so many people considering him a mass murderer, you have to wonder why the doctor lived as long as he did. And that is a sad commentary.
P.S.: I snagged this from the non-right-wing New York Times:
"Troy Newman, the president of Operation Rescue, an anti-abortion group based in Wichita, said he had always sought out 'nonviolent' measures to challenge Dr. Tiller, including efforts in recent years to have him prosecuted for crimes or investigated by state health authorities.
'Operation Rescue has worked tirelessly on peaceful, nonviolent measures to bring him to justice through the legal system, the legislative system,' Mr. Newman said, adding, 'We are pro-life, and this act was antithetical to what we believe.' "
At least there's that.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)