Steve Clemons writes at The Washington Note On "The Young Turks" Radio Show, Senator Dick Durbin says the Bolton bilibuster needs only one more vote to succeed.
There are about seven weeks left to find that vote, and it is essential that Congress, especially the Democrats, hand Bolton his pink slip and show Bush that he is indeed a lame duck. Otherwise, the Democrats will be seen as truly spineless.
Maybe, after November's mid-terms, we'll have a Congress that will look seriously at impeaching Cheney and Bush. Okay, it's late in the day. I'm dreaming.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Prisoners to Generals
"No statesman would launch a war when his generals make it clear that a military defeat is expected," begins Reuven Pedatzur's article in Ha'aretz. All too often, the generals are wrong, especially when their country starts the war, and underestimates their enemy.
Hitler's generals promised him swift victory over the Soviet Union, so he approved the operation that eventually led to the defeat of Germany in World War II. The United States became bogged down in Viet Nam, constantly escallating troops who were originally intended to be there in an "advisory" capacity. Because only Congress can declare war, officially Viet Nam was merely a "police action." 55,000 US dead, countless others scarred mentally and physically. The US "Shock and Awe" War in Iraq is turning into another Viet Nam for us. Egypt, in 1967: Gamal Abdel Nassar, on the advice of his generals, left his air force on the ground and attacked Israel. Six days later, he was handed an ignominious defeat. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in what was supposed to be a short battle according to his generals. It lasted eight years.
The fundamental flaw of having policy-makers rely on their generals is point of view: "Senior officers view the world through rifle sights, and on many occasions they tend to disregard the social, cultural, political and regional aspects of the problem they wish to solve by using military force." To balance this, most democracies rely on other bodies to exercise control - the UN, (although The Decider ignores the UN) is normally one such body; and various parliamentary controls, such as Congress. And again, in the USA, Section 8 of our Constitution states clearly that:
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Here is where Israel differs from other Democracies (and, in my opinion, where the current Republican Administration differs sharply from all other administrations in the USA.) While some advise and consent from the Military is necessary, Israel is virtually held hostage to the decisions of her Generals.
The security policy-making process is in fact the domain of the Israel Defense Forces and the defense establishment. In the absence of non-IDF national security planning bodies, the major part of the planning - not only operational and tactical planning but also strategic and political planning - is done within the army.
The result is that military considerations have often become more dominant than political ones. Thus, Israel's foreign policies have come to be based on an essentially belligerent perception that favors military considerations over diplomatic ones. Violence is seen not only as a legitimate instrument in international affairs, but almost as the only means that can bring positive results.
In Israel, it is the IDF, not the Knesset, that determines its budget; it is the IDF who plans military actions, and presents to the Knesset as a fait acompli. To this date, now two weeks after the start of the second war with Lebanon, the Knesset has not held one meeting to discuss, nor solve, this war diplomatically. The Generals are running the country. Israel desperately needs a Civilian Board to oversee the workings of the Military - because the people of Israel do not want this war.
Pedatzur writes: "When one analyzes Israeli policy since the country's establishment, only four cases come up in which the prime minister came up with something that the army did not suggest or approve of. Three of these cases involve ex-generals as prime ministers; and in the fourth instance, the prime minister was backed by two generals in his government.
In 1977, Menahem Begin decided on a peace agreement with Egypt that came with a price - the withdrawal from Sinai, which sparked opposition from IDF commanders. But Begin enjoyed support from then defense minister Ezer Weizman and the foreign minister at the time, Moshe Dayan, both former generals. Yitzhak Rabin, a former chief of staff, decided to go along with the Oslo Accords in 1993, despite opposition from the army. Ehud Barak, also a former chief of staff, took the IDF out of Lebanon, despite very loud and public protests by army commanders. And Ariel Sharon, another general, decided on the Gaza disengagement plan and its execution despite strong objection from former chief of staff Moshe Ya'alon and his senior officers.
In all other cases, decisions regarding national security were based on proposals the IDF placed on the prime minister's desk."
He ends this article with a quote from Yigal Allon, one of the few Israeli politicians who tried to influence Israel into forming a national security policy that would operate with diplomatic means, rather than exclusively military. Allon said, "The need to defend the country against aggression, the military confrontations on the borders... the military achievements, the mass drills... all of these create an atmosphere that necessarily harbors acute social and moral dangers. The danger of the spreading of chauvinist and vulgar militarism is a real danger in Israel... The culture of arms bears with it the danger of losing social, moral and cultural values, to the point of the blurring of the nation's image as an enlightened society... This applies to all civilians and the youth, and also military personnel, who may be intoxicated by the very charm of involvement with arms."
Israelis - and here, I mean civilian Israelis, people like you, and me - do not want this war. The Lebanese people do not want this war. The only people who want this war are the people who define their lives by their status as warriors. But the true warrior puts down his weapons. The true warrior listens to his enemies, and negotiates peace.
Hitler's generals promised him swift victory over the Soviet Union, so he approved the operation that eventually led to the defeat of Germany in World War II. The United States became bogged down in Viet Nam, constantly escallating troops who were originally intended to be there in an "advisory" capacity. Because only Congress can declare war, officially Viet Nam was merely a "police action." 55,000 US dead, countless others scarred mentally and physically. The US "Shock and Awe" War in Iraq is turning into another Viet Nam for us. Egypt, in 1967: Gamal Abdel Nassar, on the advice of his generals, left his air force on the ground and attacked Israel. Six days later, he was handed an ignominious defeat. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in what was supposed to be a short battle according to his generals. It lasted eight years.
The fundamental flaw of having policy-makers rely on their generals is point of view: "Senior officers view the world through rifle sights, and on many occasions they tend to disregard the social, cultural, political and regional aspects of the problem they wish to solve by using military force." To balance this, most democracies rely on other bodies to exercise control - the UN, (although The Decider ignores the UN) is normally one such body; and various parliamentary controls, such as Congress. And again, in the USA, Section 8 of our Constitution states clearly that:
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Here is where Israel differs from other Democracies (and, in my opinion, where the current Republican Administration differs sharply from all other administrations in the USA.) While some advise and consent from the Military is necessary, Israel is virtually held hostage to the decisions of her Generals.
The security policy-making process is in fact the domain of the Israel Defense Forces and the defense establishment. In the absence of non-IDF national security planning bodies, the major part of the planning - not only operational and tactical planning but also strategic and political planning - is done within the army.
The result is that military considerations have often become more dominant than political ones. Thus, Israel's foreign policies have come to be based on an essentially belligerent perception that favors military considerations over diplomatic ones. Violence is seen not only as a legitimate instrument in international affairs, but almost as the only means that can bring positive results.
In Israel, it is the IDF, not the Knesset, that determines its budget; it is the IDF who plans military actions, and presents to the Knesset as a fait acompli. To this date, now two weeks after the start of the second war with Lebanon, the Knesset has not held one meeting to discuss, nor solve, this war diplomatically. The Generals are running the country. Israel desperately needs a Civilian Board to oversee the workings of the Military - because the people of Israel do not want this war.
Pedatzur writes: "When one analyzes Israeli policy since the country's establishment, only four cases come up in which the prime minister came up with something that the army did not suggest or approve of. Three of these cases involve ex-generals as prime ministers; and in the fourth instance, the prime minister was backed by two generals in his government.
In 1977, Menahem Begin decided on a peace agreement with Egypt that came with a price - the withdrawal from Sinai, which sparked opposition from IDF commanders. But Begin enjoyed support from then defense minister Ezer Weizman and the foreign minister at the time, Moshe Dayan, both former generals. Yitzhak Rabin, a former chief of staff, decided to go along with the Oslo Accords in 1993, despite opposition from the army. Ehud Barak, also a former chief of staff, took the IDF out of Lebanon, despite very loud and public protests by army commanders. And Ariel Sharon, another general, decided on the Gaza disengagement plan and its execution despite strong objection from former chief of staff Moshe Ya'alon and his senior officers.
In all other cases, decisions regarding national security were based on proposals the IDF placed on the prime minister's desk."
He ends this article with a quote from Yigal Allon, one of the few Israeli politicians who tried to influence Israel into forming a national security policy that would operate with diplomatic means, rather than exclusively military. Allon said, "The need to defend the country against aggression, the military confrontations on the borders... the military achievements, the mass drills... all of these create an atmosphere that necessarily harbors acute social and moral dangers. The danger of the spreading of chauvinist and vulgar militarism is a real danger in Israel... The culture of arms bears with it the danger of losing social, moral and cultural values, to the point of the blurring of the nation's image as an enlightened society... This applies to all civilians and the youth, and also military personnel, who may be intoxicated by the very charm of involvement with arms."
Israelis - and here, I mean civilian Israelis, people like you, and me - do not want this war. The Lebanese people do not want this war. The only people who want this war are the people who define their lives by their status as warriors. But the true warrior puts down his weapons. The true warrior listens to his enemies, and negotiates peace.
WTF is wrong with blogger?
Trying to respond to people's comments and it won't let me. Is anyone else having blogger issues right now? I'm not ignoring people, but this device is making me insane!
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
On Photography
I wonder what Susan Sontag's essay, On Photography would look like had she written it today. I first read her essay in Graduate School at University Of Illinois at Chicago. I was a Studio Arts Major. Each quarter, the MFA candidates had to take Graduate Seminar, which was a discussion about art issues. The instructor was always a visiting somebody from the Chicago art world - critics, artists, authors - always thought provoking, always challenging. But the quarter we read Sontag was the quarter our instructor was a critic with definate Communist leanings. All the critical writings he assigned were by Communist critics - Sontag being the best known. Karl Marx began as an art critic, by the way. In this class, I began to understand how our philosophies, our external influences, affect how we see and the choices we make visually.
Recently, I replaced a film camera with my first digital camera. I went for a 35 m SLR, which operates exactly like a film camera, only it's digital. But I'm still learning the camera, and the technical aspects make me clumsy. This is frustrating for me because I was a pretty good photographer before; I had a point of view. I'm a better painter, because it is more where my heart is. But I'm a pretty good photographer.
Digital photography bombards us with images. The internet creates a world of constant information, and we cannot find respite from the invasion of information and imagery. Everything we read, and see, we take as probably true - because it's on the internet. The anonymous nature of the digital age startles me at times. I tell you I am a 57 year old grandmother, and you take that as true. (It is.) But I could have told you all that I am a 27 year old Fashion Model, and tall - who would know the difference?
The opening line of Sontag's essay says: "Humankind lingers unregenerately in Plato's cave, still reveling, its age-old habit, in mere images of the truth." Mere images of the truth. Sontag's point is that photographic images do not have the gravitas of older, more "artisanal" (read hand made) images. The sheer volume of imagery clamouring for our attention renders them less important. The sheer volume of imagery creates a grand sense that "we can hold the world in our head."
Photographs are portable. They are easily reproduced. They exist on the information highway with ready access by anyone. They can be manipulated in the darkroom. Really clever photographers can manipulate in camera. They can be photo-shopped, edited online. They can be emailed. They can be printed, and kept in an album, or in a wallet. Photographs can be sent by telephone. They are everywhere.
The camera also serves to distance the photographer from what he or she is photographing. There it is, a physical barrier between self and subject. The photographer has the captured memory, the physical "evidence" of the experience - but is this the same as the experience itself?
"A photograph passes for incontrovertible proof that a given thing happened. The picture may distort; but there is always a presumption that something exists, or did exist, which is like what's in the picture. " The written word, and the painted image, are always an interpretation of reality, or even a fictional creation. But somehow we assign truth to film in a way we don't to other media.
Yet Ansel Adams would spend hours cleaning up the area he was about to photograph, just to give the illusion of it being pristine. We take this image as truth, but it is his truth. He created it. "In deciding how a picture should look, in preferring one exposure to another, photographers are always imposing standards on their subjects. Although there is a sense in which the camera does indeed capture reality, not just interpret it, photographs are as much an interpretation of the world as paintings and drawings are."
Why is this on my mind now? Several reasons. One reason is highly political. I see images purporting to be the truth, and I am well aware of how images can be manipulated to support anything. One image is making the rounds completely out of context, and is being presented as a current image. Others, I just don't know if they are true or not as presented in the current context. They are horrific images, and they carry weight. They convict before all facts are available. We see them, and think, well they are so horrible they MUST be true. But are they?
The other reasons are highly personal, and to a degree, selfish. I travel. And I will be traveling soon, first to Australia, then to Bhutan. And I am going with my camera. My desire to document place is normal, but I don't want to have my camera stand between me and my experience. And more, I want my abilities to get up to the level of my point of view. And they aren't yet. The idea of framing, of selection - and with the digital camera, you can delete what doesn't work right away! - all this enters into this. My Australia trip is five weeks away, and I am obsessing about my photographs before the fact. And so I think, and I read, and I go out and take images that I am not willing to show anyone yet.
Where is our truth?
Recently, I replaced a film camera with my first digital camera. I went for a 35 m SLR, which operates exactly like a film camera, only it's digital. But I'm still learning the camera, and the technical aspects make me clumsy. This is frustrating for me because I was a pretty good photographer before; I had a point of view. I'm a better painter, because it is more where my heart is. But I'm a pretty good photographer.
Digital photography bombards us with images. The internet creates a world of constant information, and we cannot find respite from the invasion of information and imagery. Everything we read, and see, we take as probably true - because it's on the internet. The anonymous nature of the digital age startles me at times. I tell you I am a 57 year old grandmother, and you take that as true. (It is.) But I could have told you all that I am a 27 year old Fashion Model, and tall - who would know the difference?
The opening line of Sontag's essay says: "Humankind lingers unregenerately in Plato's cave, still reveling, its age-old habit, in mere images of the truth." Mere images of the truth. Sontag's point is that photographic images do not have the gravitas of older, more "artisanal" (read hand made) images. The sheer volume of imagery clamouring for our attention renders them less important. The sheer volume of imagery creates a grand sense that "we can hold the world in our head."
Photographs are portable. They are easily reproduced. They exist on the information highway with ready access by anyone. They can be manipulated in the darkroom. Really clever photographers can manipulate in camera. They can be photo-shopped, edited online. They can be emailed. They can be printed, and kept in an album, or in a wallet. Photographs can be sent by telephone. They are everywhere.
The camera also serves to distance the photographer from what he or she is photographing. There it is, a physical barrier between self and subject. The photographer has the captured memory, the physical "evidence" of the experience - but is this the same as the experience itself?
"A photograph passes for incontrovertible proof that a given thing happened. The picture may distort; but there is always a presumption that something exists, or did exist, which is like what's in the picture. " The written word, and the painted image, are always an interpretation of reality, or even a fictional creation. But somehow we assign truth to film in a way we don't to other media.
Yet Ansel Adams would spend hours cleaning up the area he was about to photograph, just to give the illusion of it being pristine. We take this image as truth, but it is his truth. He created it. "In deciding how a picture should look, in preferring one exposure to another, photographers are always imposing standards on their subjects. Although there is a sense in which the camera does indeed capture reality, not just interpret it, photographs are as much an interpretation of the world as paintings and drawings are."
Why is this on my mind now? Several reasons. One reason is highly political. I see images purporting to be the truth, and I am well aware of how images can be manipulated to support anything. One image is making the rounds completely out of context, and is being presented as a current image. Others, I just don't know if they are true or not as presented in the current context. They are horrific images, and they carry weight. They convict before all facts are available. We see them, and think, well they are so horrible they MUST be true. But are they?
The other reasons are highly personal, and to a degree, selfish. I travel. And I will be traveling soon, first to Australia, then to Bhutan. And I am going with my camera. My desire to document place is normal, but I don't want to have my camera stand between me and my experience. And more, I want my abilities to get up to the level of my point of view. And they aren't yet. The idea of framing, of selection - and with the digital camera, you can delete what doesn't work right away! - all this enters into this. My Australia trip is five weeks away, and I am obsessing about my photographs before the fact. And so I think, and I read, and I go out and take images that I am not willing to show anyone yet.
Where is our truth?
Putting things in perspective
DBK at Blanton's and Ashton's posted the backstory about this image, and I thank him for it. On the surface, it seems that these Israeli girls are being taught to hate, and throughout the leftist Blogsphere, it appears this is a relatively current photo.
But it isn't current. This article by Lisa Goldman at On The Face puts it into context:
Below is the story behind the photo - from the source.
I phoned Sebastian Scheiner, the Israeli photojournalist who took the photo for Associated Press (AP), explained that the image had given a really terrible impression and asked for the context. He sketched it out quickly and fluidly, but asked me not to quote him. So I spoke with Shelly Paz, a Yedioth Ahronoth reporter who was also at the scene and agreed immediately to go on record. She was quite shocked to learn how badly the photo had been misinterpreted and misrepresented; and she told me the same story Sebastian did, but with more details and nuance.
The little girls shown drawing with felt markers on the tank missiles are residents of Kiryat Shmona, which is right on the border with Lebanon. And when I say "on the border," I'm not kidding; there's little more space between their town and Southern Lebanon than there is between the back gardens of neighbouring houses in a wealthy American suburb.
No, how close is it really?
Well, there's a famous story in Israel, from the time when the Israeli army occupied Southern Lebanon: a group of soldiers stationed inside southern Lebanon used their mobile phones to order pizza from Kiryat Shmona and have it delivered to the fence that separates the two countries.
Anyway.
Kiryat Shmona has been under constant bombardment from South Lebanon since the first day of the conflict. It was a ghost town, explained Shelly. There was not a single person on the streets and all the businesses were closed. The residents who had friends, family or money for alternate housing out of missile range had left, leaving behind the few who had neither the funds nor connections that would allow them to escape the missiles crashing and booming on their town day and night. The noise was terrifying, people were dying outside, the kids were scared out of their minds and they had been told over and over that some man named Nasrallah was responsible for their having to cower underground for days on end.
On the day that photo was taken, the girls had emerged from the underground bomb shelters for the first time in five days. A new army unit had just arrived in the town and was preparing to shell the area across the border. The unit attracted the attention of twelve photojournalists - Israeli and foreign. The girls and their families gathered around to check out the big attraction in the small town - foreigners. They were relieved and probably a little giddy at being outside in the fresh air for the first time in days. They were probably happy to talk to people. And they enjoyed the attention of the photographers.
Apparently one or some of the parents wrote messages in Hebrew and English on the tank shells to Nasrallah. "To Nasrallah with love," they wrote to the man whose name was for them a devilish image on television - the man who mockingly told Israelis, via speeches that were broadcast on Al Manar and Israeli television, that Hezbollah was preparing to launch even more missiles at them. That he was happy they were suffering.
The photograpers gathered around. Twelve of them. Do you know how many that is? It's a lot. And they were all simultaneously leaning in with their long camera lenses, clicking the shutter over and over. The parents handed the markers to the kids and they drew little Israeli flags on the shells. Photographers look for striking images, and what is more striking than pretty, innocent little girls contrasted with the ugliness of war? The camera shutters clicked away, and I guess those kids must have felt like stars, especially since the diversion came after they'd been alternately bored and terrified as they waited out the shelling in their bomb shelters.
Shelly emphasized several times that none of the parents or children had expressed any hatred toward the Lebanese people. No-one expressed any satisfaction at knowing that Lebanese were dying - just as Israelis are dying. Their messages were directed at Nasrallah. None of those people was detached or wise enough to think: "Hang on, tank shell equals death of human beings." They were thinking, tank shell equals stopping the missiles that land on my house. Tank shells will stop that man with the turban from threatening to kill us.
And besides, none of those children had seen images of dead people - either Israeli or Lebanese. Israeli television doesn't broadcast them, nor do the newspapers print them. Even when there were suicide bombings in Israel several times a week for months, none of the Israeli media published gory photos of dead or wounded people. It's a red line in Israel. Do not show dead, bleeding, torn up bodies because the families of the dead will suffer and children will have nightmares. And because it is just in bad taste to use suffering for propaganda purposes.
Those kids had seen news footage of destroyed buildings and infrastructure, but not of the human toll. They had heard over and over that the air force was destroying the buildings that belonged to Hezbollah, the organization responsible for shelling their town and threatening their lives. How many small children would be able to make the connection between tank shells and dead people on their own? How many human beings are able to detach from their own suffering and emotional stress and think about that of the other side? Not many, I suspect.
So, perhaps the parents were not wise when they encouraged their children to doodle on the tank shells. They were letting off a little steam after being cooped up - afraid, angry and isolated - for days. Sometimes people do silly things when they are under emotional stress. Especially when they fail to understand how their childish, empty gesture might be interpreted.
I've been thinking for the last two days about this photo and the storm of reaction it set off. I worry about the climate of hate that would lead people to look at it and automatically assume the absolute worst - and then use the photo to dehumanize and victimize. I wonder why so many people seem to take satisfaction in believing that little Israeli girls with felt markers in their hands - not weapons, but felt markers - are evil, or spawned by an evil society. I wonder how those people would feel if Israelis were to look at a photo of a Palestinian child wearing a mock suicide belt in a Hamas demonstration and conclude that all Palestinians - nay, all Arabs - are evil.
And I wonder why it is so difficult to think a little, to get it into our heads that television news and photojournalism manipulate our thoughts and emotions.
Links to anti-Israel websites with that photo placed prominently next to the image of a dead Lebanese child have been sent to me several times. Someone has been rushing around the Israeli blogosphere, leaving the link to one particularly abhorrent site in the comments boxes. And it makes me really sad that the emotional climate has deteriorated to this point.
The moderates of the Middle East are locked in a battle with the extremists. And look what they did to the moderates. Without blinking, without thinking, we fell victim to the classic "divide and conquer" technique. We work hard for months and years to build connections, develop our societies, educate ourselves, promote democracy and free speech... And they destroy it all, in less than a week. And we let them.
What it's like to be a Cub fan
I admit it. I'm a Chicago Cubs fan. Grew up understanding the idea of waiting - as in "Wait til next year" which is what Cubs fans say every season. Next year, they'll go to the series. There's the famous famous Curse. Sam Siannis, who owned the Billy Goat Tavern, was a diehard Cubs Fan. He brought his goat to Game 4 of the 1945 World Series, and was denied entry. As he left, he (allegedly) said "There will never be a World Series in Wrigley Field again." The Cubs lost the series to Detroit, and haven't won a World Series since 1908. Nor have they been in the World Series since 1945. Close, but that only counts in horseshoes. In 2003, in the playoffs, the Cubs were about to win the clinching game when a fan (Steve Bartman) grabbed a fly ball in Right Field, and the Cubs went on to lose the game, and the playoffs.
Right now, the Cubs are 39 Wins to 60 Losses. They're in the bottom of the standings. As a Cubs fan, I'm used to disappointments but even this is too much to follow and I'm waiting for next year. But, little things make me happy, and THIS headline is one of them: Zambrano wins 8th straight to defeat Mets.
In a world going to hell in a handbasket, I need to look at the little things in life once in a while.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
He who cast the first stone probably didn't.
Arse Poetica posted an interesting article by Daniel Gilbert on how violence escalates. He says: What seems like a grossly self-serving pattern of remembering is actually the product of two innocent facts. First, because our senses point outward, we can observe other people’s actions but not our own. Second, because mental life is a private affair, we can observe our own thoughts but not the thoughts of others. Together, these facts suggest that our reasons for punching will always be more salient to us than the punches themselves — but that the opposite will be true of other people’s reasons and other people’s punches.
Examples aren’t hard to come by. Shiites seek revenge on Sunnis for the revenge they sought on Shiites; Irish Catholics retaliate against the Protestants who retaliated against them; and since 1948, it’s hard to think of any partisan in the Middle East who has done anything but play defense. In each of these instances, people on one side claim that they are merely responding to provocation and dismiss the other side’s identical claim as disingenuous spin. But research suggests that these claims reflect genuinely different perceptions of the same bloody conversation.
But in the world of "fair fighting", the second punch must have the same level of force as the first punch - and the third punch must also be the same level. An eye for an eye is fair, but an eye for an eyelash is not. So when the European Union criticizes Israel for bombing Lebanon over the kidnapping of two soldiers, they are criticizing the excessive use of force; the EU didn't question Israel's right to respond - nor do I - but the amount of force is out of whack.
Gilbert says: Research shows that people have as much trouble applying the second principle as the first. In a study conducted by Sukhwinder Shergill and colleagues at University College London, pairs of volunteers were hooked up to a mechanical device that allowed each of them to exert pressure on the other volunteer’s fingers. They were supposed to put the same amount of pressure on each other's fingers. The measured results showed that each time, pressure increased by 40%, yet the volunteers were convinced they'd applied equal amounts of pressure. Our own pain is more real to us than the pain we inflict on others; and thus begins the mutual escalation of harm.
So, along with hatred, greed, lies, intolerance, we have to throw into this stew a strange neurological wrinkle in our brains that leads to self-justification. That, along with an increase of fundamentalist thinking which tells "believers" they are somehow superior to others who believe differently, and the path toward mass destruction becomes inevitable.
In the Middle East, cooler heads have often prevailed. Statesmen have stepped in to intervene, to settle things down. Our pack of administrative liars have no interest in statemanship. Driven by greed, driven by a desire to create a New American Century, they want the Middle East to blow itself up so they can step in and create a new Middle East. So it escalates.
Examples aren’t hard to come by. Shiites seek revenge on Sunnis for the revenge they sought on Shiites; Irish Catholics retaliate against the Protestants who retaliated against them; and since 1948, it’s hard to think of any partisan in the Middle East who has done anything but play defense. In each of these instances, people on one side claim that they are merely responding to provocation and dismiss the other side’s identical claim as disingenuous spin. But research suggests that these claims reflect genuinely different perceptions of the same bloody conversation.
But in the world of "fair fighting", the second punch must have the same level of force as the first punch - and the third punch must also be the same level. An eye for an eye is fair, but an eye for an eyelash is not. So when the European Union criticizes Israel for bombing Lebanon over the kidnapping of two soldiers, they are criticizing the excessive use of force; the EU didn't question Israel's right to respond - nor do I - but the amount of force is out of whack.
Gilbert says: Research shows that people have as much trouble applying the second principle as the first. In a study conducted by Sukhwinder Shergill and colleagues at University College London, pairs of volunteers were hooked up to a mechanical device that allowed each of them to exert pressure on the other volunteer’s fingers. They were supposed to put the same amount of pressure on each other's fingers. The measured results showed that each time, pressure increased by 40%, yet the volunteers were convinced they'd applied equal amounts of pressure. Our own pain is more real to us than the pain we inflict on others; and thus begins the mutual escalation of harm.
So, along with hatred, greed, lies, intolerance, we have to throw into this stew a strange neurological wrinkle in our brains that leads to self-justification. That, along with an increase of fundamentalist thinking which tells "believers" they are somehow superior to others who believe differently, and the path toward mass destruction becomes inevitable.
In the Middle East, cooler heads have often prevailed. Statesmen have stepped in to intervene, to settle things down. Our pack of administrative liars have no interest in statemanship. Driven by greed, driven by a desire to create a New American Century, they want the Middle East to blow itself up so they can step in and create a new Middle East. So it escalates.
Pinch me, I must be dreaming.
Specter prepping bill to sue Bush is the word from Forbes. "We will submit legislation to the United States Senate which will...authorize the Congress to undertake judicial review of those signing statements with the view to having the president's acts declared unconstitutional," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said on the Senate floor.
This announcement came on the same day that the ABA says that Bush's use of signing statements is blatantly unconstitutional. Bush, with over 750 signing statements, has used this 200 times more than all other US Presidents, combined. And while others have used signing statements, they've been largely ceremonial - something akin to saying this is a really groovy new law. George W. Bush, however, has used these statements to avoid risking a veto, which can be overturned in Congress. Signing statements let Bush say he's signing the bill into law, but he's not going to follow it. And Congress can't override a signing statement.
First Valerie Plame Wilson, and now Arlen Specter. Can Impeachment be on the horizon?
This announcement came on the same day that the ABA says that Bush's use of signing statements is blatantly unconstitutional. Bush, with over 750 signing statements, has used this 200 times more than all other US Presidents, combined. And while others have used signing statements, they've been largely ceremonial - something akin to saying this is a really groovy new law. George W. Bush, however, has used these statements to avoid risking a veto, which can be overturned in Congress. Signing statements let Bush say he's signing the bill into law, but he's not going to follow it. And Congress can't override a signing statement.
First Valerie Plame Wilson, and now Arlen Specter. Can Impeachment be on the horizon?
Monday, July 24, 2006
I fixed my PC.
So, the choice was this: buy a new computer - like an IMAC - or just fix the one I have. I did that, and treated myself to a flat panel moniter - much nicer than the old hunk of crud I had before. And since I could not blog the bean on Friday, here she is in all her summer finery, with Chicago in the background.
In California, it's so hot that...
Global Warming goes on trial.
California and other states have brought a lawsuit against the Federal Government about its failure to reduce greenhouse gas emission. The US Supreme Court normally defers to the administrative agencies to implement laws, but has decided to hear this case next term. The reason: in this case such deference is outweighed by the administration's glaring dereliction of duty.
The Clean Air Act of 1970 charges the government with regulating substances that "may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare," and it specifically includes those that might affect the "weather" or "climate."
Bush promised six years ago to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions, but so far all he's done is call for more studies. The Court's decision to hear the lawsuit will get some clarity of language, and perhaps shame Congress into real action.
In the meantime, it's so hot in California that...
California and other states have brought a lawsuit against the Federal Government about its failure to reduce greenhouse gas emission. The US Supreme Court normally defers to the administrative agencies to implement laws, but has decided to hear this case next term. The reason: in this case such deference is outweighed by the administration's glaring dereliction of duty.
The Clean Air Act of 1970 charges the government with regulating substances that "may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare," and it specifically includes those that might affect the "weather" or "climate."
Bush promised six years ago to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions, but so far all he's done is call for more studies. The Court's decision to hear the lawsuit will get some clarity of language, and perhaps shame Congress into real action.
In the meantime, it's so hot in California that...
Sunday, July 23, 2006
There's nothing like bad acting.
One of my favorite movie comedies is Waiting for Guffman, a short, improvised "documentary" about the world of Community Theater. One of the tag lines advertising the film is "There's a reason why some talent goes undiscovered."
It's hot, it's humid, and it's Sunday. But what did I do? I went with 18 of my friends to see another friend in a Community Theater production of the musical "Oliver." My friend is a decent actor. He's a good singer. But he was surrounded by people who just, well, shouldn't quit their day jobs. Just as Dr. Allen Pearl did in Guffman, and Ron & Sheila Albertson did. Dr. Pearl gives up his dental practice to move to Miami and gets unpaid jobs singing in nursing homes; Ron & Sheila are travel agents in the fictional town of Blaine, travel agents who've never left Blaine. They quit and move to Hollywood. Big mistake.
There's that singsongy voice bad actors use. There's the repetition of lines - like "Ma said ye just don't care, son. Ma said ye just don't care." The mugging, the shuffling of feet, the mouthing of the other person's dialogue so you don't lose your place. All of this was present in the show today. All of it. If you've ever done Community Theater, you know what I mean. Rent the DVD of Guffman, it's hilarious. Much more so than this show was today - and it was so hot, I thought half the cast was going to die on stage.
Could I be demonstrating a bad attitude? I think so.
It's hot, it's humid, and it's Sunday. But what did I do? I went with 18 of my friends to see another friend in a Community Theater production of the musical "Oliver." My friend is a decent actor. He's a good singer. But he was surrounded by people who just, well, shouldn't quit their day jobs. Just as Dr. Allen Pearl did in Guffman, and Ron & Sheila Albertson did. Dr. Pearl gives up his dental practice to move to Miami and gets unpaid jobs singing in nursing homes; Ron & Sheila are travel agents in the fictional town of Blaine, travel agents who've never left Blaine. They quit and move to Hollywood. Big mistake.
There's that singsongy voice bad actors use. There's the repetition of lines - like "Ma said ye just don't care, son. Ma said ye just don't care." The mugging, the shuffling of feet, the mouthing of the other person's dialogue so you don't lose your place. All of this was present in the show today. All of it. If you've ever done Community Theater, you know what I mean. Rent the DVD of Guffman, it's hilarious. Much more so than this show was today - and it was so hot, I thought half the cast was going to die on stage.
Could I be demonstrating a bad attitude? I think so.
Arabs press Syria to end support of Hezbollah
Arab diplomats are pressing Syria to stop backing Hezbollah. And Syria indicates it is willing to enter talks with the US to initiate a cease fire in Lebanon, according to Ha'aretz. Syria and Spain are working toward a package that would include a prisoner swap, and a return of the Golan Heights as part of the deal. It was unlikely that Israel would agree to such a deal, but the remarks were the first indication of Syria's willingness to be involved in international efforts to defuse the Lebanese crisis.
And Prime Minister Olmert, and Defense Minister Peretz, agree that a NATO lead peace force in Southern Lebanon would be acceptible.
And Prime Minister Olmert, and Defense Minister Peretz, agree that a NATO lead peace force in Southern Lebanon would be acceptible.
Summer lightening in a fire ecology
Last night, about 8:20 PM, I was driving home from dinner with friends. All around me was the most spectacular display of lightening I'd seen since moving to Los Angeles. It was a combination of heat lightening and bold strikes - no thunder. An oddity occurred as I drove through the Hollywood Riviera section of Redondo Beach - rain, in July. We don't get rain in July. But as I was driving, I saw one particular bolt of lightening that hit somewhere in the vicinity of Catalina Island. I rounded the corner onto Palos Verdes Drive South, and saw an eirie orange glow - it took me a few minutes to realize that Catalina Island had taken a direct hit, and was on fire. All along the drive, people were pulled over. They stood outside their cars, watching, taking photos. Meanwhile, lightening continued to strike. Now, I'm from the midwest - I'm not going to stand outside in a lightening storm no matter how beautiful it is, because that's how people get fried.
Catalina Island is beautiful, but with limited capacity to fight this blaze. Marines from Camp Pendelton were called over to help contain it. Somewhere around 1200 acres have burned.
It is so hot in the LA basin, record heat - it hit 119 in Woodland Hills yesterday. At 9AM, here in Pedro, it's close to 80 degrees.
What have we done to our earth?
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Hamas ready to accept unilateral cease fire
Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reports that Fatah sources indicate that Hamas is ready to accept a deal brokered by Egypt which will include unilateral cease fire between Gaza and Israel, the release of Israeli Defense Soldier Gilad Shalit, cessation of IDF assassinations in Gaza and eventual release of Palestinian prisoners. It is not clear if this is a done deal; Israel will not accept a cease fire that does not include the release of Shalit.
But what is clear is that Hamas wants to distance itself from Hezbollah. Hamas leaders believe Hezbollah has harmed the Palestinian cause by its actions and are striving to reach a separate deal with Israel.
Meanwhile, at an anti-war rally in Tel Aviv, major Arab groups, including Hadash and Balad, participated for the first time in any anti-war rally. They marched along with the Zionist Left, Yesh Gvul, the refusal to serve movement, and Gush Shalom, among others.
These Jewish and Arab groups ordinarily shy away from joint activity. They couldn't come up with a unifying slogan this time either, except for the call to stop the war and start talking. However, protest veterans noted that in the Lebanon War of 1982 it took more than 10 days of warfare to bring out this many protesters, marking the first crack in the consensus.
This was a distinctly anti-American protest. There were chants of "We will not die and will not kill in the service of the United States," and slogans condemning President George W. Bush. One woman, Tehiya Regev, lost two friends in the Kaytusha bombings of Carmel (a suburb of Haifa.) She told a reporter from Ha'artez, "This war is not headed in the right direction. The captured soldiers have long since been forgotten, so I came to call for an immediate stop to this foolish and cruel war." Ms. Regev was a new face to peace rallies.
**********************************************************************************
Links are fixed, in case you tried to get there.
But what is clear is that Hamas wants to distance itself from Hezbollah. Hamas leaders believe Hezbollah has harmed the Palestinian cause by its actions and are striving to reach a separate deal with Israel.
Meanwhile, at an anti-war rally in Tel Aviv, major Arab groups, including Hadash and Balad, participated for the first time in any anti-war rally. They marched along with the Zionist Left, Yesh Gvul, the refusal to serve movement, and Gush Shalom, among others.These Jewish and Arab groups ordinarily shy away from joint activity. They couldn't come up with a unifying slogan this time either, except for the call to stop the war and start talking. However, protest veterans noted that in the Lebanon War of 1982 it took more than 10 days of warfare to bring out this many protesters, marking the first crack in the consensus.
This was a distinctly anti-American protest. There were chants of "We will not die and will not kill in the service of the United States," and slogans condemning President George W. Bush. One woman, Tehiya Regev, lost two friends in the Kaytusha bombings of Carmel (a suburb of Haifa.) She told a reporter from Ha'artez, "This war is not headed in the right direction. The captured soldiers have long since been forgotten, so I came to call for an immediate stop to this foolish and cruel war." Ms. Regev was a new face to peace rallies.
**********************************************************************************
Links are fixed, in case you tried to get there.
Every sperm is sacred...
I love Sumo Merriment's blog. She sums up the latest in Bush's hipocrisies, and I've grabbed this cartoon off her. Go have a look at the rest of it.
How did I miss this? Army fires Halliburton from Iraq contract
This article on July 12 shows that the overcharging by Halliburton have gotten out of hand even for the Pentagon. Pentagon auditors found over $1 billion in questionable costs under the contract. Current and former employees described instances where Halliburton overcharged U.S. taxpayers by paying $45 per case of soda, $100 for a standard cleaning of laundry, and $80,000 for brand new Mercedes trucks that were torched because of minor equipment problems. At one point, Halliburton billed the government for 36 percent more meals than was actually served to the troops while an internal company report said it had overcharged by 19 percent. Another military audit, first revealed by HalliburtonWatch, accused Halliburton of imposing "increased costs to the government” (and therefore higher profits for the company) by purchasing millions of dollars in trucks that were sitting idle and unused in parking lots under Iraq's desert sun. In addition, a report by Halliburton employees, first revealed by HalliburtonWatch, revealed how the company was delivering contaminated and unhealthy water to unsuspecting troops throughout Iraq on a regular basis.
Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) wants multiple companies to fulfil the contracts. He says, rightly, that when there is a single company filling the needs of the government contracts, that company "has the government over a barrell." In this case, that company, Halliburton, is also lining the pockets of Dick Cheney. In June, documents suggested that Cheney lied about his role in awarding a "no bid" oil contract to Halliburton in Iraq.
Yes, there are still the Haliburton oil contracts in Iraq. Haliburton's Hella Good Deal talks about the need for skepticism at this point. After the first dubious no-bid contract, Halliburton subsidiary KBR got a second oil contract with the Army Corps of Engineers.
The fix was in, according to the Corps’ top civilian contracting expert, Bunnatine Greenhouse: "I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to contracts awarded to KBR represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career." Greenhouse exposed the collusive relationship at an unofficial congressional hearing held by the Democrats last June (no official committee has yet chosen to invite her to testify), before she was demoted for speaking out.
So as demonstrated by the two oil contracts, Halliburton remains eligiable to bid for new logistics contracts in Iraq despite the blatant abuses including cost overruns, waste, kickbacks, $45 cases of soda. You get the picture.
Leading Senate Democrats, including Dorgan, Durbin, D-Ill., Harry Reid and Pat Leahy have also introduced a comprehensive contracting reform proposal—The Honest Leadership and Accountability in Contracting Act of 2006 (S. 2361). The bill would establish criminal penalties for war profiteering, require that lawbreaking companies be excluded from any new contracts and protect whistleblowers from retaliation, among other provisions. It was brought up for a vote during the Senate’s consideration of the 2007 Defense bill, and similarly shot down by the Republican Congress’ highly-partisan Halliburton protection racket.
Dorgan said the bill was shot down because there is "one-party rule" in Washington - the White House, Senate and House. He says "nobody wants to embarrass anybody." Nobody wants to really look at what's going on, because to do so would mean they would have to take responsibility and act.
The American people deserve better than this. Our country has been hijacked by warmongering criminals who have led us into World War III. WE invaded Iraq in order to line the pockets of a very few; WE have lit a fire under Israel, and are currently rushing so-called smart bombs to them, most likely to let Israel invade Iran and Syria - talk about the most amazing red-herring THAT is. Let's blame all of Israel for the cynical, criminal actions of the PNAC-led government in the US. We don't have the manpower to invade Iran; our Iraq invasion is a dismal failure; let's get Israel to do it.
We have to shine that spotlight back where it belongs: on Bush, Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz, Kristol. Change OUR government.
Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) wants multiple companies to fulfil the contracts. He says, rightly, that when there is a single company filling the needs of the government contracts, that company "has the government over a barrell." In this case, that company, Halliburton, is also lining the pockets of Dick Cheney. In June, documents suggested that Cheney lied about his role in awarding a "no bid" oil contract to Halliburton in Iraq.
Yes, there are still the Haliburton oil contracts in Iraq. Haliburton's Hella Good Deal talks about the need for skepticism at this point. After the first dubious no-bid contract, Halliburton subsidiary KBR got a second oil contract with the Army Corps of Engineers.
The fix was in, according to the Corps’ top civilian contracting expert, Bunnatine Greenhouse: "I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to contracts awarded to KBR represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career." Greenhouse exposed the collusive relationship at an unofficial congressional hearing held by the Democrats last June (no official committee has yet chosen to invite her to testify), before she was demoted for speaking out.
So as demonstrated by the two oil contracts, Halliburton remains eligiable to bid for new logistics contracts in Iraq despite the blatant abuses including cost overruns, waste, kickbacks, $45 cases of soda. You get the picture.
Leading Senate Democrats, including Dorgan, Durbin, D-Ill., Harry Reid and Pat Leahy have also introduced a comprehensive contracting reform proposal—The Honest Leadership and Accountability in Contracting Act of 2006 (S. 2361). The bill would establish criminal penalties for war profiteering, require that lawbreaking companies be excluded from any new contracts and protect whistleblowers from retaliation, among other provisions. It was brought up for a vote during the Senate’s consideration of the 2007 Defense bill, and similarly shot down by the Republican Congress’ highly-partisan Halliburton protection racket.
Dorgan said the bill was shot down because there is "one-party rule" in Washington - the White House, Senate and House. He says "nobody wants to embarrass anybody." Nobody wants to really look at what's going on, because to do so would mean they would have to take responsibility and act.
The American people deserve better than this. Our country has been hijacked by warmongering criminals who have led us into World War III. WE invaded Iraq in order to line the pockets of a very few; WE have lit a fire under Israel, and are currently rushing so-called smart bombs to them, most likely to let Israel invade Iran and Syria - talk about the most amazing red-herring THAT is. Let's blame all of Israel for the cynical, criminal actions of the PNAC-led government in the US. We don't have the manpower to invade Iran; our Iraq invasion is a dismal failure; let's get Israel to do it.
We have to shine that spotlight back where it belongs: on Bush, Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz, Kristol. Change OUR government.
Friday, July 21, 2006
The fragile nature of sobriety
Last Friday, I learned that the son of one of my friends died in prison. This was a young man, 35 (same age as my own son), very handsome, creative, intelligent, successful. He had long term friends, people with whom he'd grown up, known since early childhood. He had loving parents. He had every advantage a person can have. But he could not stay sober, or clean.
He would have stretches of sobriety, one time over a year - I remember when he took that cake. But he suffered from paranoia, and he had another rare disorder which made him think he looked grotesque. When he'd go out on a run, the paranoia became worse. About ten months ago, after one such run, he destroyed his office. He was arrested, the judge gave him parole. Shortly after, he was arrested trying to make a buy of cocaine. This time the judge sent him to prison.
On Thursday of last week, he hung himself in his cell.
Last night was the viewing at the funeral home - packed to the gills. One of the most amazing outpourings of love I've ever seen. Today, this morning, was a memorial service on the beach. All his closest friends, the surfing boys, eulogized him. All of them spoke about how much they loved him, and how this young man was always there for them. One of the friends, about five years sober, spoke about endless cups of coffee together. How this guy would do anything to help another stay sober. Yet he was unable to get the gift himself.
The memorial service was incredible. The eulogies went on for over two hours; in the end, 100 surfers did a paddle out to say good-bye in the ocean. They formed a circle, and the lifeguard boat saluted with a spray of water. One man I know spoke about his own son, who'd died last year, also unable to stay sober, and also a suicide. The tragedy, and power, of this disease is overwhelming. But so is the love, and support. And that's what's key to me, that, more than anything else: so many of us were there for his parents; others were there for each other - friends - but the connection of love, in all honesty, is the most beautiful thing I know.
At the meeting tonight, five of us were celebrating our AA birthdays; most of us had been at the funeral. We all went out to dinner, and it was more of the same - love, despite our many quirks and foibles. Love as an action. I am so grateful for my life and my experience; I am grateful I am able to show up for my friends in the face of their terrible loss. But I am very saddened by the loss of this man. Keep Matt in your prayers that he might finally be at peace. With a Wahoo Fish Taco Stand nearby.
He would have stretches of sobriety, one time over a year - I remember when he took that cake. But he suffered from paranoia, and he had another rare disorder which made him think he looked grotesque. When he'd go out on a run, the paranoia became worse. About ten months ago, after one such run, he destroyed his office. He was arrested, the judge gave him parole. Shortly after, he was arrested trying to make a buy of cocaine. This time the judge sent him to prison.
On Thursday of last week, he hung himself in his cell.
Last night was the viewing at the funeral home - packed to the gills. One of the most amazing outpourings of love I've ever seen. Today, this morning, was a memorial service on the beach. All his closest friends, the surfing boys, eulogized him. All of them spoke about how much they loved him, and how this young man was always there for them. One of the friends, about five years sober, spoke about endless cups of coffee together. How this guy would do anything to help another stay sober. Yet he was unable to get the gift himself.
The memorial service was incredible. The eulogies went on for over two hours; in the end, 100 surfers did a paddle out to say good-bye in the ocean. They formed a circle, and the lifeguard boat saluted with a spray of water. One man I know spoke about his own son, who'd died last year, also unable to stay sober, and also a suicide. The tragedy, and power, of this disease is overwhelming. But so is the love, and support. And that's what's key to me, that, more than anything else: so many of us were there for his parents; others were there for each other - friends - but the connection of love, in all honesty, is the most beautiful thing I know.
At the meeting tonight, five of us were celebrating our AA birthdays; most of us had been at the funeral. We all went out to dinner, and it was more of the same - love, despite our many quirks and foibles. Love as an action. I am so grateful for my life and my experience; I am grateful I am able to show up for my friends in the face of their terrible loss. But I am very saddened by the loss of this man. Keep Matt in your prayers that he might finally be at peace. With a Wahoo Fish Taco Stand nearby.
Friday Grandbaby blogging
Here's Ellie being invisible. Why? BECAUSE MY PHOTOS ARE ON MY PC. MY PC HAD A MELTDOWN ON SUNDAY. And this is my laptop. My daughter hasn't sent updates this week because she's been insanely busy at work, which is good. So, no photos, because I don't have anything new, or old, that I can access. The wonders of modern technology.
So instead I will just say that she points to her dog and says "Doggie." She says Mama, Dada, Ball, Blue, Cat. When she says these words in her lovely, sweet voice, she knows what she means. Dada is not reference to the surrealist movement; Mama refers to my daughter, her mom, rather than Yo-Yo Ma, the cellist.
I need to take my computer to a place to get it fixed, and to do that, I need free time during business hours. Miss my Ellie Bean.
So instead I will just say that she points to her dog and says "Doggie." She says Mama, Dada, Ball, Blue, Cat. When she says these words in her lovely, sweet voice, she knows what she means. Dada is not reference to the surrealist movement; Mama refers to my daughter, her mom, rather than Yo-Yo Ma, the cellist.
I need to take my computer to a place to get it fixed, and to do that, I need free time during business hours. Miss my Ellie Bean.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Wealth: a study in contrasts
Bill Gates and Dick Cheney. Both unbelievably wealthy individuals. And what do they do with it?
Well, Cheney's betting on bad news. He's got between $10 to $30 million in a series of funds that hedge well against inflation rates. Two of the three are tax-exempt funds; the third is an inflation-protected fund. The principal and interest of these bonds rise with consumer prices.
The Cheneys also had between $10 million and $25 million in American Century International Bond (BEGBX, news, msgs). The fund buys mainly high-quality foreign bonds (predominantly in Europe) and rarely hedges against possible increases in the value of the dollar. Indeed, its prospectus limits dollar exposure to 25% of assets and the fund currently has only 6% of assets in dollars, according to an American Century spokesman. It's like he hopes the dollar will drop so he can get wealthier. Betting against America, is old Blasty McBirdshot. BTW, Cheney's assets could be around $94M -- but it's a little unclear, because he hides a lot.
On the other hand, Bill Gates, worth more money than most countries, has just earmarked $278M for AIDS vaccine research. But the $287 million from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation also comes with the requirement that researchers share data and collaborate in a way that's rare in science. Vaccine candidates that don't pass muster will be quickly abandoned. Those that show promise will get fast-track treatment. Warren Buffett recently handed $30M over to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which in addition to AIDS research, focuses on improving education. The Governator of California, who I really don't like, just gave a loan of $150 M for stem cell research in California (just after Bush vetoed a bill on stem cell research.)
So. If you had gazillions of dollars, what would you do with it? Would you hedge against inflation for your own personal gain, while letting your country disintigrate? Or would you work toward the greater good? It sounds so obvious in theory. But really, how many of us would put our money where our heart is?
Well, Cheney's betting on bad news. He's got between $10 to $30 million in a series of funds that hedge well against inflation rates. Two of the three are tax-exempt funds; the third is an inflation-protected fund. The principal and interest of these bonds rise with consumer prices.
The Cheneys also had between $10 million and $25 million in American Century International Bond (BEGBX, news, msgs). The fund buys mainly high-quality foreign bonds (predominantly in Europe) and rarely hedges against possible increases in the value of the dollar. Indeed, its prospectus limits dollar exposure to 25% of assets and the fund currently has only 6% of assets in dollars, according to an American Century spokesman. It's like he hopes the dollar will drop so he can get wealthier. Betting against America, is old Blasty McBirdshot. BTW, Cheney's assets could be around $94M -- but it's a little unclear, because he hides a lot.
On the other hand, Bill Gates, worth more money than most countries, has just earmarked $278M for AIDS vaccine research. But the $287 million from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation also comes with the requirement that researchers share data and collaborate in a way that's rare in science. Vaccine candidates that don't pass muster will be quickly abandoned. Those that show promise will get fast-track treatment. Warren Buffett recently handed $30M over to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which in addition to AIDS research, focuses on improving education. The Governator of California, who I really don't like, just gave a loan of $150 M for stem cell research in California (just after Bush vetoed a bill on stem cell research.)
So. If you had gazillions of dollars, what would you do with it? Would you hedge against inflation for your own personal gain, while letting your country disintigrate? Or would you work toward the greater good? It sounds so obvious in theory. But really, how many of us would put our money where our heart is?
Animal House Summit
This editorial by Maureen Dowd is worth printing in full. I thank Robin Andrea for sending it to me.
By MAUREEN DOWD
Reporters who covered W.’s 2000 campaign often wondered whether the Bush scion would give up acting the fool if he got to be the king.
Would he stop playing peekaboo with his pre-meal moist towels during airplane interviews? Would he quit scrunching up his face and wiggling his eyebrows at memorial services? Would he replace levity and inanity with gravity?
“In many regards, the Bush I knew did not seem to be built for what lay ahead,’’ wrote Frank Bruni, the Times writer who covered W.’s ascent, in his book “Ambling Into History.” “The Bush I knew was part scamp and part bumbler, a timeless fraternity boy and heedless cutup, a weekday gym rat and weekend napster, an adult with an inner child that often brimmed to the surface or burst through.”
The open-microphone incident at the G-8 lunch in St. Petersburg on Monday illustrated once more that W. never made any effort to adapt. The president has enshrined his immaturity and insularity, turning every environment he inhabits — no matter how decorous or serious — into a comfortable frat house.
No matter what the trappings or the ceremonies require of the leader of the free world, he brings the same DKE bearing and cadences, the same insouciance and smart-alecky attitude, the same simplistic approach — swearing, swaggering, talking to Tony Blair with his mouth full of buttered roll, and giving a startled Angela Merkel an impromptu shoulder rub. He can make even a global summit meeting seem like a kegger.
Catching W. off-guard, the really weird thing is his sense of victimization. He’s strangely resentful about the actual core of his job. Even after the debacles of
Iraq and Katrina, he continues to treat the presidency as a colossal interference with his desire to mountain bike and clear brush.
In snippets of overheard conversation, Mr. Bush says he has not bothered to prepare any closing remarks and grouses about having to listen to other world leaders talk too long. What did he think being president was about?
The world may be blowing up, and the president may have a rare opportunity to jaw-jaw about bang-bang with his peers, but that pales in comparison with his burning desire to return to his feather pillow and gym back at the White House.
“Gotta go home,’’ he tells the guy next to him. “Got something to do tonight. Go to the airport, get on the airplane and go home.” A White House spokesman said Mr. Bush had nothing on his schedule after he returned to Washington on Monday about 4 p.m.
When he began meandering about how big Russia was, you expected him to yell, “Yo, Condi!’’ and ask his secretary of state: “Hey, what’s the name of that other big country that has more people than any other country in the world? It begins with a ‘C.’ Dad spent some time there.’’
Perhaps it’s that anti-patrician chip on his shoulder, his rebellion against a family that prized manners and diplomacy above all. But when bored or frustrated, W.
reserves the right to be boorish — no matter if the setting is a gilded palace or a Texas gorge.
He treated Tony “As It Were” Blair like the servant in “The Remains of the Day,’’ blowing off his offer to help with the Israel-Lebanon crisis, and changing the subject from substance to fluff at one point, noting about his 60th-birthday Burberry gift: “Thanks for the sweater. Awfully thoughtful of you.’’ Then he razzed
the British prime minister, who was hovering and wheedling like an abused wife: “I know you picked it out yourself.”
After doing his best to undermine the U.N. and Kofi Annan, W. talked about the secretary general like a fraternity pledge he wanted to send out for more beer or a keg of Diet Coke: “I felt like telling Kofi to get on the phone with Assad and make something happen.’’
His loosey-goosey confidence that everything could be fixed with a phone call — and not even a phone call made by him, and not even a phone call made to the Iranians, who have more control over Hezbollah — was striking. He seems to have no clue that his own headlong, heedless actions in the Middle East have contributed to the deepening chaos there, and to Iran’s growing influence and America’s diminished leverage.
Mr. Bush may resent the sophistication required of a president. But when the world is going to hell, he should stop chewing and start thinking.
By MAUREEN DOWD
Reporters who covered W.’s 2000 campaign often wondered whether the Bush scion would give up acting the fool if he got to be the king.
Would he stop playing peekaboo with his pre-meal moist towels during airplane interviews? Would he quit scrunching up his face and wiggling his eyebrows at memorial services? Would he replace levity and inanity with gravity?
“In many regards, the Bush I knew did not seem to be built for what lay ahead,’’ wrote Frank Bruni, the Times writer who covered W.’s ascent, in his book “Ambling Into History.” “The Bush I knew was part scamp and part bumbler, a timeless fraternity boy and heedless cutup, a weekday gym rat and weekend napster, an adult with an inner child that often brimmed to the surface or burst through.”
The open-microphone incident at the G-8 lunch in St. Petersburg on Monday illustrated once more that W. never made any effort to adapt. The president has enshrined his immaturity and insularity, turning every environment he inhabits — no matter how decorous or serious — into a comfortable frat house.
No matter what the trappings or the ceremonies require of the leader of the free world, he brings the same DKE bearing and cadences, the same insouciance and smart-alecky attitude, the same simplistic approach — swearing, swaggering, talking to Tony Blair with his mouth full of buttered roll, and giving a startled Angela Merkel an impromptu shoulder rub. He can make even a global summit meeting seem like a kegger.
Catching W. off-guard, the really weird thing is his sense of victimization. He’s strangely resentful about the actual core of his job. Even after the debacles of
Iraq and Katrina, he continues to treat the presidency as a colossal interference with his desire to mountain bike and clear brush.
In snippets of overheard conversation, Mr. Bush says he has not bothered to prepare any closing remarks and grouses about having to listen to other world leaders talk too long. What did he think being president was about?
The world may be blowing up, and the president may have a rare opportunity to jaw-jaw about bang-bang with his peers, but that pales in comparison with his burning desire to return to his feather pillow and gym back at the White House.
“Gotta go home,’’ he tells the guy next to him. “Got something to do tonight. Go to the airport, get on the airplane and go home.” A White House spokesman said Mr. Bush had nothing on his schedule after he returned to Washington on Monday about 4 p.m.
When he began meandering about how big Russia was, you expected him to yell, “Yo, Condi!’’ and ask his secretary of state: “Hey, what’s the name of that other big country that has more people than any other country in the world? It begins with a ‘C.’ Dad spent some time there.’’
Perhaps it’s that anti-patrician chip on his shoulder, his rebellion against a family that prized manners and diplomacy above all. But when bored or frustrated, W.
reserves the right to be boorish — no matter if the setting is a gilded palace or a Texas gorge.
He treated Tony “As It Were” Blair like the servant in “The Remains of the Day,’’ blowing off his offer to help with the Israel-Lebanon crisis, and changing the subject from substance to fluff at one point, noting about his 60th-birthday Burberry gift: “Thanks for the sweater. Awfully thoughtful of you.’’ Then he razzed
the British prime minister, who was hovering and wheedling like an abused wife: “I know you picked it out yourself.”
After doing his best to undermine the U.N. and Kofi Annan, W. talked about the secretary general like a fraternity pledge he wanted to send out for more beer or a keg of Diet Coke: “I felt like telling Kofi to get on the phone with Assad and make something happen.’’
His loosey-goosey confidence that everything could be fixed with a phone call — and not even a phone call made by him, and not even a phone call made to the Iranians, who have more control over Hezbollah — was striking. He seems to have no clue that his own headlong, heedless actions in the Middle East have contributed to the deepening chaos there, and to Iran’s growing influence and America’s diminished leverage.
Mr. Bush may resent the sophistication required of a president. But when the world is going to hell, he should stop chewing and start thinking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
