The Washington Post says that now that George has announced his latest how-to-kill Social Security plan, the Dems are challenged to come up with an alternative. No they aren't.
Now, the Post is a political newspaper and loves a good fight to keep the circulation up. I can respect that. But the Dems would be silly to fret about coming up with their own plan now.
The Social Security "crisis", of course, is of Bush's own making, for obvious political reasons. It's an attempt to shear off senior voters who are tempted to vote Dem as long as they feel they need the Dems to keep the public pension check coming. As the boomer generation ages, this could turn into a demographic landslide against the GOP. So I understand why George is proposing the silliness he's proposing.
The simple response to Social Security is relatively modest adjustments in payroll deductions and benefits to keep it in line. This can be done over time, phased as the years go by. You don't need all this "private/personal account" nonsense. People already have that through 401(k)'s and such. Social Security needs to be the rock-solid guaranteed benefit underpinning the necessary risk of our own private accounts. But if the Dems bring this up now, the GOP will howl "raising taxes!" and divert attention from their own foolhardiness.
So the Dems should lay low, and say nothing. Let Bush and company hang themselves before the mid-term elections. If pressed, enlarge the question and evade. Say, "we need to look at all of the issue in retirement, such as people retiring later because they're in better health, or working part-time instead of full retirement." Then offer to hold hearings or set up a commission. This way the Dems look visionary without having to craft an unnecessary and politically risky response to Bush's pointless proposal.
I like the Washington Post. But sometimes they do get it wrong.
Update:
Following is a link to a 7 page pdf which is the most intelligentpiece on Social Security I have read. The author is very qualified.
The second link is to a short biography on the author, Robert M.Ball. Mr. Ball began working for Social Security in 1939, by 1942 hewas the chief staff expert on expanding coverage, he then rose throughthe Social Security staff to be Commissioner of Social Security underPresidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. In 1981-1982 Ball was a memberof the Greenspan Commission, which resulted in the 1983 Amendments. Over the years he has written many articles and books.
Ball article on fixing Social Security
http://www.tcf.org/Publications/RetirementSecurity/ballplan.pdf
Mr. Ball's short biography from the Social Security oral history website
http://www.ssa.gov/history/orals/balloralhistory.html
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Saturday, April 30, 2005
Lafayette, We Are Here
The war in Iraq is $300 billion and growing.
I don't argue for withdrawing from Iraq. It was an immoral war in that it was unprovoked, and that stands. Still, now that we're there, we must hang on to make sure something stable arises from the mess. Otherwise, we're back in in a couple of years anyway to deal with whatever fruitcake comes out of all.
I do argue, again, for declaring war on Iraq, and the bill is a big reason.
Congress followed the declarations of war upon the Axis with "articles of war", which spelled out everything from censorship to war production. At each step, Congress had to consider the cost in both dollars and constitutional protections, of what was doing. It also had to reaffirm that what it was doing was for the war, and that the people understood the sacrifices.
LBJ was blamed for a "guns and butter" (I like "cosmetics and cannon" better) policy during the Vietnam war. We've got the same thing going on now. Instead of calling for sacrifice, our president cuts taxes. The Patriot Act, dissassociated from a real war, is under attack by both sides. When the ACLU and Bob Barr are lined up against you, you've got real problems. Zillions are spent on an ironically underfunded "No (or Every) Child Left Behind" policy. There's a war and there's domestic business as usual. A declaration of war would change that.
People would realize that if our schools need help and the feds couldn't fix 'em because of the war, maybe it's time to volunteer time or money. If there was a clear and present danger due from internal terrorism, then folks might willingly accept the tradeoffs. And those tax checks could go to getting armor for our troops. Each subsequent article of war could be debated, discussed and the public would see just what it was called to do.
But no, Congress blithely said, "Whatever, it's on you, let me know what's up ... yawn" and here we are. The Founders set up the congressional role in warmaking for several good reasons. One was that in a democracy popular support is critical to prosecuting a successful war. A public declaration of a state of war creates the sense of common commitment a democracy needs, and leads the way to sensible policies to meet it.
So, next time, Congress, when faced with a war, ask yourself, "What would the Founders do?"
I don't argue for withdrawing from Iraq. It was an immoral war in that it was unprovoked, and that stands. Still, now that we're there, we must hang on to make sure something stable arises from the mess. Otherwise, we're back in in a couple of years anyway to deal with whatever fruitcake comes out of all.
I do argue, again, for declaring war on Iraq, and the bill is a big reason.
Congress followed the declarations of war upon the Axis with "articles of war", which spelled out everything from censorship to war production. At each step, Congress had to consider the cost in both dollars and constitutional protections, of what was doing. It also had to reaffirm that what it was doing was for the war, and that the people understood the sacrifices.
LBJ was blamed for a "guns and butter" (I like "cosmetics and cannon" better) policy during the Vietnam war. We've got the same thing going on now. Instead of calling for sacrifice, our president cuts taxes. The Patriot Act, dissassociated from a real war, is under attack by both sides. When the ACLU and Bob Barr are lined up against you, you've got real problems. Zillions are spent on an ironically underfunded "No (or Every) Child Left Behind" policy. There's a war and there's domestic business as usual. A declaration of war would change that.
People would realize that if our schools need help and the feds couldn't fix 'em because of the war, maybe it's time to volunteer time or money. If there was a clear and present danger due from internal terrorism, then folks might willingly accept the tradeoffs. And those tax checks could go to getting armor for our troops. Each subsequent article of war could be debated, discussed and the public would see just what it was called to do.
But no, Congress blithely said, "Whatever, it's on you, let me know what's up ... yawn" and here we are. The Founders set up the congressional role in warmaking for several good reasons. One was that in a democracy popular support is critical to prosecuting a successful war. A public declaration of a state of war creates the sense of common commitment a democracy needs, and leads the way to sensible policies to meet it.
So, next time, Congress, when faced with a war, ask yourself, "What would the Founders do?"
The House is Covering All Bets
Today's odds:
1. DeLay is out by the end of May. / 2-1 and on its way to a sure thing.
2. Frist compromises on the "nuclear option." / 4-1 and growing (he "wins" short-term by stretching out the fight).
3. Bolton is confirmed for the U.N. / 3-1 and growing the longer it takes.
4. Bush splits SS benefits/taxes from personal/private accounts in order to get something, anything, through so he can claim victory. / Even money
5. Michael Jackson is convicted of underage freakiness. / The house won't touch that money (yuck!)
1. DeLay is out by the end of May. / 2-1 and on its way to a sure thing.
2. Frist compromises on the "nuclear option." / 4-1 and growing (he "wins" short-term by stretching out the fight).
3. Bolton is confirmed for the U.N. / 3-1 and growing the longer it takes.
4. Bush splits SS benefits/taxes from personal/private accounts in order to get something, anything, through so he can claim victory. / Even money
5. Michael Jackson is convicted of underage freakiness. / The house won't touch that money (yuck!)
Friday, April 29, 2005
Implosion
When bleeding heart liberal Art Agnos became mayor of San Francisco around 1988, one writer predicted a short and unhappy tenure for a guy with crystal clear liberal credentials and a long political record. The problem Art will find, he wrote, is that the people who put him in power are inherent windmill tilters. They won't know how the handle real power. Eventually, they'll turn on themselves and each other, and suicidally overreach because they're too used to being one hill short of where they really want to be. They were right.
For a week now I've been looking at the Christian right's weird war against the mainly Republicans-appointed federal judiciary and wondering why it all seemed so familiar. It's Art Agnos all over again, only this time played out on the theofascist right.
The right should be at the height of its power. It's seen as handing the presidential election to Bush, and rallying enough voters to the polls to give the GOP more seats in Congress. So why are they acting so aggrieved?
They're really not comfortable with sitting in the big house. Their personal vision of themselves is that of an insurgent liberation force in an occupied land. The "enemy" is pervasive, in our schools, libraries and entertainment. Yet, even with their friends and allies in control of the national government, they couldn't get their way on the Schiavo case. Surely, there are still political forces outside their control which is frustrating them. Since the federal courts were designed by the Founding Fathers to expressly be outside political pressure, that must be the problem. Like all purported revolutionaries, the world only makes sense when there's a clear villain.
They also don't get that even in a free society you don't always get your way. That's the point of constitutional limitations on state power. You'd think good conservatives would understand this.
The problem is that the theofascist right just doesn't understand Freedom. Sure, we're free, they say, to Do the Right Thing. One of government's key goals in a free society is to establish frameworks within which people can make decisions. Issues like Schiavo, and whether to give birth, and when to end your own life, and when and where to read dirty books and which whom you want to love and lust with are all key choices free people should be able to make in a free society.
The theofascists won't allow this, because, by God and Jesus, you might choose the wrong thing. And that's not right. What kind of free society allows people to make choices like this? The only real choice is whether you're going to Lutheran, Baptist or Catholic services. As God and the (deist) Founders insisted, didn't they?
Along with their patrons, the GOP, they seem to be running scared. There's an air of weird desperation in what they're doing, as if they fear they're going to be swept away in the next strong wind. Federal judges, Social Security "reform", tear-down-the-U.N. appointments, everything but issues which resonate with real people in the real world. They can't just settle for solving actual stuff. They have to redraw the landscape in what they apparently see is the short time allotted to them.
So they run after silly stuff and make the mid-term elections look a lot better for my side. There's only one explanation. God has shown them the future and they ain't running it, so they've gotta act now.
Maybe it's His/Her special way of pre-torturing them.
For a week now I've been looking at the Christian right's weird war against the mainly Republicans-appointed federal judiciary and wondering why it all seemed so familiar. It's Art Agnos all over again, only this time played out on the theofascist right.
The right should be at the height of its power. It's seen as handing the presidential election to Bush, and rallying enough voters to the polls to give the GOP more seats in Congress. So why are they acting so aggrieved?
They're really not comfortable with sitting in the big house. Their personal vision of themselves is that of an insurgent liberation force in an occupied land. The "enemy" is pervasive, in our schools, libraries and entertainment. Yet, even with their friends and allies in control of the national government, they couldn't get their way on the Schiavo case. Surely, there are still political forces outside their control which is frustrating them. Since the federal courts were designed by the Founding Fathers to expressly be outside political pressure, that must be the problem. Like all purported revolutionaries, the world only makes sense when there's a clear villain.
They also don't get that even in a free society you don't always get your way. That's the point of constitutional limitations on state power. You'd think good conservatives would understand this.
The problem is that the theofascist right just doesn't understand Freedom. Sure, we're free, they say, to Do the Right Thing. One of government's key goals in a free society is to establish frameworks within which people can make decisions. Issues like Schiavo, and whether to give birth, and when to end your own life, and when and where to read dirty books and which whom you want to love and lust with are all key choices free people should be able to make in a free society.
The theofascists won't allow this, because, by God and Jesus, you might choose the wrong thing. And that's not right. What kind of free society allows people to make choices like this? The only real choice is whether you're going to Lutheran, Baptist or Catholic services. As God and the (deist) Founders insisted, didn't they?
Along with their patrons, the GOP, they seem to be running scared. There's an air of weird desperation in what they're doing, as if they fear they're going to be swept away in the next strong wind. Federal judges, Social Security "reform", tear-down-the-U.N. appointments, everything but issues which resonate with real people in the real world. They can't just settle for solving actual stuff. They have to redraw the landscape in what they apparently see is the short time allotted to them.
So they run after silly stuff and make the mid-term elections look a lot better for my side. There's only one explanation. God has shown them the future and they ain't running it, so they've gotta act now.
Maybe it's His/Her special way of pre-torturing them.
Sunday, April 24, 2005
A Matter of Perspective
It's odd that so many consider evolution and divine creation to be mutually exclusive. What they need is a sense of perspective.
Certain insects literally live a few months and die. Imagine if we could talk to them and they found out that we lived around 75 years. It would seem an eon to them. Remember how long the year between Christmases was when you were a kid? Makes sense. A year when you're eight is one eighth of your life. As your life rolls on a year becomes "shorter" in that it takes up less and less a percentage of your time here on Earth.
We human beings apply our own lifespan to the age of the universe when science finds it billions of years "old." But that's just old to us. Imagine that you're a consciousness working at what we would consider a divine level. You've existed forever and you've always existed forever. A couple of billion years is a weekend in your life. What we see as a gradual, creeping creation of galaxies, evolution of life and then intelligent life, is just a snap of a an eternal finger. To we short-lived humans, though, it's thousands and thousands of years. The pattern of development only seems potentially happenstance because of the great seeming distance between events. Imagine how a day in our life would seem to creature who only lived a couple of weeks.
As I said, it's just a matter of perspective.
Certain insects literally live a few months and die. Imagine if we could talk to them and they found out that we lived around 75 years. It would seem an eon to them. Remember how long the year between Christmases was when you were a kid? Makes sense. A year when you're eight is one eighth of your life. As your life rolls on a year becomes "shorter" in that it takes up less and less a percentage of your time here on Earth.
We human beings apply our own lifespan to the age of the universe when science finds it billions of years "old." But that's just old to us. Imagine that you're a consciousness working at what we would consider a divine level. You've existed forever and you've always existed forever. A couple of billion years is a weekend in your life. What we see as a gradual, creeping creation of galaxies, evolution of life and then intelligent life, is just a snap of a an eternal finger. To we short-lived humans, though, it's thousands and thousands of years. The pattern of development only seems potentially happenstance because of the great seeming distance between events. Imagine how a day in our life would seem to creature who only lived a couple of weeks.
As I said, it's just a matter of perspective.
Quote of the Day
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W. Bush
--George W. Bush
Friday, April 22, 2005
End Times
[Responding to an acquaintance who posits that reports from the Vatican state that the late John Paul II may have wondered if Dubya was the Antichrist.]
That's giving George waaaaaay too much credit ...
Although Karl Rove does nicely as the False Prophet.
The whole end-of-world-Revelations thing is great Cecile Demille theater, but it's a gross misinterpretation of the text. As noted earlier in these pages, John was writing a tract against his political and theological contemporaries, not predicting the future.
But when the Catholic church put the Bible together hundreds of years later, they didn't have the reference to the images, so they assumed that John was predicting that the world pretty much resets itself to the time of Jesus and the drama plays out again. (Satan, of course, being a complete nincompoop, falls completely for this.) It's like someone a thousand years from now trying to figure out what donkeys and elephants meant regarding political leadership to someone looking over cartoons without a frame of reference to view them through. They might come to the conclusion that these were icons of gods representing factions in some kind of religious argument.
I don't understand the nutcases' love of The End. I like the world. It's got bunny rabbits and little babies, beautiful sunsets and professional baseball. Whenever the JW's come 'round to talk, we get stick on the "how rotten the world is" thing. "But you read so many bad things in the paper", they say. Yeah, because that's what sells newspapers, so that's what we get. I mean, it really isn't news when the plane takes off and lands safely. And still, besides all that, we've got bunnies and babies and baseball. I can tell they can't understand why I'm not down on all existence, but that's me. Still looking for the Giants to get back to the World Series.
Now, I would say something like, "No end of the world 'til the Giants win the World Series", but I've learned my lesson there. In August 2002 I swore after my cancer diagnosis that I wasn't dying until the Giants won the World Series. Two months later they won Game One of the Series and had to beg the Powers That Be for a quick re-phrasing.
That's giving George waaaaaay too much credit ...
Although Karl Rove does nicely as the False Prophet.
The whole end-of-world-Revelations thing is great Cecile Demille theater, but it's a gross misinterpretation of the text. As noted earlier in these pages, John was writing a tract against his political and theological contemporaries, not predicting the future.
But when the Catholic church put the Bible together hundreds of years later, they didn't have the reference to the images, so they assumed that John was predicting that the world pretty much resets itself to the time of Jesus and the drama plays out again. (Satan, of course, being a complete nincompoop, falls completely for this.) It's like someone a thousand years from now trying to figure out what donkeys and elephants meant regarding political leadership to someone looking over cartoons without a frame of reference to view them through. They might come to the conclusion that these were icons of gods representing factions in some kind of religious argument.
I don't understand the nutcases' love of The End. I like the world. It's got bunny rabbits and little babies, beautiful sunsets and professional baseball. Whenever the JW's come 'round to talk, we get stick on the "how rotten the world is" thing. "But you read so many bad things in the paper", they say. Yeah, because that's what sells newspapers, so that's what we get. I mean, it really isn't news when the plane takes off and lands safely. And still, besides all that, we've got bunnies and babies and baseball. I can tell they can't understand why I'm not down on all existence, but that's me. Still looking for the Giants to get back to the World Series.
Now, I would say something like, "No end of the world 'til the Giants win the World Series", but I've learned my lesson there. In August 2002 I swore after my cancer diagnosis that I wasn't dying until the Giants won the World Series. Two months later they won Game One of the Series and had to beg the Powers That Be for a quick re-phrasing.
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Section 8
One of the interesting side effects of the crazy housing market is that speculators are actively recruiting Section 8 (low-income, subsidized rent) tenants in some places.
Here in California's Central Valley, speculators buy homes they intend to turn over in a few years for quick profit but can't find any one household willing or able to pay enough rent to cover the mortgage and taxes. So the speculators are renting them out to groups of unrelated people, and/or Section 8 tenants who don't have to pay the high market rent. As a result, Section 8 is moving out into the expanding exurbs, to the chagrin of folks who bought out there to get away from "those" kind of people.
I just love unintended consequences.
Here in California's Central Valley, speculators buy homes they intend to turn over in a few years for quick profit but can't find any one household willing or able to pay enough rent to cover the mortgage and taxes. So the speculators are renting them out to groups of unrelated people, and/or Section 8 tenants who don't have to pay the high market rent. As a result, Section 8 is moving out into the expanding exurbs, to the chagrin of folks who bought out there to get away from "those" kind of people.
I just love unintended consequences.
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Maturity
Winston Churchill reportedly said something like, "if you're not a socialist at twenty you have no heart, but if you're still a socialist at forty you have no brains."
The idea, of course, is that the cheery optimism of youth eventually gives way to a more sobering assessment of human nature and the human condition. I thought about this recently, as a friend asked me if the years and parenthood has caused me to turn toward more conservative views in recent years.
For me, the punditry's views of left/right have always seemed a little odd. I grew up in a world of church-going, petit bourgeois African American aspirer. The political gripe wasn't that the system was wrong. The problem was that we weren't always allowed to be a part of it. My parents thought hippies were nuts. Why would anyone want to be poor on purpose? They'd been poor without choice in the Jim Crow rural South, and it sucked. The war in Vietnam was good to my neighborhood. My father, who worked at a local shipyard, was told he could work as long as he wanted. The military and related industrial complex was good to them. Dear ol' dad was a member of the American Legion and joining "the service" was a fine option for a young man or woman.
When I was my son's age, six plus years, my parents would send me down to the local grocery store two blocks away to pick up a quick loaf read or milk or a pack of cigarettes (this was the '60's, fyi). No problem. There were (at least) three members of the church between home and the store, so I was well-protected and well-watched to and from.
So I was raised among pretty "conservative" values. Which is why it bugs me that these are considered conservative. Liberals have allowed the right to co-opt what everyone pretty much values. But that's a blog for another day.
Back to the present, I find that my values haven't changed, just what part of the morning paper I turn to first. In college, you have no large financial obligations to meet each month. Your room and board can be Spartan, but after that, your biggest concern is having enough pocket money to take out that cute honey in general ed History you've got your eye on. So the news for you is the Really Big Stuff. War! Peace! The governance of the Federal Reserve! And it puzzles the hell out of you why the rest of those schnooks on BART in to work every morning don't obsess over this stuff as well.
Once you get out in the world, however, the details start to matter. You track interest rates because you'd like to buy a house, re-fi the one you have, or start a business. You watch the tax laws to see how much you can put away for your retirement or your kid's college. Education policy is important, as you'd like your kid to be able to read and write by the time he or she is outta high school. Soon, that war in Outer Bumphuq, which would have kept you going for hours over French roast at the coffee house in college, seems mighty remote.
So it's "less growing up" than stretching out. Your life covers more, so your natural intensity gets spread out over a broader range. There is more minutae involved, so you're more interested in the public policy which affects that minutae, and the business decisions involved.
So I'm now looking forward to retirement. I figure once the kid is out of the house and my business life is done I can get back to sipping lattes and arguing about Central American politics. They say it's never too late to have a happy childhood. I assume this covers the college years too.
The idea, of course, is that the cheery optimism of youth eventually gives way to a more sobering assessment of human nature and the human condition. I thought about this recently, as a friend asked me if the years and parenthood has caused me to turn toward more conservative views in recent years.
For me, the punditry's views of left/right have always seemed a little odd. I grew up in a world of church-going, petit bourgeois African American aspirer. The political gripe wasn't that the system was wrong. The problem was that we weren't always allowed to be a part of it. My parents thought hippies were nuts. Why would anyone want to be poor on purpose? They'd been poor without choice in the Jim Crow rural South, and it sucked. The war in Vietnam was good to my neighborhood. My father, who worked at a local shipyard, was told he could work as long as he wanted. The military and related industrial complex was good to them. Dear ol' dad was a member of the American Legion and joining "the service" was a fine option for a young man or woman.
When I was my son's age, six plus years, my parents would send me down to the local grocery store two blocks away to pick up a quick loaf read or milk or a pack of cigarettes (this was the '60's, fyi). No problem. There were (at least) three members of the church between home and the store, so I was well-protected and well-watched to and from.
So I was raised among pretty "conservative" values. Which is why it bugs me that these are considered conservative. Liberals have allowed the right to co-opt what everyone pretty much values. But that's a blog for another day.
Back to the present, I find that my values haven't changed, just what part of the morning paper I turn to first. In college, you have no large financial obligations to meet each month. Your room and board can be Spartan, but after that, your biggest concern is having enough pocket money to take out that cute honey in general ed History you've got your eye on. So the news for you is the Really Big Stuff. War! Peace! The governance of the Federal Reserve! And it puzzles the hell out of you why the rest of those schnooks on BART in to work every morning don't obsess over this stuff as well.
Once you get out in the world, however, the details start to matter. You track interest rates because you'd like to buy a house, re-fi the one you have, or start a business. You watch the tax laws to see how much you can put away for your retirement or your kid's college. Education policy is important, as you'd like your kid to be able to read and write by the time he or she is outta high school. Soon, that war in Outer Bumphuq, which would have kept you going for hours over French roast at the coffee house in college, seems mighty remote.
So it's "less growing up" than stretching out. Your life covers more, so your natural intensity gets spread out over a broader range. There is more minutae involved, so you're more interested in the public policy which affects that minutae, and the business decisions involved.
So I'm now looking forward to retirement. I figure once the kid is out of the house and my business life is done I can get back to sipping lattes and arguing about Central American politics. They say it's never too late to have a happy childhood. I assume this covers the college years too.
Earth Day: 2005
Your Quote for the Month:
"What good is a house if you haven't got a tolerable planet to put it on?"
- Henry David Thoreau
"What good is a house if you haven't got a tolerable planet to put it on?"
- Henry David Thoreau
Friday, April 15, 2005
God Save This Court
stuart sibley said...
You want the Supreme Court to rule on constitutionality of the Iraq war?...Like it rules on the constitutionality of a law? Oh man, let's open a huge can-o-worms. What would we do it they ruled it unconstitutional - turn over the retreat to the judges? I can see it now. "Rehnquist has ordered the 3rd Cavalry division to pull back to the Salifah - Tikrit line until Scalia decides what to do with the airbase north of Baghdad." What silliness you propose.
I say that the Supreme Court has already overstepped its bounds. We have a judiciary that is out of control, with few restraints. It was unconstitutional for the federal courts to take over the school system and prison system in Texas. If the Supreme Court becomes any more activist than it is now, there will be a backlash. The Wall Street Journal on Friday called for a constitutional amendment to limit the appointees to 18 year terms, with a new judge appointed every 2 years. Lifetime appointments are not working, they say.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Terry responds:
What I'd like is for someone with cajones to march over to a federal court the next time Congress chickens out on its constitutional obligations. You're right that as of now there's no legal relief available short of the court ordering the troops home. That's wh you nip it in the bud.
If any war justified a declaration, it was Iraq. As a war of choice, there was absolutely no immediacy to ordering military action. There were months of debates and discussions, and threats and all that. All Congress had to do was declare that a state of war existed. This doesn't even require troops, planes and ships to take off. Just that a state of war exists. As clearly did after Bush's folly and still does.
The right has been screaming for a "backlash" against the courts ever since they let the colored kids go to school with the white kids. Fortunately, as the Republican shakiness over eliminating the judicial filibuster shows, when all is said and done, cooler heads prevail. Usually.
The federal judiciary is supposed to be removed from political passions. That's the point of the judiciary in general, and the federal judiciary particularly. The right's problem with the courts is that they work too well, and that's scary.
What's an eighteen year term supposed to do? Do they get re-appointed afterwards, so that they have to start producing politically attractive holdings as their term runs out? Do they just go home after eighteen years? If so, then they're still free to rule as they see fit, as it should be.
If this is the sort of remedy the right's arguing for fixing what ain't broken, then heaven help the Republic.
God, the Devil and Secular Justice
Nothing worries me more about the nutball right than their current war against an independent judiciary.
And speaking of gay marriage, up here in Sackamenna, the nutballs are trying to recall the judge who ruled in favor of the state's domestic partner laws on the grounds, since upheld by the state appellate courts, that providing for 'domestic partners' does -not- violate the idiotic Prop 22 (I think it was) regarding marriage. The courts have even stationed an extra bailiff in his court, although the only danger so far is some lug who stands up in his court and bellows a request to God to bless him.
When asked why he isn't also going after the state judge who ruled that the same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional, the nimrod who's organizing this said that he didn't think trying to recall a San Francisco judge over this would get anywhere.
The biggest silliness is the so-called "unaccountability" of judges. State judges are, for the most part, elected. The federal judiciary was -designed- by the Founders to be immune to pressure through the lifetime appointment, so that the various states, Congress or the Executive could pressure them. If the nutballs don't like this, they need to talk to the heathen rabble who wrote the Constitution.
What they don't get is that the very nature of freedom is to allow people to make choices you wouldn't. The nutballs don't like that. From reproductive choice to Schiavo, it's all about telling people what they need to do in the most personal and intimate of situations. They want "limited government" but what government's left gets to crawl all through our business.
Finally, the whole Book of Revelations thing prophesying an end-of-the-world battle in the Mideast is open, like much of the Bible, to interpretation. Another view is that the imagery refers not to a future Rome but the one in power when the author put his pen to paper. The images, when taken in the context of the time, can also refer to contemporary figures and forces (one Greek translation of the Number of the Beast comes up with 'Nero'). John was writing a contemporary tract criticizing various activities of the nascent Christian church and the world around it, not seeing into the future. (And what kind of an idiot would the Devil be if he followed it to the letter after it's all been written down?)
When the Bible was compiled from various documents hundreds of years later during the Dark Ages, the imagery was lost, and it was assumed it referred to future visions. By example, imagine someone hundreds of years from now trying to figure out what donkeys and elephants had to do with American politics. Why, they must have been idols of worship, surely. Unfortunately, this view ain't as much fun as WW3 between Jesus and the Devil, so don't expect to hear it from a nutball pulpit any time soon.
And speaking of gay marriage, up here in Sackamenna, the nutballs are trying to recall the judge who ruled in favor of the state's domestic partner laws on the grounds, since upheld by the state appellate courts, that providing for 'domestic partners' does -not- violate the idiotic Prop 22 (I think it was) regarding marriage. The courts have even stationed an extra bailiff in his court, although the only danger so far is some lug who stands up in his court and bellows a request to God to bless him.
When asked why he isn't also going after the state judge who ruled that the same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional, the nimrod who's organizing this said that he didn't think trying to recall a San Francisco judge over this would get anywhere.
The biggest silliness is the so-called "unaccountability" of judges. State judges are, for the most part, elected. The federal judiciary was -designed- by the Founders to be immune to pressure through the lifetime appointment, so that the various states, Congress or the Executive could pressure them. If the nutballs don't like this, they need to talk to the heathen rabble who wrote the Constitution.
What they don't get is that the very nature of freedom is to allow people to make choices you wouldn't. The nutballs don't like that. From reproductive choice to Schiavo, it's all about telling people what they need to do in the most personal and intimate of situations. They want "limited government" but what government's left gets to crawl all through our business.
Finally, the whole Book of Revelations thing prophesying an end-of-the-world battle in the Mideast is open, like much of the Bible, to interpretation. Another view is that the imagery refers not to a future Rome but the one in power when the author put his pen to paper. The images, when taken in the context of the time, can also refer to contemporary figures and forces (one Greek translation of the Number of the Beast comes up with 'Nero'). John was writing a contemporary tract criticizing various activities of the nascent Christian church and the world around it, not seeing into the future. (And what kind of an idiot would the Devil be if he followed it to the letter after it's all been written down?)
When the Bible was compiled from various documents hundreds of years later during the Dark Ages, the imagery was lost, and it was assumed it referred to future visions. By example, imagine someone hundreds of years from now trying to figure out what donkeys and elephants had to do with American politics. Why, they must have been idols of worship, surely. Unfortunately, this view ain't as much fun as WW3 between Jesus and the Devil, so don't expect to hear it from a nutball pulpit any time soon.
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Unconstitutional Wars
We hear a lot about how the war in Iraq is illegal and unconstitutional. What's interesting is that no one's risen to actually make this legal claim. It seems as if they'd have good grounds.
Back in the '30s, the Supremes voided a lot of the early New Deal on the grounds that Congress was improperly, and unconstitutionally, delegating legislative power to the executive in the blank check that early New Deal legislation gave to the White House to write and enforce rules and regulations. Congress is charged with being the lawmaking body, the Court held, whether it likes it or not.
Out of these holdings arose the arcane world of Administrative Law, which generally sez that Congress can ask executive agencies to flesh out laws, such as the galactic-sized body of regs attached to the Internal Revenue Code, but only under clear laws providing specific goals, ends and what not. To this day, the standard and sometimes successful challenge to administrative regulations is that they constitute an unconstitutional delegation of constitutional legislative authority.
Congress clearly has the specific charge to declare war, for the reasons you cited. I see no reason that a court couldn't hold that, as with domestic legislation, Congress has a duty here it can't cravenly pass on to the executive branch. As I said, I'm surprised that no one's tested this. One might argue that the court has traditionally shied away from foreign policy concerns, and might see this as a "political question." But perhaps not.
The companion constitutional question is whether a declaration of war is necessary to wage war. Even Jefferson fight a personal little war without bothering Congress. But there's a difference between mounting a punitive raid and waging a full-fledged, commit-the-resources war. The Founders definitely had the latter in mind when they gave Congress its specific charge. Iraq is definitely the latter. If any of our modern wars cried out for a declaration, Iraq, a war of choice, not immediate or necessary reprisal, qualified.
Maybe one day Ramsey Clark will stop calling for the impeachment of everyone short of Jesus Christ and pull out some of old law books to give this idea a whirl. I'll be the first to send him a check to help cover costs.
Back in the '30s, the Supremes voided a lot of the early New Deal on the grounds that Congress was improperly, and unconstitutionally, delegating legislative power to the executive in the blank check that early New Deal legislation gave to the White House to write and enforce rules and regulations. Congress is charged with being the lawmaking body, the Court held, whether it likes it or not.
Out of these holdings arose the arcane world of Administrative Law, which generally sez that Congress can ask executive agencies to flesh out laws, such as the galactic-sized body of regs attached to the Internal Revenue Code, but only under clear laws providing specific goals, ends and what not. To this day, the standard and sometimes successful challenge to administrative regulations is that they constitute an unconstitutional delegation of constitutional legislative authority.
Congress clearly has the specific charge to declare war, for the reasons you cited. I see no reason that a court couldn't hold that, as with domestic legislation, Congress has a duty here it can't cravenly pass on to the executive branch. As I said, I'm surprised that no one's tested this. One might argue that the court has traditionally shied away from foreign policy concerns, and might see this as a "political question." But perhaps not.
The companion constitutional question is whether a declaration of war is necessary to wage war. Even Jefferson fight a personal little war without bothering Congress. But there's a difference between mounting a punitive raid and waging a full-fledged, commit-the-resources war. The Founders definitely had the latter in mind when they gave Congress its specific charge. Iraq is definitely the latter. If any of our modern wars cried out for a declaration, Iraq, a war of choice, not immediate or necessary reprisal, qualified.
Maybe one day Ramsey Clark will stop calling for the impeachment of everyone short of Jesus Christ and pull out some of old law books to give this idea a whirl. I'll be the first to send him a check to help cover costs.
Monday, April 04, 2005
Schiavo: Case in Point
What struck me as Congress insisted on pushing jurisdiction in this matter on the federal courts is just what the fed courts could even hold here.
Given the general role of the federal courts, they would have to find that the state law and consequent legal decisions governing Schiavo's guardianship either conflicted with pre-empting state law or the federal Constitution.
Since Congress passed no law regarding end-of-life decisions, it just granted jurisdiction, there was no federal statutory law to apply against state law. That just left the Constitution.
The yahoos screamed for the courts to declare a constitutional "right to life" or some such. Given all the possible applications any such ruling could have on future holdings on everything from banning assisted suicide (which the yahoos would like) to overturning the death penalty (which the yahoos wouldn't like), the possible global affect meant it was pretty unlikely any court would issue such a thing. As the Schiavo case itself demonstrated, these are issues best left resolved through the public forum, the legislative branch.
Justice Scalia often complains that the courts take on too many complex moral issues which the legislatures need to hammer out majority agreement on. The Schiavo case was Example #1A of what he means. Heck, the more controversial it got, the -less- likely the courts were to pre-empt public debate with some kind of holding from the mountaintop. Clearly, any court would see solely as a matter of democratic process, the legislatures need to be where this issue finds some kind of resolution.
Given the general role of the federal courts, they would have to find that the state law and consequent legal decisions governing Schiavo's guardianship either conflicted with pre-empting state law or the federal Constitution.
Since Congress passed no law regarding end-of-life decisions, it just granted jurisdiction, there was no federal statutory law to apply against state law. That just left the Constitution.
The yahoos screamed for the courts to declare a constitutional "right to life" or some such. Given all the possible applications any such ruling could have on future holdings on everything from banning assisted suicide (which the yahoos would like) to overturning the death penalty (which the yahoos wouldn't like), the possible global affect meant it was pretty unlikely any court would issue such a thing. As the Schiavo case itself demonstrated, these are issues best left resolved through the public forum, the legislative branch.
Justice Scalia often complains that the courts take on too many complex moral issues which the legislatures need to hammer out majority agreement on. The Schiavo case was Example #1A of what he means. Heck, the more controversial it got, the -less- likely the courts were to pre-empt public debate with some kind of holding from the mountaintop. Clearly, any court would see solely as a matter of democratic process, the legislatures need to be where this issue finds some kind of resolution.
Monday, March 28, 2005
Finding Neverland
When I told Leroy that there would be an Easter egg hunt on the grounds after church, he offered to stand outside and wait for the Easter bunny to show up.
Leroy turned six and a half just before Easter, yet he still has a very sweet belief in magical creatures which I do nothing to talk him out of. For me, it's cute. For him, it's serious business. The magical critters bring him things.
Last Christmas he wanted to wait for Santa in the living room, and kept "hearing" him outside whenever he heard a noise. In February he went through a true crisis of faith when a cartoon character told him there was no Tooth Fairy when he'd just lost a tooth. I had to whip up a fancy desktop published letter from the Tooth Fairy herself, with dollar bill, to restore his soul. Before Easter he wanted to hunt down a leprechaun and demand some of his gold when he found out that St. Patrick's Day doesn't come with a gift (not counting the adult license to drink yourself stupid one day of the year).
So when do I tell him that these creatures don't exist? I don't. He finds that out for himself. He's already got his suspicions. When he wanted to hunt for the Easter bunny at his grandma's house after Easter dinner, Mom offered to put some eggs out for a second go 'round. "Daddy, is Mommy an Easter bunny?", he asked. No, but she can pretend she's one. He knows that some Christmas presents come from the store, because he had to buy some, and there were some for him under my brother's tree in Utah the Thanksgiving before.
But the notion that there are magical creatures out to do him good seems to reassure him, and why mess with that? It's a beautiful world to live in. We all remember that, and miss it, which is why "Lord of the Rings" and other fantasy does so well among ticket-buying adults. We remember what it was like to actually believe that fairies and elves were real.
Our gradual realization that there is no Santa Claus is part of growing up. We accept that the world consists of what we can see, hear and feel. We realize that it offers magic in other ways, through love, ambition and a game winning homer in the bottom of the 9th. We realize that we really don't need play magic. The real world can offer mystery enough.
Now, it's back to watching "The Magic School Bus" with Leroy. He wants me to buy a car like that, you know. I think I'll wait for the sale.
Leroy turned six and a half just before Easter, yet he still has a very sweet belief in magical creatures which I do nothing to talk him out of. For me, it's cute. For him, it's serious business. The magical critters bring him things.
Last Christmas he wanted to wait for Santa in the living room, and kept "hearing" him outside whenever he heard a noise. In February he went through a true crisis of faith when a cartoon character told him there was no Tooth Fairy when he'd just lost a tooth. I had to whip up a fancy desktop published letter from the Tooth Fairy herself, with dollar bill, to restore his soul. Before Easter he wanted to hunt down a leprechaun and demand some of his gold when he found out that St. Patrick's Day doesn't come with a gift (not counting the adult license to drink yourself stupid one day of the year).
So when do I tell him that these creatures don't exist? I don't. He finds that out for himself. He's already got his suspicions. When he wanted to hunt for the Easter bunny at his grandma's house after Easter dinner, Mom offered to put some eggs out for a second go 'round. "Daddy, is Mommy an Easter bunny?", he asked. No, but she can pretend she's one. He knows that some Christmas presents come from the store, because he had to buy some, and there were some for him under my brother's tree in Utah the Thanksgiving before.
But the notion that there are magical creatures out to do him good seems to reassure him, and why mess with that? It's a beautiful world to live in. We all remember that, and miss it, which is why "Lord of the Rings" and other fantasy does so well among ticket-buying adults. We remember what it was like to actually believe that fairies and elves were real.
Our gradual realization that there is no Santa Claus is part of growing up. We accept that the world consists of what we can see, hear and feel. We realize that it offers magic in other ways, through love, ambition and a game winning homer in the bottom of the 9th. We realize that we really don't need play magic. The real world can offer mystery enough.
Now, it's back to watching "The Magic School Bus" with Leroy. He wants me to buy a car like that, you know. I think I'll wait for the sale.
18 Things We Learned from the Schiavo Case
[Sent to me from a friend]
1) Jeb Bush, George W. Bush, and Tom Delay are all world renowned neurologists.
2) 22 successive court battles that all ended in exactly the same way means there is something wrong with the courts, not the Schindler's case
3) Mike is after money which is why he turned down 1 million dollars and 10 million dollars to sign over guardianship.
4) Congress and the State Legislature of Florida has nothing better to do than pry into the private medical affairs of others.
5) Pulling life support is bad in Florida when authorized by the legal next-of-kin, but pulling life support is good in Texas when you run out of money and the mother pleads not to pull the plug on her baby.
6) Medical diagnoses are best performed by watching highly edited videotape made by Randall Terry rather than in person by trained physicians.
7) Minimum wage making nursing assistants are more qualified to diagnose a persistent vegetative state than experienced neurologists.
8) Cerebral spinal fluid is a magical potion that can mimic the entire functions of a missing cerebral cortex.
9) 15 years in the same persistent state is not really enough time to make an accurate diagnosis.
10) A feeding tube that infuses yellow nutritional goop is not really "life support".
11) Jesus was wrong when he said that a man and woman should leave their parents and cleave only to each other.
12) Marriage is the most sacred of all unions, except when it isn't.
13) Interfering in a family's private tragedy is a great reason to cut short a vacation, but
getting a memo that warns a known terrorist is determine to strike inside the US is cause to relax and finish up some R&R.
14) Pro-lifers are really compassionate people which is why they are hoping that Michael Schiavo dies a horrible painful death.
15) The Supreme Court of the United States and the State Supreme Court of Florida mean "Maybe" when they are saying "No!".
16) Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is a bleeding heart liberal.
17) 7 Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republican presidents, so it's Clinton's fault.
18) A judge who makes rulings based on the law is obviously an atheist, liberal, Democratic activist even though he is a conservative, Republican, Southern Baptist.
The saddest part of this whole thing? Every one of those things is based on reality. Sad, sad reality.
1) Jeb Bush, George W. Bush, and Tom Delay are all world renowned neurologists.
2) 22 successive court battles that all ended in exactly the same way means there is something wrong with the courts, not the Schindler's case
3) Mike is after money which is why he turned down 1 million dollars and 10 million dollars to sign over guardianship.
4) Congress and the State Legislature of Florida has nothing better to do than pry into the private medical affairs of others.
5) Pulling life support is bad in Florida when authorized by the legal next-of-kin, but pulling life support is good in Texas when you run out of money and the mother pleads not to pull the plug on her baby.
6) Medical diagnoses are best performed by watching highly edited videotape made by Randall Terry rather than in person by trained physicians.
7) Minimum wage making nursing assistants are more qualified to diagnose a persistent vegetative state than experienced neurologists.
8) Cerebral spinal fluid is a magical potion that can mimic the entire functions of a missing cerebral cortex.
9) 15 years in the same persistent state is not really enough time to make an accurate diagnosis.
10) A feeding tube that infuses yellow nutritional goop is not really "life support".
11) Jesus was wrong when he said that a man and woman should leave their parents and cleave only to each other.
12) Marriage is the most sacred of all unions, except when it isn't.
13) Interfering in a family's private tragedy is a great reason to cut short a vacation, but
getting a memo that warns a known terrorist is determine to strike inside the US is cause to relax and finish up some R&R.
14) Pro-lifers are really compassionate people which is why they are hoping that Michael Schiavo dies a horrible painful death.
15) The Supreme Court of the United States and the State Supreme Court of Florida mean "Maybe" when they are saying "No!".
16) Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is a bleeding heart liberal.
17) 7 Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republican presidents, so it's Clinton's fault.
18) A judge who makes rulings based on the law is obviously an atheist, liberal, Democratic activist even though he is a conservative, Republican, Southern Baptist.
The saddest part of this whole thing? Every one of those things is based on reality. Sad, sad reality.
Friday, March 25, 2005
Help Wanted: Angel of Death - Apply Within
I'll burn in liberal Hell for saying this, but I agree with Justice Scalia (oh, the -pain-!) that there are many things best left to legislatures. Defining the substance and process involved in these decisions are a great example.
For example, in a recent op-ed, Charles Krauthammer holds that says a court should be able to turn custody over to any first-degree relative willing to keep a vegged-out patient alive. Fine. But that means you have to have one.
Leroy, my only child, will have no siblings. Under the Krauthammer view, Leroy would be out of supposedly beneficial options if either we die before he marries or he dies and just one of us parents is left to decide. Given the increasing number of people who come from smaller families these days and who marry later or not at all, this policy would favor Mormons and Catholics over everybody else.
Also, who pays? If hubby says "pull" but son wants to take over, does the son then assume legal responsibility for the hospice care? What if there's a hefty settlement or judgment sitting in the bank as a result of the accident which left wife as a veg? Does son assume that money to pay the bills? Or does hubby keep it, for "loss of consortium" and all the other stuff he can recover over? If the state has to pay the bill, can it collect from hubby even though the circumstances creating the financial liability are over his clear objections?
These are the kind of things legislatures need to figure out and apply. Courts can't, and don't, which is why the parents aren't gettin' any love at the docket over this. As a matter of fact, the more controversial this becomes, the -less- likely any court will intervene, for fear of pre-empting what should be a political discussion among the law-making agencies of the state.
There really isn't much at issue here for a court to work with. Either the Florida law was properly applied, or there is a Constitutional bar to anyone making that kind of decision for anyone else. Or for themselves, perhaps, through a health care directive or other instrument. If the first, then it's clearly been reviewed inside and out. If the latter, it's too sweeping a consequence for a court to take it on, preferring to let the legislative process work it out all.
And yes, it's just too funny for words to see all these conservative activists screaming for a level of "judicial activism" they scream about when liberals supposedly do it.
For example, in a recent op-ed, Charles Krauthammer holds that says a court should be able to turn custody over to any first-degree relative willing to keep a vegged-out patient alive. Fine. But that means you have to have one.
Leroy, my only child, will have no siblings. Under the Krauthammer view, Leroy would be out of supposedly beneficial options if either we die before he marries or he dies and just one of us parents is left to decide. Given the increasing number of people who come from smaller families these days and who marry later or not at all, this policy would favor Mormons and Catholics over everybody else.
Also, who pays? If hubby says "pull" but son wants to take over, does the son then assume legal responsibility for the hospice care? What if there's a hefty settlement or judgment sitting in the bank as a result of the accident which left wife as a veg? Does son assume that money to pay the bills? Or does hubby keep it, for "loss of consortium" and all the other stuff he can recover over? If the state has to pay the bill, can it collect from hubby even though the circumstances creating the financial liability are over his clear objections?
These are the kind of things legislatures need to figure out and apply. Courts can't, and don't, which is why the parents aren't gettin' any love at the docket over this. As a matter of fact, the more controversial this becomes, the -less- likely any court will intervene, for fear of pre-empting what should be a political discussion among the law-making agencies of the state.
There really isn't much at issue here for a court to work with. Either the Florida law was properly applied, or there is a Constitutional bar to anyone making that kind of decision for anyone else. Or for themselves, perhaps, through a health care directive or other instrument. If the first, then it's clearly been reviewed inside and out. If the latter, it's too sweeping a consequence for a court to take it on, preferring to let the legislative process work it out all.
And yes, it's just too funny for words to see all these conservative activists screaming for a level of "judicial activism" they scream about when liberals supposedly do it.
Help from Odd Places
You know, I was just thinking. The Schiavo mess might actually help the pro-choice side regarding defending reproductive rights.
The pro-choice side has always argued that it's a private decision where the state shouldn't be be butting its nose in because of all the painful and personal issues involved. Given the seventy percent of the public who feel similarly about the Schaivo case, that there's a clear line between private and public decisions, the "pro-life" side out raising hell is making a pretty good case for the pro-choice position here.
Funny how things work out sometimes.
The pro-choice side has always argued that it's a private decision where the state shouldn't be be butting its nose in because of all the painful and personal issues involved. Given the seventy percent of the public who feel similarly about the Schaivo case, that there's a clear line between private and public decisions, the "pro-life" side out raising hell is making a pretty good case for the pro-choice position here.
Funny how things work out sometimes.
Monday, March 21, 2005
Rumsfeld's Ownership Society
[From today's AP]
Rumsfeld laments Iraq invasion restriction
By SIOBHAN McDONOUGH, Associated Press Writer
Last Updated 6:26 am PST Monday, March 21, 2005
WASHINGTON (AP) - The level of insurgency in postwar Iraq wouldn't be so high if the U.S.-led coalition had been able to invade from the north, through Turkey, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Sunday.
Rumsfeld told "Fox News Sunday" that if the United States had able to get its 4th Infantry Division into northern Iraq through Turkey, more of Saddam's Baathist regime would have been captured or killed, diminishing the insurgency.
U.S. forces had to enter Iraq from the south, so by the time Baghdad was taken, much of Saddam's military and intelligence services had dissipated into the northern cities, Rumsfeld said. "They're still, in a number of instances, still active," he said.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't it amazing that the people who want to bring us "the ownership society" because we need to take complete ersonal responsibility for ourselves until the day we die absolutely refuses to take any responsibility for their own rotten decisions in Iraq?
The insurgency isn't the fault of a Bush White House which didn't have the foresight to plan for it because that might undermine all the love the Iraqis were going to shower on us, from the po' Shiites in the south to the Sunni technocrats in Baghdad. No, there would be no insurgency, they knew, so why plan for it? Why plan for the looting of arsenals which would arm it, or equip enough troops to combat it when it first arose? And now, why not just admit you didn't plan for the right eventuality?
You know the Bush administration planned a different scenario. You know they would have loved to have had the transfer of power ceremony be a little more gaudy and elaborate than Bremer handing over the keys and hopping on a plane like a deadbeat tenant skipping out on a couple of months' rent. But the insurgency has served well in other areas. I think it was the single biggest factor in Bush' s re-election. No matter how Kerry spun it, a vote for Kerry was a vote against the war, and enough folks didn't want to change horses in mid-stream.
So I expect the Bush team to be internally grateful to the insurgency for the help it gave them in winning a second term. But for the rest of us, taking a little personal responsibility for a lot of bad decisions and poor judgment would be just a little consistent, don't you think?
Sunday, March 20, 2005
Raising Arizona
So, I'm the proud daddy of a six-year-old boy who sometimes won't sit down in class. Working with him, school and others has been an interesting experience in what it means to raise a kid in today's overdiagnosed kids' world.
One of my better acquaintances, a noted blabbermouth and fine criminal defense lawyer, says he rarely said a thing until he was almost four. Since then he can't shut up and makes good money as a consequence. Had he been raised today, he would have had a battalion of experts all over him by the time he was three. He didn't, and turned out fine. Years from now the grown up version of Leroy and I will look back at his six year old edition and laugh at it all.
Oh, I fuss and worry, but my general answer to "What's up with Leroy?" is "He's six." A lot of mommas and too many daddies today go nuts over not getting the "diagnosis" early enough. "Oh, if -only- I had known ... a week after he was born!" We've forgotten that kids don't all bloom the same way at the same pace and that most of us turn out just fine.
I don't have enough fingers and toes to count how many times "autistic" has been waved at me. With some reason. My wife has a severely autistic brother who's been under state care since he was a child. He's autistic to the point of being unable to learn anything. This means I've seen what autistic is, and my son ain't that. Another acquaintance has a son who's speech delayed. He's a bright kid, he just doesn't have much to say. He's quite happy sitting by himself and creating very detailed Lego and other put-togethery toys. So one of momma's friends fretted to us that this means he's probably 'obsessive-compulsive' and ooooh ... Or he's a budding engineer, I said.
God or Nature, take your pick, developed genetic diversity to create different outcomes. That's why some of us are artistic, some talkative, some quiet and contemplative, some outgoing, etc. That's how we're built. It's how collectively we come up with all the skills we need to survive as a group. But we've come up with a "cookie cutter" guideline about how kids develop. And it's according to plan. An evil plan.
The capitalist credo is "find a need and fill it." The marketer's corollary is "if a need doesn't exist, invent one and fill that." All this fretful parenting stuff is just another way to suck money out of our pockets.
Which leads us to meds, which came up during the discussions surrounding my son. It was someone saying, "well, it seems to help some kids, so maybe we need to try 'em out here ...". To which I said, still say and will continue saying, "NO!" And needless to say, one of the school folks said, "if money's an issue (which it isn't) I know where you can get 'em cheap." I'll bet you can, lady.
Part of this is just sheer laziness. By looking at a few cues, I recently saw that some of my son's recent wackiness was his way of calling for a change in afterschool routine. He didn't like the noisy yet regimented on-site program. But he's not good for his age expressing his wants (except for new toys and ice cream), so it took a little figuring. So we moved him back to the private aftercare program he enjoyed in kindergarten. Since we've done that, he's fine. Except on Mondays, and we're -all- a little short that day, aren't we? Pretty understandable.
This drug silliness is also the byproduct of money. Insurance and pharmaceutical companies pay money hand over fist to get kids on meds. This drives my sister, a VA psych nurse, nuts. She says she's already seeing grown men who've been on Ritalin or whatever all their lives and can't imagine being without it. But that's what the bill payers pay for because that "fixes" the problem. The whole idea behind meds, she says, was to bring people down to Earth long enough to work on a long term solution, not dope 'em up 'til the day they die. But if people are actually taught how to work things through, then they're no longer patients, and don't need the drugs.
Scary.
BTW, my son's grades are fine. This baffles his teacher, who swears he's not paying a lick of attention. I hate to tell her that his daddy was pretty much the same way.
One of my better acquaintances, a noted blabbermouth and fine criminal defense lawyer, says he rarely said a thing until he was almost four. Since then he can't shut up and makes good money as a consequence. Had he been raised today, he would have had a battalion of experts all over him by the time he was three. He didn't, and turned out fine. Years from now the grown up version of Leroy and I will look back at his six year old edition and laugh at it all.
Oh, I fuss and worry, but my general answer to "What's up with Leroy?" is "He's six." A lot of mommas and too many daddies today go nuts over not getting the "diagnosis" early enough. "Oh, if -only- I had known ... a week after he was born!" We've forgotten that kids don't all bloom the same way at the same pace and that most of us turn out just fine.
I don't have enough fingers and toes to count how many times "autistic" has been waved at me. With some reason. My wife has a severely autistic brother who's been under state care since he was a child. He's autistic to the point of being unable to learn anything. This means I've seen what autistic is, and my son ain't that. Another acquaintance has a son who's speech delayed. He's a bright kid, he just doesn't have much to say. He's quite happy sitting by himself and creating very detailed Lego and other put-togethery toys. So one of momma's friends fretted to us that this means he's probably 'obsessive-compulsive' and ooooh ... Or he's a budding engineer, I said.
God or Nature, take your pick, developed genetic diversity to create different outcomes. That's why some of us are artistic, some talkative, some quiet and contemplative, some outgoing, etc. That's how we're built. It's how collectively we come up with all the skills we need to survive as a group. But we've come up with a "cookie cutter" guideline about how kids develop. And it's according to plan. An evil plan.
The capitalist credo is "find a need and fill it." The marketer's corollary is "if a need doesn't exist, invent one and fill that." All this fretful parenting stuff is just another way to suck money out of our pockets.
Which leads us to meds, which came up during the discussions surrounding my son. It was someone saying, "well, it seems to help some kids, so maybe we need to try 'em out here ...". To which I said, still say and will continue saying, "NO!" And needless to say, one of the school folks said, "if money's an issue (which it isn't) I know where you can get 'em cheap." I'll bet you can, lady.
Part of this is just sheer laziness. By looking at a few cues, I recently saw that some of my son's recent wackiness was his way of calling for a change in afterschool routine. He didn't like the noisy yet regimented on-site program. But he's not good for his age expressing his wants (except for new toys and ice cream), so it took a little figuring. So we moved him back to the private aftercare program he enjoyed in kindergarten. Since we've done that, he's fine. Except on Mondays, and we're -all- a little short that day, aren't we? Pretty understandable.
This drug silliness is also the byproduct of money. Insurance and pharmaceutical companies pay money hand over fist to get kids on meds. This drives my sister, a VA psych nurse, nuts. She says she's already seeing grown men who've been on Ritalin or whatever all their lives and can't imagine being without it. But that's what the bill payers pay for because that "fixes" the problem. The whole idea behind meds, she says, was to bring people down to Earth long enough to work on a long term solution, not dope 'em up 'til the day they die. But if people are actually taught how to work things through, then they're no longer patients, and don't need the drugs.
Scary.
BTW, my son's grades are fine. This baffles his teacher, who swears he's not paying a lick of attention. I hate to tell her that his daddy was pretty much the same way.
Death and Dying - Schiavo case
Lord, I'm glad my relatives have more sense than Terri Schiavo's.
Lord, I wish Republicans in Congress had something better to do than get mixed up in all this. (On the other hand this, plus the steroids mess which they also shouldn't be involved in, keeps them from doing truly stupider stuff.)
For the Republicans it's a freebie. They get to pose on other people's suffering in a way which endears them even more to the loony religious right, and if and when the federal courts walk away from this one, they can say, "hey, it's those nutty courts again! But we did our best ... ".
One wonders what the proponents of this power play hopes to gain from all this in the specific case at hand. It's unlikely the courts are going to hold that pulling the plug is some constitutional violation. Dragging it out through the courts isn't like to make Terri's hubby drop it and go do something else. At the end of it all, we're just going to right back here anyway.
What amazes me about the supposed "right to life" here is that whatever life the poor lady has right now is artificially induced. Had she fell into her current state a hundred years ago this never would have been an issue because she'd have died years ago. If Nature takes its course, then it will clearly decide that the system She has set up, where the brain has to be around to tell the body what to do for life to continue, is a good one, and all of Terri dies. The "life" being preserved isn't a natural one. It's organs being kept functioning by the chance of technology. Is this truly what the "right to life" crowd is working for? Bleah ...
Another issue which comes to mind is the role of the nuclear family. Shouldn't a husband or wife make the call, under both our laws and the laws of any higher power? Heck, didn't Jesus hisownself say "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?" So isn't this decision to be made by the 'flesh' itself, the husband or wife forced to make such a hard choice? Where's "family values" here?
So I'm again glad that my family wouldn't do this to me. My wife would argue to pull the plug and love my memory and the rest of my family isn't silly enough to intervene. I should thank the Lord for that.
Lord, I wish Republicans in Congress had something better to do than get mixed up in all this. (On the other hand this, plus the steroids mess which they also shouldn't be involved in, keeps them from doing truly stupider stuff.)
For the Republicans it's a freebie. They get to pose on other people's suffering in a way which endears them even more to the loony religious right, and if and when the federal courts walk away from this one, they can say, "hey, it's those nutty courts again! But we did our best ... ".
One wonders what the proponents of this power play hopes to gain from all this in the specific case at hand. It's unlikely the courts are going to hold that pulling the plug is some constitutional violation. Dragging it out through the courts isn't like to make Terri's hubby drop it and go do something else. At the end of it all, we're just going to right back here anyway.
What amazes me about the supposed "right to life" here is that whatever life the poor lady has right now is artificially induced. Had she fell into her current state a hundred years ago this never would have been an issue because she'd have died years ago. If Nature takes its course, then it will clearly decide that the system She has set up, where the brain has to be around to tell the body what to do for life to continue, is a good one, and all of Terri dies. The "life" being preserved isn't a natural one. It's organs being kept functioning by the chance of technology. Is this truly what the "right to life" crowd is working for? Bleah ...
Another issue which comes to mind is the role of the nuclear family. Shouldn't a husband or wife make the call, under both our laws and the laws of any higher power? Heck, didn't Jesus hisownself say "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?" So isn't this decision to be made by the 'flesh' itself, the husband or wife forced to make such a hard choice? Where's "family values" here?
So I'm again glad that my family wouldn't do this to me. My wife would argue to pull the plug and love my memory and the rest of my family isn't silly enough to intervene. I should thank the Lord for that.
Friday, March 18, 2005
Motherhood and Apple Pie
So I have to admit, the whole Congressional inquiry farce into baseball and steroids is turning out a whole lot more interesting than I thought.
Oh, it's still silly. There's nothing more ridiculous than members of Congress dragging down baseball because they're so worried about it. It's a great photo op with a lot of highly recognizable guys, and guaranteed to play back home. (And what's the Government Reform Committee doing here? Aren't they supposed to be out reforming government or something?)
What's fun are the players. There's formerly-loved-now-hated-in-Chitown Sammy Sosa, of clearly illegal corked bat fame, trying to rebuild a shattered image. There's Rafael Palmeiro wondering why in the hell he was called. Honest, he said, the only drug I take is Viagra, which is amazingly less embarrassing than steroids.
Then there's Mark McGwire, who's set the whole thing spinning with a "yes, but, no, but then I'm not saying anything" which has some idiot from the Midwest hollering to have his name taken off Hayseed Highway. Mark is the man who brought back baseball from the depths of its own near self-destruction in 1994, when duel sets of millionaires amazingly couldn't decide how to divide their riches. He's not the Savior, but durn close to Moses in terms of leading the game into the current promised land.
What he says isn't all that important. Steroid use to pump up wasn't against the rules when he allegedly used them. No, it's that Americans love contrition. That's why Martha Stewart got a heroes welcome after a turn in the slammer. (That and many Americans feel she was a sacrificial lamb for far greater corporate crimes.) Now, if Mark had fallen down and tearfully confessed, and told li'l chillin' out in the heartland and cities to stay off the hard stuff, he'd be the toast of Broadway. No, he prevaricates, and we don't like prevaricators. So Mark will suffer. He might even lose his name on that highway.
Which is why Barry Bonds is my hero in all this. Barry doesn't prevaricate. Barry shoots back. Barry sneers at this foolishness. Barry knows that he's about to break the sport's most cherished record, they need him more than he needs them. He's safe at home. Giants fans never worried about whether he was lovable enough. They pay Bay Area prices to see him hit a baseball. You've never seen anything like what happens at Big Phone Company Park when Barry comes up. Everything stops. Even the sausage dogs and garlic fries are put on hold and everyone stands mesmerized. Also, it's Northern California, and who around here cares about performance enhancing drugs? We've all been to college. We've been there.
Yes, Barry shows disdain, which is why he got a pass from the performance. "He doesn't stay on point", the congresscritters' spokesperson says. Translation: he's bad teevee. We all learned from Ollie North what happens when the target knows how to take over the stage, and that ain't happening.
So it's back to the soaps, er, the hearings, to see what happens next? Will Mark confess? Will Sammy and he kiss and make up? Will Curt Schilling speak in tongues? Stay tuned ...
Or turn to the sports page and find out what's up with Barry's knee. But that's only if you want real news.
Oh, it's still silly. There's nothing more ridiculous than members of Congress dragging down baseball because they're so worried about it. It's a great photo op with a lot of highly recognizable guys, and guaranteed to play back home. (And what's the Government Reform Committee doing here? Aren't they supposed to be out reforming government or something?)
What's fun are the players. There's formerly-loved-now-hated-in-Chitown Sammy Sosa, of clearly illegal corked bat fame, trying to rebuild a shattered image. There's Rafael Palmeiro wondering why in the hell he was called. Honest, he said, the only drug I take is Viagra, which is amazingly less embarrassing than steroids.
Then there's Mark McGwire, who's set the whole thing spinning with a "yes, but, no, but then I'm not saying anything" which has some idiot from the Midwest hollering to have his name taken off Hayseed Highway. Mark is the man who brought back baseball from the depths of its own near self-destruction in 1994, when duel sets of millionaires amazingly couldn't decide how to divide their riches. He's not the Savior, but durn close to Moses in terms of leading the game into the current promised land.
What he says isn't all that important. Steroid use to pump up wasn't against the rules when he allegedly used them. No, it's that Americans love contrition. That's why Martha Stewart got a heroes welcome after a turn in the slammer. (That and many Americans feel she was a sacrificial lamb for far greater corporate crimes.) Now, if Mark had fallen down and tearfully confessed, and told li'l chillin' out in the heartland and cities to stay off the hard stuff, he'd be the toast of Broadway. No, he prevaricates, and we don't like prevaricators. So Mark will suffer. He might even lose his name on that highway.
Which is why Barry Bonds is my hero in all this. Barry doesn't prevaricate. Barry shoots back. Barry sneers at this foolishness. Barry knows that he's about to break the sport's most cherished record, they need him more than he needs them. He's safe at home. Giants fans never worried about whether he was lovable enough. They pay Bay Area prices to see him hit a baseball. You've never seen anything like what happens at Big Phone Company Park when Barry comes up. Everything stops. Even the sausage dogs and garlic fries are put on hold and everyone stands mesmerized. Also, it's Northern California, and who around here cares about performance enhancing drugs? We've all been to college. We've been there.
Yes, Barry shows disdain, which is why he got a pass from the performance. "He doesn't stay on point", the congresscritters' spokesperson says. Translation: he's bad teevee. We all learned from Ollie North what happens when the target knows how to take over the stage, and that ain't happening.
So it's back to the soaps, er, the hearings, to see what happens next? Will Mark confess? Will Sammy and he kiss and make up? Will Curt Schilling speak in tongues? Stay tuned ...
Or turn to the sports page and find out what's up with Barry's knee. But that's only if you want real news.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
The Old Folks
So, of course the whole point of Bush's Social Security "reform" is political. As long as enough old folks are pulling government checks they're likely to vote Democratic. As long as young folks feel they're pulling their own weight through managing their own retirement investment portfolios the GOP figures it can lock 'em up by separating them from supporting the old folks. It's political math, and I can respect that.
The system really isn't all that broken. Some estimates are that relatively modest increases in the payroll tax and relatively modest decreases in the rate of benefit growth would take care of it all. No one disagrees that the intake/outtake will hit the red at some point. It's just not that catastrophic a tilt. So the only real reason for all this "reform" is the political reasons given above.
Social Security was never intended to be the primary foundation of old age income security. It was designed to buttress other income, which is does marvelously. In my dad's day one got the gold watch and the company pension. Along with his SS, he and my mom were able to live a comfortable enough life. One or the other was tight, together the bills could be paid and a pleasant retirement had. Nowadays, folks will have various 401(k)'s and such, or other investments. Social Security is there to provide enough additional cash to ensure that it's all livable.
I have an older family member who serves as a model case. She cashed out the family home for a decent sum, then turned it over for a smaller place and lives off dividends generated by the rest. The investment income in and of itself isn't adequate for a livable wage, so to speak. With SS, it is. That's what it was designed for, that's what it does. So why "fix" it if it ain't broken? To dis' the AARP, of course. It's really the only reason.
Fortunately, even the GOP can't swallow a lot of this. Oh, there will be some modest proposal to maybe give perhaps some people some flexibility so the Bush team can claim victory, but that's about it. All the Dems have to do is drag this out until the end of the year when the 2006 campaign season starts and the GOP runs for cover.
But I'm not a complete naysayer here. There are a couple of tweaks we could tack on, perhaps linking benefits closer to overall income level, stuff like that. But even there I'm conservative. FDR's brilliance in setting this up so that workers kicked in, unlike many other industrial systems where the public sector and/or industry do the heavy lifting, is that it locks in the system. Start cutting off the rich folks and they'll turn against it, which screws the middle and lower classes in turn.
The Media Blab:
This debate has led to an interesting "What's in a name?" discussion among the media. By following the Bush team's lead in calling this "reform", they are in effect agreeing about the need for reform, which is part of the debate itself. So they say it's a "revision" or "reworking" or something similar. Which just opens them up for charges of anti-Bush bias.
But it's about time. In a time where the line between government propaganda and real news has become invisible to too many viewers, what with stage managed "town halls", plants in press pools and government payments to presumably impartial commentators, the rest who haven't been co-opted have a duty to report what actually is. It's fair to call it a "Social Security revision" because that's what it is. George Will outlined the goal in a recent column, to keep retirees from being so-called "wards of the government", the keystone of the (kaff!) "Ownership Society." It's a different way of doing business, with radically different goals than present. So call it that.
This debate hits home. In eight years I'll be AARP-eligible, so maybe I'm too close to relying on the current system to see it objectively. (Just like those Kerry-voting New Yorkers are too close to gays and terrorist attacks to see those objectively). I'll also be paying a mortgage into my '70s, at current rates. So I gotta plan.
Maybe this debate oughta be "grandfathered." If the next generation wants to toss dirt over their own retirement security, let 'em. Just let me die first.
The system really isn't all that broken. Some estimates are that relatively modest increases in the payroll tax and relatively modest decreases in the rate of benefit growth would take care of it all. No one disagrees that the intake/outtake will hit the red at some point. It's just not that catastrophic a tilt. So the only real reason for all this "reform" is the political reasons given above.
Social Security was never intended to be the primary foundation of old age income security. It was designed to buttress other income, which is does marvelously. In my dad's day one got the gold watch and the company pension. Along with his SS, he and my mom were able to live a comfortable enough life. One or the other was tight, together the bills could be paid and a pleasant retirement had. Nowadays, folks will have various 401(k)'s and such, or other investments. Social Security is there to provide enough additional cash to ensure that it's all livable.
I have an older family member who serves as a model case. She cashed out the family home for a decent sum, then turned it over for a smaller place and lives off dividends generated by the rest. The investment income in and of itself isn't adequate for a livable wage, so to speak. With SS, it is. That's what it was designed for, that's what it does. So why "fix" it if it ain't broken? To dis' the AARP, of course. It's really the only reason.
Fortunately, even the GOP can't swallow a lot of this. Oh, there will be some modest proposal to maybe give perhaps some people some flexibility so the Bush team can claim victory, but that's about it. All the Dems have to do is drag this out until the end of the year when the 2006 campaign season starts and the GOP runs for cover.
But I'm not a complete naysayer here. There are a couple of tweaks we could tack on, perhaps linking benefits closer to overall income level, stuff like that. But even there I'm conservative. FDR's brilliance in setting this up so that workers kicked in, unlike many other industrial systems where the public sector and/or industry do the heavy lifting, is that it locks in the system. Start cutting off the rich folks and they'll turn against it, which screws the middle and lower classes in turn.
The Media Blab:
This debate has led to an interesting "What's in a name?" discussion among the media. By following the Bush team's lead in calling this "reform", they are in effect agreeing about the need for reform, which is part of the debate itself. So they say it's a "revision" or "reworking" or something similar. Which just opens them up for charges of anti-Bush bias.
But it's about time. In a time where the line between government propaganda and real news has become invisible to too many viewers, what with stage managed "town halls", plants in press pools and government payments to presumably impartial commentators, the rest who haven't been co-opted have a duty to report what actually is. It's fair to call it a "Social Security revision" because that's what it is. George Will outlined the goal in a recent column, to keep retirees from being so-called "wards of the government", the keystone of the (kaff!) "Ownership Society." It's a different way of doing business, with radically different goals than present. So call it that.
This debate hits home. In eight years I'll be AARP-eligible, so maybe I'm too close to relying on the current system to see it objectively. (Just like those Kerry-voting New Yorkers are too close to gays and terrorist attacks to see those objectively). I'll also be paying a mortgage into my '70s, at current rates. So I gotta plan.
Maybe this debate oughta be "grandfathered." If the next generation wants to toss dirt over their own retirement security, let 'em. Just let me die first.
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Whine Country
[Letter to The Betting Fool, San Francisco Chronicle]
Fool,
Sure, the Giants will win the West, and possibly go up a postseason rungs. What will be annoying is that after the Giants finally get dimed short of a World Series ring, a lot of fans will have the nerve to claim that they're long suffering, cursed, yada yada.
It just don't work here. You can't live here near cable cars, the wine country and Lake Tahoe and claim you're doomed and oppressed. It just don't work. Red Sox and Cubs fans have to stare down into long, dark and miserable winters after their teams tank. Giant fans get to go to Point Reyes. The only curse here is the traffic.
But they'll whine anyways. Over living in God's Backyard. That's really irritating.
Fool,
Sure, the Giants will win the West, and possibly go up a postseason rungs. What will be annoying is that after the Giants finally get dimed short of a World Series ring, a lot of fans will have the nerve to claim that they're long suffering, cursed, yada yada.
It just don't work here. You can't live here near cable cars, the wine country and Lake Tahoe and claim you're doomed and oppressed. It just don't work. Red Sox and Cubs fans have to stare down into long, dark and miserable winters after their teams tank. Giant fans get to go to Point Reyes. The only curse here is the traffic.
But they'll whine anyways. Over living in God's Backyard. That's really irritating.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Seven (Latest) Signs of the Apocalypse
First horn – First Lady Laura Bush, who makes Donna Reed seem like Paris Hilton, is put in charge of “Biatch slappin’” ’ Boyz in the ‘Hood out of gangs.
Second horn – President Bush offers African Americans a favor by giving them more retirement money before dying their earlier. “Look, bro’, you wanna live now or die later?”
Third horn – Europeans see a German leader meeting an American president, and root for the German to talk peace.
Fourth horn – Screaming Arab mobs blame someone other than Israel and/or the U.S. for their woes.
Fifth horn – The Boston Red Sox not only win one World Series but might actually win a second.
Sixth horn – A Democratic national chairman not from the South actually goes there and organizes a crowd.
Seventh horn - Michael Jackson finally goes to court for preeversion … and no one cares.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Multitasking
I came out to work during the tail end of the “Go-Go ‘80s.” This was the decade where the nation rediscovered the joy of hard work and personal wealth. One of the products of this renewed focus on the workday was renewed commentary on what makes a productive worker. Not the assembly line kind, because those jobs were all heading offshore. No, it was how to be the most effective office grunt you could be. This was important. Prior generations counted how many widgets they made to know if they were going well. When your tools of the trade are the phone, fax and then computer (and now all kinds of gadgets) how could you tell when you’re having a good day?
So everyone and their mother decided they’d tell us. You couldn’t be seen on the subway without your current copy of “Secrets of Successful People” tucked under your arm. It wasn’t a bad idea. I found a lot of insight into some of these pages. Certain things held true for me, like combining similar activities, such as letter writing, and doing certain tasks at certain times of the day when you found yourself better focused for doing them.
For example, I prefer reading and reflective activities in the morning, social activities (meetings and the like) in late morning to mid-afternoon and production work, writing reports and the like, from early afternoon on. This uses my attention span in the best possible way. I’ve generally found it effective.
But I shouldn’t tell my bosses this any more. The big mantra now is “multitasking”, the purported ability to jump from one thing to another without batting an eye. Bosses all think they can do this. Science says otherwise. According to research, it takes time for the brain to shift to unfamiliar tasks. Go here for the link. This seems to be common sense. So why are we all so hip on multitasking now?
The answer, according to a New York Times piece, lies in our technology. Our computers and other doohickeys can move at near lightspeed, much faster than the human hand, eye and mind. While we’re moving from one task to the next, a machine has zipped through dozens, even more. Needless to say, our machines can multitask, and the technicians have got them doing it right before our eyes. Teevee news and sports shows are full of split screens and “crawls” across the bottom. Our word processor is interrupted when a new e-mail or Messenger request comes in. It’s no wonder that now we have headsets let us listen to music or NPR while we balance the checkbook or write that report. Heck, now one friend tells me his boss is offering iPods to workers. No problem listening to music and banging away at the keyboard. I remember when that was looked down on. You weren’t paying sole attention to your work. Now, it’s encouraged.
I wonder what kind of example I’m setting for my six year old son. I like the fact that he likes to play with blocks or cars or whatnot while he watches teevee. Any decent parent cringes at the mental image of their slackjawed young one staring mindlessly at the flickering tube. But I wonder if he’s the edge of a new generation which never takes doing just one thing as the basic rule of work and play. Maybe all those kids we’re diagnosing with ADD aren’t wounded. They’re just tomorrow’s multitaskers.
So everyone and their mother decided they’d tell us. You couldn’t be seen on the subway without your current copy of “Secrets of Successful People” tucked under your arm. It wasn’t a bad idea. I found a lot of insight into some of these pages. Certain things held true for me, like combining similar activities, such as letter writing, and doing certain tasks at certain times of the day when you found yourself better focused for doing them.
For example, I prefer reading and reflective activities in the morning, social activities (meetings and the like) in late morning to mid-afternoon and production work, writing reports and the like, from early afternoon on. This uses my attention span in the best possible way. I’ve generally found it effective.
But I shouldn’t tell my bosses this any more. The big mantra now is “multitasking”, the purported ability to jump from one thing to another without batting an eye. Bosses all think they can do this. Science says otherwise. According to research, it takes time for the brain to shift to unfamiliar tasks. Go here for the link. This seems to be common sense. So why are we all so hip on multitasking now?
The answer, according to a New York Times piece, lies in our technology. Our computers and other doohickeys can move at near lightspeed, much faster than the human hand, eye and mind. While we’re moving from one task to the next, a machine has zipped through dozens, even more. Needless to say, our machines can multitask, and the technicians have got them doing it right before our eyes. Teevee news and sports shows are full of split screens and “crawls” across the bottom. Our word processor is interrupted when a new e-mail or Messenger request comes in. It’s no wonder that now we have headsets let us listen to music or NPR while we balance the checkbook or write that report. Heck, now one friend tells me his boss is offering iPods to workers. No problem listening to music and banging away at the keyboard. I remember when that was looked down on. You weren’t paying sole attention to your work. Now, it’s encouraged.
I wonder what kind of example I’m setting for my six year old son. I like the fact that he likes to play with blocks or cars or whatnot while he watches teevee. Any decent parent cringes at the mental image of their slackjawed young one staring mindlessly at the flickering tube. But I wonder if he’s the edge of a new generation which never takes doing just one thing as the basic rule of work and play. Maybe all those kids we’re diagnosing with ADD aren’t wounded. They’re just tomorrow’s multitaskers.
Monday, February 21, 2005
Hunter S. Thompson, The Wonder Years
Hunter S. Thompson spoke to me because I was just too late for the '60s. Oh, I certainly knew about them. I watched the evening news with dad. Heck, I lived in freakin' San Francisco. But I didn't hit puberty until around 1970, after the heyday had gone. By the time high school rolled around and drugs and free love could actually be invited into my life, the Haight Ashbury was dead, Vietnam was pretty much over and disco was king. I and my friends felt cheated. If only we'd been born just a little bit sooner ...
So Thompson's first person style of reporting from the field caught the eye and heart of me and my friends. "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" was the lost weekend we all dreamed about but didn't have the nerve to pull off. "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail" explained all the fire over the McGovern campaign and loss we just missed. By the time I was ready to vote it had come down to Ford vs. Carter, dull and duller. There were no organized hippies, no antiwar demonstrators pounding the campaign pavement, just Jimmy Carter apologizing for having "lust in his heart." For adolescent boys, who have lust running all over their bodies, it was hard to understand this one.
Thompson also offered a warning. Part of his drug fueled mania seemed motivated by his taking life and politics just waaaay too seriously. I considered and still consider a life around politics a good life indeed, but I would never want to get to the point where it sent me into hallucinogenic depression. Hallucinogenic alone would do fine as an end point. I've always tried to keep this in mind, as I've swallowed life under Republican ascendancy over the last twenty years. The Republic keeps standing, gays are prevalent on teevee and black people anywhere in the media are never poor. Progress keeps up, regardless of how often people themselves seem to want to slow it down.
So I settle into my chair and watch the sunset over the Central Valley with a cold beer and memories of the Summer of Love I never lived. Which is even better, considering that this way I can make it all up.
Bye Hunter. See you in the afterlife, I'm sure.
Go here for the New York Times's retrospective on the life and times of Hunter S. Thompson. (Registration required)
So Thompson's first person style of reporting from the field caught the eye and heart of me and my friends. "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" was the lost weekend we all dreamed about but didn't have the nerve to pull off. "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail" explained all the fire over the McGovern campaign and loss we just missed. By the time I was ready to vote it had come down to Ford vs. Carter, dull and duller. There were no organized hippies, no antiwar demonstrators pounding the campaign pavement, just Jimmy Carter apologizing for having "lust in his heart." For adolescent boys, who have lust running all over their bodies, it was hard to understand this one.
Thompson also offered a warning. Part of his drug fueled mania seemed motivated by his taking life and politics just waaaay too seriously. I considered and still consider a life around politics a good life indeed, but I would never want to get to the point where it sent me into hallucinogenic depression. Hallucinogenic alone would do fine as an end point. I've always tried to keep this in mind, as I've swallowed life under Republican ascendancy over the last twenty years. The Republic keeps standing, gays are prevalent on teevee and black people anywhere in the media are never poor. Progress keeps up, regardless of how often people themselves seem to want to slow it down.
So I settle into my chair and watch the sunset over the Central Valley with a cold beer and memories of the Summer of Love I never lived. Which is even better, considering that this way I can make it all up.
Bye Hunter. See you in the afterlife, I'm sure.
Go here for the New York Times's retrospective on the life and times of Hunter S. Thompson. (Registration required)
Freaks with Bombs
From the New York Times:
To Europeans, the latest example of Washington's failure to recognize their diplomatic preferences is its stance on Iran. The European Union will press Mr. Bush to support the European initiative with Iran that envisions rewards if Iran gives up important nuclear activities, an approach the United States rejects.
In "On the Beach", the great story about life after the Day After (anyone else remember that incredibly unintentionally funny 1983 ABC TV movie about WW3?) the Big One is started when a Nasser-like Egyptian leader drops a big bomb on Washington, DC and New York City. The U.S. thinks the Soviets did it, and retaliates and off we went to Armageddon. The prescient lesson at a time when only the really big countries had the bomb is that we just can't trust the freaks with the future of humanity.
So it worries people when North Korea says it has the Bomb and Iran insists it's not trying but no one believes that at all.
When I was in college I had a poster of a hydrogen bomb explosion. A friend of mine thought this was terrifying and asked me if I weren't afraid of this sort of thing. Sure, I said, but if and when WW3 comes, it'll likely come from either a local US or Soviet commander acting a fool (like what might have happened in Cuba had we invaded) or from some nimrod country with nothing to lose. For the US and USSR the bombs were Sampson weapons, something you threaten with when all else seems lost. You don't burn down the town you're trying to take over unless you're going to lose it anyway, and if you can't have it, you'll be damned if the other guy does.
Maniacs don't have the luxury of this logic. The big bombs serve as equalizers, where rooty poots get to act big, and since they generally don't run anything too many people would miss if it got blasted off the face of the earth, they have little to lose. Except a seat in Heaven or legendary status in their own minds.
Bush's take is to:
a) refuse the obvious bribe,
b) loudly threaten isolation, and
c) quietly threaten force.
The likely response to this from today's Dear Leaders and mad mullahs is:
a) ask again,
b) laugh at being cut off when the US has no leverage to enforce that, and
c) consider this additional justification for building the bombs as deterrent.
The US has spent decades "isolating" Cuba to no effect. As long as Europe and Latin American continue relations, it hurts but it's not fatal. The Europeans are using their continued relationship with Iran to gain political leverage on this issue. They're not going to shut that off just because Bush asks them too. Iran offers then a unique place to forge a unique EU voice, they're not giving that up. And South Korea is attempting to do in the North what even many conservatives say is the best way to bring down Castro, flood the island with capitalism. They're not likely to stop doing that either, just 'cause Bush asks them too.
So we're left with bribe or bomb. Bribing worked under Clinton. North Korea built no bombs, threatened no one who lived outside of the country. Bombing Iran just weakens whatever political energy the democrat moderates might have, and overextends an already ridiculously overextended American military.
So the answer's simple. Cut 'em checks, on the grounds that we get real boots on the ground willing and able to effectively monitor nuclear facilities. Iran gets expanded economic ties. North Korea gets some cash to turn the lights back on. It's so simple.
But it gets in the way of Bush Co. pride. So it won't happen. At least soon.
BTW, if you've never read "On the Beach" or seen the movie, don't. It's pretty depressing.
To Europeans, the latest example of Washington's failure to recognize their diplomatic preferences is its stance on Iran. The European Union will press Mr. Bush to support the European initiative with Iran that envisions rewards if Iran gives up important nuclear activities, an approach the United States rejects.
In "On the Beach", the great story about life after the Day After (anyone else remember that incredibly unintentionally funny 1983 ABC TV movie about WW3?) the Big One is started when a Nasser-like Egyptian leader drops a big bomb on Washington, DC and New York City. The U.S. thinks the Soviets did it, and retaliates and off we went to Armageddon. The prescient lesson at a time when only the really big countries had the bomb is that we just can't trust the freaks with the future of humanity.
So it worries people when North Korea says it has the Bomb and Iran insists it's not trying but no one believes that at all.
When I was in college I had a poster of a hydrogen bomb explosion. A friend of mine thought this was terrifying and asked me if I weren't afraid of this sort of thing. Sure, I said, but if and when WW3 comes, it'll likely come from either a local US or Soviet commander acting a fool (like what might have happened in Cuba had we invaded) or from some nimrod country with nothing to lose. For the US and USSR the bombs were Sampson weapons, something you threaten with when all else seems lost. You don't burn down the town you're trying to take over unless you're going to lose it anyway, and if you can't have it, you'll be damned if the other guy does.
Maniacs don't have the luxury of this logic. The big bombs serve as equalizers, where rooty poots get to act big, and since they generally don't run anything too many people would miss if it got blasted off the face of the earth, they have little to lose. Except a seat in Heaven or legendary status in their own minds.
Bush's take is to:
a) refuse the obvious bribe,
b) loudly threaten isolation, and
c) quietly threaten force.
The likely response to this from today's Dear Leaders and mad mullahs is:
a) ask again,
b) laugh at being cut off when the US has no leverage to enforce that, and
c) consider this additional justification for building the bombs as deterrent.
The US has spent decades "isolating" Cuba to no effect. As long as Europe and Latin American continue relations, it hurts but it's not fatal. The Europeans are using their continued relationship with Iran to gain political leverage on this issue. They're not going to shut that off just because Bush asks them too. Iran offers then a unique place to forge a unique EU voice, they're not giving that up. And South Korea is attempting to do in the North what even many conservatives say is the best way to bring down Castro, flood the island with capitalism. They're not likely to stop doing that either, just 'cause Bush asks them too.
So we're left with bribe or bomb. Bribing worked under Clinton. North Korea built no bombs, threatened no one who lived outside of the country. Bombing Iran just weakens whatever political energy the democrat moderates might have, and overextends an already ridiculously overextended American military.
So the answer's simple. Cut 'em checks, on the grounds that we get real boots on the ground willing and able to effectively monitor nuclear facilities. Iran gets expanded economic ties. North Korea gets some cash to turn the lights back on. It's so simple.
But it gets in the way of Bush Co. pride. So it won't happen. At least soon.
BTW, if you've never read "On the Beach" or seen the movie, don't. It's pretty depressing.
Sunday, February 20, 2005
Trekking to Oblivion
"To boldly go where so many shows have gone, ... into the wastebasket."
I found out about the cancellation of ‘Enterprise’, the latest Star Trek series, in a weird way. I was scanning through my StarTrek.com e-newsletter. There was the usual list of stories. Interview with …, Appearance by …., Enterprise:Cancelled, Web Site revised ….
What? That’s it? A footnote in an e-zine? You’d think they’d make a lot more out of this. Not only is the show going off the air, but unlike the last three renditions, it isn’t to clear the way for something else. No mo’ Trek, at least for awhile.
Now, clearly I’m a Trekker (as distinguished from “Trekkie”, but I’ll explain the critical difference later). Not only that, I’m an original Trekker. I watched the original show during its original run in the ‘60s. This makes me an oddball at Star Trek Conventions (resist the temptation to say what you want to say). The Gospel is that no one watched the original show, that it revived through syndication during the ‘70s. I mentioned that I happened to watch the original show while talking to a friend at the 5th anniversary celebration for “ST:The Next Generation” back in ’92 and stopped conversation in the immediate vicinity. They all just stared at me like I’d just said I was there when Jesus raised the dead.
But a lot of us did watch the show in the ‘60s. We just weren’t counted. At the time, Nielsen only counted the set Dad watched in the living room. All those secondary black and white sets with kids in front of them down in the basement or den didn’t count. After all, who cares what kids watch? (Sounds funny now, don’t it?) I even wrote one of the famous letters to NBC which kept the show on for one more season.
Star Trek died of its own success. The franchise proved that science fiction, if done well enough, could build an audience. This happened just as the explosion of syndication and cable channels carved up the market. Instead of going for whatever would wash across the broadest spectrum, teevee had to create niches, and sci-fi provided that. A mid-‘60s teevee critic wrote that Kirk and Spock belonged on Saturday morning, not Thursday night. TNG earned Paramount money because it was, at one point, the most watched show for men between 19 and 35. Needless to say, now there are a good half dozen sci-fi shows on, and a good dozen since TNG aired. Some were crappy, some were silly, some were very good and died fast (Fox’s ‘Firefly’) but there’s no shortage and no coming shortage of shows. Star Trek, once unique, ended up just another blip on the sensors.
The backdrop since midway between the first season has been the United Federation of Planets, a U.N. in space led by United Earth, the American internationalists’ wet dream. Wouldn’t it be great, I thought, if somehow Paramount developed episodes, or even a show, on how all this came about? It did, in Enterprise. Unfortunately, it didn’t get around to actually telling this story until this season, apparently too late for the audience. Half that audience failed to return for the second season, and the show’s struggled in the ratings since. After the colossal disappointment of ‘Voyager’, too many base fans had left. (Even ‘Voyager’ was a symptom of success. Paramount wanted a Trek show to anchor its new network and fashioned an uninteresting crew it thought would attract younger viewers.)
Fortunately, there are always reruns and DVD’s. I had to stay home during the week recently to care for a sick Leroy and found that Spike Network carried two DS9 and then two TNG episodes every day. That’s four hours of Trek. I taped most of the second and third seasons of TNG thinking I’d keep them for posterity. What a fool. The reruns are on everywhere, and I can get whole seasons on one DVD. The franchise will live on, even if Captain Archer’s trip to found the Federation gets cut a little short.
As a matter of fact, I have to go watch my tape of last night’s ‘Enterprise’. It might be the one where they explain howcum the Klingons got the funny heads after the original series. I’ve been waiting since 1979, when the first Trek movie came out, to find out this one, even if Worf did say in ‘DS9’s’ Trials and Tribblations’ that it’s something they just don’t talk about.
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Winners and Losers
One of the great things about being a sports fan is that I can understand politics a lot better.
As Howard Dean ascends to the DNC chairmanship, a move I strongly support, I keep reading about how his campaign "imploded" in the early primaries. It did no such thing.
Dean struck a chord among "Tired of taking it" Democrats, who feel, righteously so, that the national leadership is so afraid of being tarred as "liberal" that they're afraid to take any strong stand on anything, allowed The Enemy to tar them anyway because we don't define ourselves first. But is that enough to choose a candidate on? No. When put to the test, Democratic voters made the rational choice that Kerry was the better candidate to stand against Bush. They were right too. Dean didn't "implode", which implies mass failure on his part. He was simply reviewed against other candidates when it mattered and came up short.
His campaign was revolutionary. Even conservative nutcase Richard Viguirie admired the way it used alternative media to connect with voters. It would be a waste to turn away from his clear ability to organize and galvanize voters. Glad to see the DNC made a sensible choice itself in choosing its leader.
But why do we say he "imploded"? The answer, as in so many things in life, lies in baseball.
The San Francisco Giants' Dustin Hermanson came into a late season game against the Houston Astros with his team leading 3-2. It was the top of the ninth inning, and a win would mean a Giants sweep of the three game series and a strong position to make the post-season wild card. It wasn't to be. Lance Berkman hit a three run homer off Hermanson and the Astros rallied to win.
The next day, a sports page noted that Hermanson threw a "mistake" to Berkman, which led to the Giants' loss. Yet, a replay of the game showed that it was a actually a pretty good pitch, low and to the inside. It was hard to hit, but Berkman did it anyway.
The moral of the story is that sometimes you don't lose, the other guy wins. But Americans don't like to hear this. Loss is generally viewed as something we bring upon ourselves, that winning is as much a matter of choice as circumstances and dynamics. Yet Hermanson has no control over whether or not Berkman could hit that pitch. Many, if not most, batters couldn't. It would probably get most batters out. But Berkman happened to be a good batter who happened to get good wood on the pitch. The Astros won because he won, not because Hermanson lost.
So now Dean gets to loose his fastball in another game where he has more control over the outcome. This more skills contest than competitive game. Personally, I think he'll do quite well.
As Howard Dean ascends to the DNC chairmanship, a move I strongly support, I keep reading about how his campaign "imploded" in the early primaries. It did no such thing.
Dean struck a chord among "Tired of taking it" Democrats, who feel, righteously so, that the national leadership is so afraid of being tarred as "liberal" that they're afraid to take any strong stand on anything, allowed The Enemy to tar them anyway because we don't define ourselves first. But is that enough to choose a candidate on? No. When put to the test, Democratic voters made the rational choice that Kerry was the better candidate to stand against Bush. They were right too. Dean didn't "implode", which implies mass failure on his part. He was simply reviewed against other candidates when it mattered and came up short.
His campaign was revolutionary. Even conservative nutcase Richard Viguirie admired the way it used alternative media to connect with voters. It would be a waste to turn away from his clear ability to organize and galvanize voters. Glad to see the DNC made a sensible choice itself in choosing its leader.
But why do we say he "imploded"? The answer, as in so many things in life, lies in baseball.
The San Francisco Giants' Dustin Hermanson came into a late season game against the Houston Astros with his team leading 3-2. It was the top of the ninth inning, and a win would mean a Giants sweep of the three game series and a strong position to make the post-season wild card. It wasn't to be. Lance Berkman hit a three run homer off Hermanson and the Astros rallied to win.
The next day, a sports page noted that Hermanson threw a "mistake" to Berkman, which led to the Giants' loss. Yet, a replay of the game showed that it was a actually a pretty good pitch, low and to the inside. It was hard to hit, but Berkman did it anyway.
The moral of the story is that sometimes you don't lose, the other guy wins. But Americans don't like to hear this. Loss is generally viewed as something we bring upon ourselves, that winning is as much a matter of choice as circumstances and dynamics. Yet Hermanson has no control over whether or not Berkman could hit that pitch. Many, if not most, batters couldn't. It would probably get most batters out. But Berkman happened to be a good batter who happened to get good wood on the pitch. The Astros won because he won, not because Hermanson lost.
So now Dean gets to loose his fastball in another game where he has more control over the outcome. This more skills contest than competitive game. Personally, I think he'll do quite well.
XXXIX
DHGulley said...
"My man McNabb didn't do so well..."
Yup. And he sucked in the Pro Bowl, too. Starting to see a pattern?
So he can't stand in The Big Game. Maybe he can go to Arizona, where they don't expect as much as Philly. Where they don't expect anything, actually.
I found myself spending some down time in Phoenix airport during a trip a couple of years ago. I got into a chat with a local about football, and the fact that the Arizona Cardinals are lucky to pull 25,000 some games.
"It's the heat", the guy said. "Anyone here knows they have to play at night. But the teevee contract requires afternoon games, and who wants to sit out there in 95 degree heat for three hours?"
Maybe they need to give out "Croix de Cardinal" buttons, similar to what the Giants gave out to hardy souls who sat through extra inning night games at the 'Stick some years ago.
All this talk of the ridiculously-named Arizona Cardinals leads me to this business of naming teams after whole states. It's silly and ought'n be allowed, except when the name is cool. Like the Colorado Rockies, or Texas Rangers. Even the Minnesota Twins works, and I'll allow "new England because it's a regional state of mind." But the "California" Angels was a joke. The whole "Angels" name was a play on L.A. and the former minor league team of the same name. To say nothing of the fact that four other teams happened to play in the state too. Don't get me started on "Los Angeles of Anaheim." How's that fit in a sports page standings box? What's next, "The New York Giants of New Jersey"?
And Florida Marlins, what, are they too embarrassed to be part of "Miami"? The Tennessee Titans are the silliest. They play in Nashville, where people have an image of country music, the Grand Ol' Opry and all that. Roll with it. It's a fine town, be proud of your roots. I also have to admire the NBA Suns, who are brave enough to stand up for the proud municipality of 'Phoenix', durn it, unlike the local baseball and football teams.
Maybe the answer to all this is to follow the Japanese model and name the team after the company which owns them. It's more honest. I mean, it really isn't the "San Francisco" Giants because none of the players come from there. When Toronto beat Philly in the '93 Series one Canadian paper wrote, "Our Dominicans beat their Dominicans." They're all really just mercenary hirelings battling out for the bosses.
So let's have a Series where the McDonalds Giants face off against the Ford Motor Tigers or some such. In the most capitalistic of major capitalistic nations, this is the way it should be. We could even get a guy to dress up like Calvin Coolidge every year to throw out the first ball.
Dirty Rotten Commies
Anonymous wrote:
"The fatal flaw in traditional Marxist theory and practice was the notion that the revolutionary dictatorship would allow itself to wither away."
By traditional, you mean Leninist. A seemingly minor quibble that may not be altogether minor. There are a plethora of socialist theories that lend themselves to very different practices. They all owe something to Marx. http://www.dsausa.org/pdf/widemsoc.pdf
Yes, I'll grant that "traditional" is the spin applied by the societies which adopted Marxist theory and put it into practice. There were other communistic theories in play, such as Anarchism, which generally held that the state had to be done away with first. One problem with that, as the Spanish Anarchists discovered trying to fight Franco's Fascists, is that it's hard to get anything done when just about everything is put to a vote. "All those in favor of charging the machine gun nest, raise their hand ...".
I think the biggest revelation is that when people become Communists, they don't somehow become "better" or more enlightened people than the rest of us. Traditional Western democratic theory is based on trying to keep any one or faction from accumulating too much power by creating offsetting power structures. This less trustworthy view of human nature appears to be the most practical over time.
"The fatal flaw in traditional Marxist theory and practice was the notion that the revolutionary dictatorship would allow itself to wither away."
By traditional, you mean Leninist. A seemingly minor quibble that may not be altogether minor. There are a plethora of socialist theories that lend themselves to very different practices. They all owe something to Marx. http://www.dsausa.org/pdf/widemsoc.pdf
Yes, I'll grant that "traditional" is the spin applied by the societies which adopted Marxist theory and put it into practice. There were other communistic theories in play, such as Anarchism, which generally held that the state had to be done away with first. One problem with that, as the Spanish Anarchists discovered trying to fight Franco's Fascists, is that it's hard to get anything done when just about everything is put to a vote. "All those in favor of charging the machine gun nest, raise their hand ...".
I think the biggest revelation is that when people become Communists, they don't somehow become "better" or more enlightened people than the rest of us. Traditional Western democratic theory is based on trying to keep any one or faction from accumulating too much power by creating offsetting power structures. This less trustworthy view of human nature appears to be the most practical over time.
All-American Sports
Anonymous commentator said:
"Yeah, but you guys (Blue States) get the 49ers."
Whoop-de-doo. Have you seen their record lately? Fortunately, there seems to be some hope on the horizon. The cheap-ass owner's backed up the truck on the whole staff and next season doesn't seem likely a bottomless stanky hole.
Like most new coaches, Nolan comes in with a ton of authority, because ownership is desperate and will give him whatever he wants. If the record elsewhere is any indication, this is a for a limited time. As the seasons go by, ownership in our "win or else" sports culture gets frustrated and gradually shaves all this authority off, as both punishment and so the coach "can focus on the field." Just watch. It'll happen.
The real test of how invested the 'Niners owner wants to be comes with the stadium. Simply put, he's gonna have to build it hisownself. The City's meager contribution was based on some kind of revenue-generating mall built where no one is ever going to go to shop. The only way any new football stadium is built is with York's own money. Maybe not in San Francisco, since only Candlestick's got the space to do it. Heck, maybe this is San Jose's chance to get a pro sports team, since the 'Niners are already HQ and summer camping it there.
I'll miss the 'Stick, though. A crappy baseball park, it actually serves football well. The weather's better during fall days than summer nights, and it'll always be home to those great moments from the '80s and '90s. Sigh ...
Which brings us to baseball. People keep bugging me about the steroids thang. I feel like Stephen King being interviewed in the stands at Fenway during Game Three of the ALCS, as the Yankees were whomping the Sox a zillion to two, and seemingly well on their way to the Series. King kept telling the guy that the Sox had a great year and he enjoyed it all, and the interviewer kept nagging him to break down and cry. He didn't.
Baseball, like all pro sports, makes money by giving us a welcome diversion after a tough day or week at the mines. It ain't real life to us. This ain't so for sportswriters. This is all they do and think about, because it's their living. They got nothing to apply it against to give them perspective. So they blow it all out of proportion. Add any writers dream to go Woodward and Bernstein on some issue, and it's not surprising the whole thing is treated like the Watergate break in. But it's not.
No one has ever said how many more home runs any player has hit because they goosed up their body strength. Putting on lbs. is generally accepted in baseball. Some teams encourage it among young players, so they can hit the ball harder. Did growth inducing steroids make it easier for some to bulk up? Certainly. But they woulda done it anyway. As I understand it, you take these things as part of an exercise regimen. They ain't comic book Power Pills, duck into a nearby phone booth, down one and fly out to save the day as SuperStud. If they're unhealthy, then regulate and/or ban them. But you can't punish someone after the fact.
All I know now about Barry Bonds is that this season, as always, the crowd at SBC will stop whatever it's doing, even buying hot dogs, when he steps to the plate, to watch. He's exciting to watch, and for $25 a seat in the upper deck, that's all that matters.
"Yeah, but you guys (Blue States) get the 49ers."
Whoop-de-doo. Have you seen their record lately? Fortunately, there seems to be some hope on the horizon. The cheap-ass owner's backed up the truck on the whole staff and next season doesn't seem likely a bottomless stanky hole.
Like most new coaches, Nolan comes in with a ton of authority, because ownership is desperate and will give him whatever he wants. If the record elsewhere is any indication, this is a for a limited time. As the seasons go by, ownership in our "win or else" sports culture gets frustrated and gradually shaves all this authority off, as both punishment and so the coach "can focus on the field." Just watch. It'll happen.
The real test of how invested the 'Niners owner wants to be comes with the stadium. Simply put, he's gonna have to build it hisownself. The City's meager contribution was based on some kind of revenue-generating mall built where no one is ever going to go to shop. The only way any new football stadium is built is with York's own money. Maybe not in San Francisco, since only Candlestick's got the space to do it. Heck, maybe this is San Jose's chance to get a pro sports team, since the 'Niners are already HQ and summer camping it there.
I'll miss the 'Stick, though. A crappy baseball park, it actually serves football well. The weather's better during fall days than summer nights, and it'll always be home to those great moments from the '80s and '90s. Sigh ...
Which brings us to baseball. People keep bugging me about the steroids thang. I feel like Stephen King being interviewed in the stands at Fenway during Game Three of the ALCS, as the Yankees were whomping the Sox a zillion to two, and seemingly well on their way to the Series. King kept telling the guy that the Sox had a great year and he enjoyed it all, and the interviewer kept nagging him to break down and cry. He didn't.
Baseball, like all pro sports, makes money by giving us a welcome diversion after a tough day or week at the mines. It ain't real life to us. This ain't so for sportswriters. This is all they do and think about, because it's their living. They got nothing to apply it against to give them perspective. So they blow it all out of proportion. Add any writers dream to go Woodward and Bernstein on some issue, and it's not surprising the whole thing is treated like the Watergate break in. But it's not.
No one has ever said how many more home runs any player has hit because they goosed up their body strength. Putting on lbs. is generally accepted in baseball. Some teams encourage it among young players, so they can hit the ball harder. Did growth inducing steroids make it easier for some to bulk up? Certainly. But they woulda done it anyway. As I understand it, you take these things as part of an exercise regimen. They ain't comic book Power Pills, duck into a nearby phone booth, down one and fly out to save the day as SuperStud. If they're unhealthy, then regulate and/or ban them. But you can't punish someone after the fact.
All I know now about Barry Bonds is that this season, as always, the crowd at SBC will stop whatever it's doing, even buying hot dogs, when he steps to the plate, to watch. He's exciting to watch, and for $25 a seat in the upper deck, that's all that matters.
Thursday, February 10, 2005
The Bear Flag Republic
Dear President Bush:
Congratulations on your victory over all us non-evangelicals.
Actually, we're a bit ticked offhere in California, so we're leaving. California will now be its own country. And we're taking all the Blue States with us. In case you are not aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, and all of the Northeast. We spoke to God, and She agrees that this split will be beneficial to almost everybody, and especially to us in the new country of California. In fact, God is so excited about it, she's going to shift the whole country at 4:30 pm EST this Friday. Therefore, please let everyone know they need to be back in their states by then. So you get Texas and all the former slave states. We get the Governator, stem cell research and the best beaches.
We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay. (Okay, we have to keep Martha Stewart, we can live with that.)
We get the Statue of Liberty. You get OpryLand.
We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.
We get Harvard. You get Old Miss.
We get 85% of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get all the technological innovation in Alabama.
We get about two-thirds of the tax revenue, and you get to make the red states pay their fair share.
Since our divorce rate is 22% lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms to support, and we know how much you like that.
Did I mention we produce about 70% of the nation's veggies? But heck the only greens the Bible-thumpers eat are the pickles on their Big Macs.Oh yeah, another thing, don't plan on serving California wine at your state dinners. From now on it's imported French wine for you. Ouch, bet that hurts. Just so we're clear, the country of California will be pro-choice and anti-war.
Speaking of war, we're going to want all Blue States citizens back from Iraq. If you need people to fight, just ask your evangelicals. They have tons of kids they're willing to send to their deaths for absolutely no purpose. And they don't care if you don't show pictures of theirkids' caskets coming home.Anyway, we wish you all the best in the next four years and we hope, really hope, you find those missing weapons of mass destruction.
Seriously. Soon.Sincerely, California
Congratulations on your victory over all us non-evangelicals.
Actually, we're a bit ticked offhere in California, so we're leaving. California will now be its own country. And we're taking all the Blue States with us. In case you are not aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, and all of the Northeast. We spoke to God, and She agrees that this split will be beneficial to almost everybody, and especially to us in the new country of California. In fact, God is so excited about it, she's going to shift the whole country at 4:30 pm EST this Friday. Therefore, please let everyone know they need to be back in their states by then. So you get Texas and all the former slave states. We get the Governator, stem cell research and the best beaches.
We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay. (Okay, we have to keep Martha Stewart, we can live with that.)
We get the Statue of Liberty. You get OpryLand.
We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.
We get Harvard. You get Old Miss.
We get 85% of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get all the technological innovation in Alabama.
We get about two-thirds of the tax revenue, and you get to make the red states pay their fair share.
Since our divorce rate is 22% lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms to support, and we know how much you like that.
Did I mention we produce about 70% of the nation's veggies? But heck the only greens the Bible-thumpers eat are the pickles on their Big Macs.Oh yeah, another thing, don't plan on serving California wine at your state dinners. From now on it's imported French wine for you. Ouch, bet that hurts. Just so we're clear, the country of California will be pro-choice and anti-war.
Speaking of war, we're going to want all Blue States citizens back from Iraq. If you need people to fight, just ask your evangelicals. They have tons of kids they're willing to send to their deaths for absolutely no purpose. And they don't care if you don't show pictures of theirkids' caskets coming home.Anyway, we wish you all the best in the next four years and we hope, really hope, you find those missing weapons of mass destruction.
Seriously. Soon.Sincerely, California
Rights
Of course, try telling a teenager to "be quiet" and they'll scream to the heavens about how they have a right to speak, and you can't tell -me- I can't talk, and I have a right to be heard, etc.
Kids are like most people. The only rights that matter are their own.
News Report:
First Amendment no big deal, students say
Study shows American teenagers indifferent to freedoms
Kids are like most people. The only rights that matter are their own.
News Report:
First Amendment no big deal, students say
Study shows American teenagers indifferent to freedoms
XXXIX
So My Man Donovan didn't play too well.
Hard to say whether it's lack of ability or lack of ability to rise to the occasion. That was the rap on Steve Young for years. He'd kick ass during the season, but get too excited to play to the same level in the Big Games. One of the announcers mentioned this as a probability early on, and it makes sense. I mean, it -is- what seems to define a lot of players. "Great career, but never got the ring."
Also, the Eagles lack of a solid running game came back to haunt them. Westbrook is fine as one of those all-purpose run-it-and-catch-it backs, but there's no one else back there. Where's the bruiser fullback who can block and guarantee a few yards just by falling forward? Without that, McNabb's forced to rely on running himself and on his WR's acrobatics to make up the difference in crunch time. This quickly turns into West Coast Offense of the worst sort.
The comparison was evident in the late quarters as Dillon was able to run and wear down the Eagles defense. Meanwhile, the Pats D could just sit back and wait for McNabb to throw one up for grabs. Donovan's got some pretty acrobatic receivers. They've probably bailed him out a lot during the season making impossible catches, but eventually that catches up to you.
The half-assing around as the game rolled up to the final gun shocked me too. But it shouldn't be surprising. From the games I saw over the season, clock management is a lost art among coaches. Maybe it comes from all those hours they insist they have to work. They just forget what the damn thing's up there for. Herman Edwards might be the worst among top team coaches, but he ain't alone. I mean, the whole -point- of football is to score within a set time frame, right? So why is watching the clock so hard? The mind boggles.
Starting out, it looked like the Pats were the nervous nellies. How many penalties before the half? And Dillon wasn't doing squat. But after he picked it up the whole team turned around, because then the Eagles were ripe for the play action. BTW, the last few SB's seem to start off slow, then pick up. I wonder if it's nerves, conservative game planning, or a little of both.
Talk about conservative, Paul McCartney's medley of song most people younger than me haven't heard and the dullest ads in years. The best one, to me, was MC Hammer spoofing his money problems. And he's clearly up for hire. That ad confused me at first. What's insurance got to do with Lay's potato chips, I thought? Then I realized ol' MC's just pimping himself good this game. Can we all agree, at least, that's it's a blessing that those "parachute" pants never caught on?
The broadcast itself had some shaky moments. The announcers didn't bother to realize that a lot of people tune in to the Super Bowl with little real idea how the game is played. Yet, they played in like any ol' Sunday morning scrimmage. They never tried to let anyone know how the replay challenge rule is used, for example. There was precious little graphic analysis, it seems, of the plays. A million useless angle shots, (can the Crotch Camera be far behind?) but football is best enjoyed when you see the misdirections, the favorable matchups and how other players open up to let the scoring play go down. Nuthin.' A chance to educate millions of potential new ongoing viewers lost.
Still, the Eagles beat the over-under in a pretty entertaining game overall. Yeah, lots of penalties and key turnovers but the turnovers make it interesting. Nothing like a team driving for a TD when "Oh, no!", a fumble/int on the two yard line! The Conventional Wisdom had the Pats in a walkover, despite the one touchdown betting line, so give the Eagles some credit for fighting the good fight before inevitably settling for the consolation prize.
Oh well, Philly gets to moan some more. Be interesting to see how the Philly press treats this. Did McNabb blow it, or did the Eagles just get beat by a better team? And what is it about Northeast pro sports anyway, from Boston through New York to Philly? Is life really that hard there that they have nothing else to hold on to?
Hard to say whether it's lack of ability or lack of ability to rise to the occasion. That was the rap on Steve Young for years. He'd kick ass during the season, but get too excited to play to the same level in the Big Games. One of the announcers mentioned this as a probability early on, and it makes sense. I mean, it -is- what seems to define a lot of players. "Great career, but never got the ring."
Also, the Eagles lack of a solid running game came back to haunt them. Westbrook is fine as one of those all-purpose run-it-and-catch-it backs, but there's no one else back there. Where's the bruiser fullback who can block and guarantee a few yards just by falling forward? Without that, McNabb's forced to rely on running himself and on his WR's acrobatics to make up the difference in crunch time. This quickly turns into West Coast Offense of the worst sort.
The comparison was evident in the late quarters as Dillon was able to run and wear down the Eagles defense. Meanwhile, the Pats D could just sit back and wait for McNabb to throw one up for grabs. Donovan's got some pretty acrobatic receivers. They've probably bailed him out a lot during the season making impossible catches, but eventually that catches up to you.
The half-assing around as the game rolled up to the final gun shocked me too. But it shouldn't be surprising. From the games I saw over the season, clock management is a lost art among coaches. Maybe it comes from all those hours they insist they have to work. They just forget what the damn thing's up there for. Herman Edwards might be the worst among top team coaches, but he ain't alone. I mean, the whole -point- of football is to score within a set time frame, right? So why is watching the clock so hard? The mind boggles.
Starting out, it looked like the Pats were the nervous nellies. How many penalties before the half? And Dillon wasn't doing squat. But after he picked it up the whole team turned around, because then the Eagles were ripe for the play action. BTW, the last few SB's seem to start off slow, then pick up. I wonder if it's nerves, conservative game planning, or a little of both.
Talk about conservative, Paul McCartney's medley of song most people younger than me haven't heard and the dullest ads in years. The best one, to me, was MC Hammer spoofing his money problems. And he's clearly up for hire. That ad confused me at first. What's insurance got to do with Lay's potato chips, I thought? Then I realized ol' MC's just pimping himself good this game. Can we all agree, at least, that's it's a blessing that those "parachute" pants never caught on?
The broadcast itself had some shaky moments. The announcers didn't bother to realize that a lot of people tune in to the Super Bowl with little real idea how the game is played. Yet, they played in like any ol' Sunday morning scrimmage. They never tried to let anyone know how the replay challenge rule is used, for example. There was precious little graphic analysis, it seems, of the plays. A million useless angle shots, (can the Crotch Camera be far behind?) but football is best enjoyed when you see the misdirections, the favorable matchups and how other players open up to let the scoring play go down. Nuthin.' A chance to educate millions of potential new ongoing viewers lost.
Still, the Eagles beat the over-under in a pretty entertaining game overall. Yeah, lots of penalties and key turnovers but the turnovers make it interesting. Nothing like a team driving for a TD when "Oh, no!", a fumble/int on the two yard line! The Conventional Wisdom had the Pats in a walkover, despite the one touchdown betting line, so give the Eagles some credit for fighting the good fight before inevitably settling for the consolation prize.
Oh well, Philly gets to moan some more. Be interesting to see how the Philly press treats this. Did McNabb blow it, or did the Eagles just get beat by a better team? And what is it about Northeast pro sports anyway, from Boston through New York to Philly? Is life really that hard there that they have nothing else to hold on to?
Peanuts and Crackerjack
Man, I sure hope this business of belting out "God Bless America" at ballgames stops this year.
It's not only mighty hard on the ears, give me "America the Beautiful" any day for good patriotic tune, it's a ridiculous choice in it's sung at the seventh inning in response to an attack by homicidal maniacs who insist they're doing God's bidding. It turns it all into a war of My God vs. Your God. I don't like baseball being used for that kind of nonsense. (I do go to church, BTW)
We didn't start singing the national anthem before ballgames until WW2. There was a big debate at the time over whether it was right to keep playing pro baseball in the middle of the war. By adding the national anthem, pro baseball made each game a pep rally, and earned justification for staying open (and keep making money) during the war.
Although I -love- "Take Me Out to the Ballgame." And I'll miss "O Canada" now that the Expos are in DC.
It's not only mighty hard on the ears, give me "America the Beautiful" any day for good patriotic tune, it's a ridiculous choice in it's sung at the seventh inning in response to an attack by homicidal maniacs who insist they're doing God's bidding. It turns it all into a war of My God vs. Your God. I don't like baseball being used for that kind of nonsense. (I do go to church, BTW)
We didn't start singing the national anthem before ballgames until WW2. There was a big debate at the time over whether it was right to keep playing pro baseball in the middle of the war. By adding the national anthem, pro baseball made each game a pep rally, and earned justification for staying open (and keep making money) during the war.
Although I -love- "Take Me Out to the Ballgame." And I'll miss "O Canada" now that the Expos are in DC.
The Red Menace
[From a conversation I had elsewhere in cyberspace]
Val,
Of course it never decentralized. A Communist state was by nature centralized. The fatal flaw in traditional Marxist theory and practice was the notion that the revolutionary dictatorship would allow itself to wither away. People tend to like absolute power once they get hold of it. It's fun. Communists were no different.
I can't speak to what East Germany did to "help people around the world". I know that in the US most foreign aid never leaves the country. Say the agriculture minister of Lower Slobbovia receives a dollop of American development aid. He gets a loan guarantee from the US govt, takes that to New York City to secure a bank loan, then spends that loan in Minnesota and Illinois on seed and farm equipment. The aid stays in the Union, generating profits for the bank, John Deere and ADM. This is why you rarely hear organized labor or big business complain about foreign aid. It's really just another transfer payment.
Back to the East Germans, a college friend of mine got a job driving the East German press corps around Los Angeles during the '84 Olympics. Since the Eastern bloc was boycotting the games in retaliation for Carter boycotting the '80 Moscow Games, the press corps didn't have much to do, so he ended up mainly showing them the sights.
They were like kids who'd never left the orphanage before, he said. Just about everything amazed them. They'd drive up to Jack in the Box restaurants just to hear the clown (remember this?) ask them for their order. They'd roar laughing, then ask to drive around and do it again. Supermarkets stunned them, particularly the extensive meat section. They would just stare at it for minutes on end. But nothing amazed them more than housing. They couldn't believe that even in South Central L.A. (and my friend noted that they had anything-but-progressive views on race overall) people could buy and own their own home.
They hated the Russians. They considered them backward and ignorant for the most part, and told my friend with some pride that the Soviets quietly used German expertise on everything from armaments to fishing, while offering nothing in return. "They're nothing but a drag on us", they said. They had a low opinion of the Soviet military, too. "Outside of the big bombs (nukes) there's nothing much for you Westerners to worry about. If they ever attack Europe", they said, "just drop some vodka and whores among them and they'll forget all about you." They accused the East German Communist Party of making money by supplying Soviet occupation troops with sex workers in return for hard currency which they kept outside of the country.
Moral to the story of Communism: you can't run a country with a Department of Everything doing everything. It just don't work.
But a little socialized health care right now ain't a bad idea.
Val,
Of course it never decentralized. A Communist state was by nature centralized. The fatal flaw in traditional Marxist theory and practice was the notion that the revolutionary dictatorship would allow itself to wither away. People tend to like absolute power once they get hold of it. It's fun. Communists were no different.
I can't speak to what East Germany did to "help people around the world". I know that in the US most foreign aid never leaves the country. Say the agriculture minister of Lower Slobbovia receives a dollop of American development aid. He gets a loan guarantee from the US govt, takes that to New York City to secure a bank loan, then spends that loan in Minnesota and Illinois on seed and farm equipment. The aid stays in the Union, generating profits for the bank, John Deere and ADM. This is why you rarely hear organized labor or big business complain about foreign aid. It's really just another transfer payment.
Back to the East Germans, a college friend of mine got a job driving the East German press corps around Los Angeles during the '84 Olympics. Since the Eastern bloc was boycotting the games in retaliation for Carter boycotting the '80 Moscow Games, the press corps didn't have much to do, so he ended up mainly showing them the sights.
They were like kids who'd never left the orphanage before, he said. Just about everything amazed them. They'd drive up to Jack in the Box restaurants just to hear the clown (remember this?) ask them for their order. They'd roar laughing, then ask to drive around and do it again. Supermarkets stunned them, particularly the extensive meat section. They would just stare at it for minutes on end. But nothing amazed them more than housing. They couldn't believe that even in South Central L.A. (and my friend noted that they had anything-but-progressive views on race overall) people could buy and own their own home.
They hated the Russians. They considered them backward and ignorant for the most part, and told my friend with some pride that the Soviets quietly used German expertise on everything from armaments to fishing, while offering nothing in return. "They're nothing but a drag on us", they said. They had a low opinion of the Soviet military, too. "Outside of the big bombs (nukes) there's nothing much for you Westerners to worry about. If they ever attack Europe", they said, "just drop some vodka and whores among them and they'll forget all about you." They accused the East German Communist Party of making money by supplying Soviet occupation troops with sex workers in return for hard currency which they kept outside of the country.
Moral to the story of Communism: you can't run a country with a Department of Everything doing everything. It just don't work.
But a little socialized health care right now ain't a bad idea.
Friday, February 04, 2005
Parliamentary Democracy:Update
Anonymous said...
You missed: Goth Republicans in Flame Throwing Hearses.
http://66.34.10.12/aaamembersnew/zac/external.htm
One of several reasons why the Red States Rock. (Screw gun control...this link includes instructions on how to create your own personal flamethrower.)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sheesh, and these people think men marrying men is a danger to society?
Me, I'm a Blue Stater Against Gun Control. I want to be able to carry around Star Trek-type phaser guns after they're invented. Imagine being able to disintegrate anyone who bugs you. Just "zap!" and they're gone. No problem disposing of the body, no embarrassing DNA evidence, no need to hire Johnny Cochrane to keep my sorry ass out of jail?
Just, "Me, kill someone? Nope. See a dead body anywhere?"
It's an environmentally sound way to get rid of anyone with a "God Bless America" bumper sticker on their SUV. How can any right-thinking Blue Stater object to this?
The Wisdom of Youth
My six year old son's pet rat recently passed away, from unknown causes. All we know is that we discovered this as he was trying to 'fix' the rat by putting a band-aid on him, even though the poor beast was quite inert, with no evidence of physical trauma.
So, after some time, I asked him yesterday, "Leroy, how did the rat die? Do you know?"
He mulls this for a few seconds, then answers, "He died from not being alive."
Yep, that'll do it every time.
So, after some time, I asked him yesterday, "Leroy, how did the rat die? Do you know?"
He mulls this for a few seconds, then answers, "He died from not being alive."
Yep, that'll do it every time.
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Comments: Parliamentary Democracy
Anonymous said...
Personally I'm for a parliamentary system. I look forward to the day when a group like this has the capacity to bring down the government:
http://www.gunsanddope.com/
----------------------------------------------
Praise the Lord and don't Bogart that joint!
It's apparent that our "parties" are really coalitions in the parliamentary sense, held together by our single member first-past-the-post system. Within each party, as Imperius Bush will find over the next four years, there are threads and threads, shifting alliances among factions, but rarely working in complete lockstep.
In a true parliamentary system we would have, instead of the GOP:
The Chickenhawk / Breakfast Blend Alliance - devoted to the aggressive expansion of Starbucks franchises worldwide through the constant use of liberating force, creating an endless supply of viewing material for the Military Channel.
The Cheapskate Party - don't wanna pay nothing for no one who ain't me.
The Free Silver Party - economic libertarians who agree with Civil War-era thinking that precious metals were prepared by God to serve as real currency. (Anything else is an international financiers' conspiracy.)
The Leave it to Beaver Party - devoted to bringing back 1956 if it means tearing the whole country apart. I mean, weren't we all just so happy then? No gays, no Negroes except on the radio, and happy wives who never complained about missing the big "O". Isn't that worth fighting anything and everyone else for?
The Deuteronomy Movement - devoted to applying discriminate and carefully selected verses of the Bible to public policy (anything agreed to by Sojourners magazine is automatically eliminated from consideration); except for anyone who lives in a state bordering an ocean, a.k.a. "heathens." The ancient Israelites left the coast to the Philistines, they clearly knew something about its corrupting aspects.
The Motorcross Party - wants a constitutional change that only someone willing and able to successfully steer a motorbike over mountains of dirt for thirty minutes straight has proven themselves man enough to vote. (Women who do this will be granted honorary "man" status.) Also, every five trailers in a trailer park will be considered three people for purposes of congressional representation.
The Cliff Huxtable Party - only Negroes allowed; must have forsworn anything to do with hip-hop, Jesse Jackson and any acknowledgement that the civil rights movement ever mattered.
The Big Business Party - not officially a party, it covertly funds all the others and plays them off against each other to continue reaping mind-bending profits at the expense of national security, long term economic health and the environment. Anyone publicly acknowledging the party's existence will be expunged from reality.
The Democratic Party - a hairy-legged, cappucino-drinking tree-hugging, God-hating environmentalist lesbian from Berkeley. If she doesn't exist, the Big Business Party will pay to provide one, to keep up the illusion of real public debate. All other purported party followers will have been expunged from reality. Or just died out.
Spring Fever
February has always been my second hardest month of the year. Football is generally over and baseball hasn't begun. Basketball, which I follow least, is still waiting for its interminable playoff season to begun, so that's not worth worrying about either right now. The only saving grace is that it's a short month, which means I get a couple of extra days out of my paycheck.
"Baseball is slow, and it's dull on teevee", I hear. Yes, I answer. That's the point.
Every other major sport is pretty much a different version of the same drill. You have a rectangular field with a goal on each end, an object and a clock, which dictates how long a team has to get the object into the goals. Football, basketball, soccer, hockey and the rest are fast and interesting to watch. But it's pretty much the same drill across the board.
Not baseball. The field is a game board, similar to Monopoly. The goal is to move your piece around, back to "home", as George Carlin reminded us in a truly memorable monologue. Most important, there is no clock... There's no pressure to finish up within a set time. And that's what makes baseball work more than any other sport for me.
The clock is perhaps the most evil thing ever devised. Prior to the clock, life ran in a natural rhythm. You got up with the sun; you went to bed with the moon. You worked when it was light; you stopped when it got dark. All that changed with the clock. Everyone began working the same hours, and extended the day well past the time God and Mother Nature intended. The clock runs our lives. Every device we use has a clock on it. I've stopped wearing a wristwatch because I don't need to. As I type this, the computer clock in the bottom right hand corner tells me the time. My cell phone tells me the exact time it rings. My car tells me when I start it up and when I park it. The clock is everywhere.
So it's nice to see a collective effort take place which doesn't require a clock. In theory, a baseball game could go on until the End of Days. In theory, a team down by ten runs in the ninth inning could win, as it has all the time in the world to do so. Anything is possible, because there is always time to make it happen, unlike the real world of pressure deadlines and collective schedules. This is why baseball, despite constant predictions of imminent demise, thrives and will continue to thrive. It's a throwback to a time when effort dictated time, not the other way around. When we were freer, in this regard.
Which is why television is an insidious force for baseball. Teevee wants speed and a predictable time limit for scheduling. This smacks against one of baseball's great virtues. Yet teevee can and does dictate scheduling and rules changes in other sports. It would seem to be an inevitable force in baseball.
Fortunately, baseball just doesn't do as well on teevee. It's a radio sport. It works best as a companion in the background on a lazy afternoon or night, which you read, chat, and putter in the yard or around the garage. That's another thing I really like about the sport. I can do something else and enjoy it.
Basketball doesn't work at all on the tube; you have to see it to really understand what's going on. Football isn't quite as good on the radio, but doesn't work as well either. Besides, there are so few games that watching any game becomes an event. Football is much, much better on teevee. All the down time is conveniently and efficiently used for replays and analysis which makes the game seem a lot faster than it really is in person. Baseball and radio is a perfect match. The pace allows for more detailed description, and the storytelling which is as much a part of the game as pine tar. Former San Francisco Giants broadcaster Hank Greenwald hated doing teevee broadcasts. He prefers radio, he said, "Because the pictures are better."
So February moves along, a weird void in an armchair fan's life. Fortunately, it ends with the crack of the bat and the promise of spring. And this year, as every year, every fan knows that it's the year we go to the Series. We just feel it in the air.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
