Us vs. the Caliphate

President Bush sought Thursday to revive waning public support for the war in Iraq, accusing militants of seeking to establish a "radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia" with Iraq serving as the main front. Islamic radicals are being sheltered by "allies of convenience like Syria and Iran," Bush declared in a speech before the National Endowment for Democracy.

------------------------------

Yeah.

He’s so -cute- when he says stuff like this!

Let’s see, there’s one country in the Mideast run by theocrats relatively hostile to us, Iran. And the biggest threat to that rule is … other Iranians. The U.S. is apparently quite popular with the post-revolution generation, who have seized their own future and like Sharper Image catalogs as much as the Koran. Then there’s Syria, ooh, big, well, not –really-, bad, well, just sorta, Syria. Syria loves the Islamic jihad so much that the current ruler’s dad flattened an entire city to root ‘em out.

Yes, Saladin is rising again. Saladin was a Kurd like … our closest allies in Iraq, who have lived under a relatively democratic regime for over ten years. But he pitched his tent, so to speak, in Egypt, the heart of the Arab world … which has just seen its first, very loose, attempt at an open presidential election and promises of still more due to public pressure.

Seems to me as if the Jihad has to fit a lot of Arabs and Muslims before they can even think about taking us on. So where’s this “Islamic empire” going to take place?

In the minds of the president’s more simplistic supporters, who love the idea of modern Crusaders defending the cross against the infidels. Godless communism has thrown in the towel. You can’t holler about them any more. There’s no point looking under lefty Aunt Rosa’s bed for them anymore. So what’s a godly warrior to do?

Why, find other zealots willing and able to play the game, that’s what. People who worship the –wrong- God (although a deity who offers a paradise full of willing women can’t be all bad.) People who, unlike Commies who could look just like me or you, are different. Brown usually, with funny clothes. People you certainly don’t see in Birmingham, Alabama. And people willing to fly airplanes into buildings!! Great!! So what are we waiting for? This is the modern era. We don’t need a pope to call for a crusade. We’ve got Fox News and the Trinity Broadcasting Network. So everyone, pick up your pike and your halberd and let’s get going.

The Islamic terrorists are no threat to the continued existence of the US and the Western world. They’re not even much of a threat to the continued existence of Arab and Muslim states. As David Brooks noted in a recent article, the typical jihadist strikes a profile strikingly similar to young Marxist of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. They’re often the first generation of upwardly mobile families caught between feeling like they’ve moved past the old world but not quite comfortable in the new. As a result, they create a utopian ideal, a new norm, to live in.

A lot of the attraction, in my opinion, is built in the relatively vague aims of the jihad movement. There’s no twenty point plan for the brave new world. There’s just the Koran as they see it, and the promise of a happy life. In this sense it’s similar to the Nazis, who were also vague and drew people in because they promised action and a better life, not a debating society.

This isn’t a class of civilizations, or of religions. It’s growing pains. What we have called the Third World is growing up, and some of the teens are going through a standard find-myself rebellion. They’re just doing it with car bombs.

The answer is to continue to push for democratic and economic development, but allow the locals to set the pace and the agenda. One of the remarkable lessons of Iran is that when people seize control of their own destiny, they’re a lot more likely to make progressive choices than when it’s imposed on them (hence our struggle in Iraq). As one Iranian political leader said recently, “Time is on our side. After all, it took the West hundreds of years to get where it is. We’ve just had twenty.” Our best weapon against the jihadists over time is patience, and a gentle nudge from time to time.

Now will someone please tell our president? He’s just making himself look silly otherwise. Next thing you know, he'll be dressing himself up like Richard the Lionhearted. It's embarrassing.

Splish, Splash

It’s been a busy month. I’ve been organizing a Walk to School Week for my son’s school. I went to grade school in San Francisco, where we literally had to walk uphill both ways to get to school. My momma would have thought I was nuts to ask her to drive me to school. “Boy, you got feet!! What do you think God gave ‘em to you for?”, is what I’m sure she’d say. But today’s kids get personal chauffeur service to and from everywhere and have gotten fat and lazy. So some other parents and I are organizing events to lure them back on to the sidewalks for a healthy dose of fresh air and exercise to start the day. It’s been fun. But tiring.

But the really tiring thing has been learning how to swim. Yep, at the ripe old age of 47 I’ve finally learned how to boogie across the pool.

Part of it is long-deferred desire. A lot more is having a second-grader son who was splashing water on me in the pool and then paddling to the other side, laughing. Oh, such fun it was when I shot back after him a couple of weeks ago!! He liked it. He’s now got Daddy as pool buddy in addition to playground buddy, ballgame buddy and hide-and-seek buddy.

Perhaps the biggest incentive was fear of not being able to hop into the pool or river and save my son’s life without risking my own. That was the motivator of motivators.

So now that I know how, I feel stupid for all the years I didn’t. I literally learned within a week. On Monday I would sink to the bottom of the pool. By Friday I could scoot across with little difficulty. (Gotta watch the feet, keep ‘em –straight-!) In the past, I tried to learn it on the cheap. I took a college course, and then last year a Parks and Rec course. In both cases, it was “hold on to the side and kick.” Did nothing.

Grown-ups who can’t swim have two stunning fears. One is sinking, of not feeling solid surface under our feet. The other is dunking our head under the water. Seems, like, -dangerous- or something. That’s why my momma wouldn’t let me learn when I was a kid. I wanted to go to the local pool and learn. No, she said, you can’t get in the pool because you don’t know how to swim. Gee, Ma, I think I need to do that to –learn- how to swim. Momma never learned to swim herself and was absolutely terrified of drowning. So I didn’t learn.

(San Francisco high school graduation requirements at the time included knowing how to swim. My swim class teacher couldn’t believe I didn’t already know how and told me to stand by the pool until she could figure out what to do with me. After a couple of days of this, I skipped class and spent the time reading the Foundation and Empire sci-fi trilogy.)

My son could swim when he was five. He’s always loved water and my wife is a good swimmer, so he learned by watching and doing at an age when he doesn’t overthink it all.

So, on a lark as I passed by a local swim school in August, I stopped, and signed up for professional lessons.

I hate spending money for nothing, so I knew that if I paid cash money, I’d learn. I also needed –individual- lessons. I needed someone to sit there, push me, direct me and get my head under water.

It worked. Now, I love swimming. It’s fantastic exercise. It’s a social thang, especially here in toasty summered Sacramento. There were warm days through September where I could douse myself in the local homeowners association pool. Now that the days are cooling, I’ve just gotta find an indoor pool to play in. Besides, it’s a great way to get Leroy to behave. During the summer, all we have to say is “No pool!” to get him to straighten up and fly right.

The oddest part has been the lukewarm congratulations of the grown folks around me. It’s been, “oh, that’s nice …”. I was expecting huzzahs and backslaps. But I guess when you’re finally learned something a lot of second graders can do, it’s really much of a victory. But I’ll declare victory anyway. It was my war, so if I say I’ve won, I’ve won. So there.

Po' Folks

The question of the hour right after Katrina hit was, “Why didn’t they (po’ folks) just leave?” The silly people, a.k.a. conservative commentators, said it was because they’ve been all welfared out and just expect the govt to take care of them. Makes sense. Why ask local, state and federal disaster officials to have a good plan and put it into action when needed? I guess if we do that, then the terrorists win. I dunno.

Anyway, it’s not as easy for poor folks to jump up and leave as it is for the more bourgeois among us. For one, they have no money.

Not just from being poor. From living in a cash economy. Most of the folks who read blogs on the Internet have debit and credit cards in their pockets. They can pick up, go a hundred miles and have the same access to cash and credit as if they were down at the local strip mall. Poorer folks don’t have that luxury. There are precious few banks on the other side of the tracks. From my experience working in the East Oakland ‘hood for a time, whole generations come and go with only the thinnest idea of what a checking and savings account are, and offer. Paychecks are cashed at local stores or check chasing outlets, where one can usually pay utilities too. The rest goes in the pocket to pay for groceries and household needs.

There is also a huge underground cash economy, from casual labor to hair care to babysitting. Leave and you potentially leave this behind.

So the choice is: leave, and find yourself in a strange place without dime one, or, stay, and run the risk of damage and injury but at stay close to the resource base you know. Being reasonable people, many chose the latter. Is it surprising?

Spin City

One of most interesting things I've read recently is a missive by conservative iconoclast Paul Weyrich on why he supports public transit.

It's an odd thing to see at first. Public transit is supposed to be the darling of kill-your-car hairy legged tree huggers. Car travel represent the American Dream, the thrill of independence and individuality, rock-solid conservatives values. So what's a conservative doing supporting public transit?

Morals, is the answer. Back in the Goode Olde Dayes, Weyrich says, people behaved themselves because they worried about what others might think. Pre-marital sex and pregnancy? For shame! Going to the prom with someone of the same sex? What will the neighbors think? Lyin', stealin', cheatin' at cards, one just couldn't live it down. Our obsession with car travel has moved us away from all that, he says. We jump in cars in garages attached to our homes and drive off without ever seeing or talking to a neighbor. As a result, the social brakes on what he considers to be immoral behavior is lost.

Progressives talk a lot about lost community. You find a lot in urban areas because they like walking on the street on sunny days and warm evenings, and sidewalk cafes. Our community design and subsidization of car travel takes us away from that. Weyrich agrees.

Democrats' biggest frustration is that polls show that most Americans agree with them on many issues. So why doesn't that translate into more success at the polls? Because the GOP is simply better at "framing" the issues.

Dems and liberals are generally wonks, people who think and speak in terms of fourteen point position papers, not broad strokes and definitions. "I believe in God, family and country!!" (implying the opposition doesn't), says the GOP apparatchik. Dem candidates and electeds sputter that they like those too, and that they, well, just sorta believe that, you know, schools are good too. No matter what plan comes after, the argument's already been lost. They get in first and define the question, and Dems have been terrible at either redefining or getting there first themselves.

But the times may be changing. I think we're seeing some of it at work with the Roberts nomination.

Roberts is a good nominee. I'd naturally prefer someone with a nice liberal bent but so far I haven't heard anything which justifies keeping him off the court. He's said the right things about the right to privacy, while still holding enough conservative credentials to keep the nutcases happy, enough. I think this is due to the "nuclear option" accord some months ago. It forced the Bush administration to find and nominate a relatively reasonable candidate. And that came about because Senate Dems, normally the most moderate of the party's electeds, wisely framed the issue.

According to an interesting article, the Dems found that accusing the GOP of trying to push a rightwing agenda didn't fare well as an argument against Frist's threat to end the filibuster. People expect legislators to work for their political ends, big deal.

What they didn't like was changing long-standing and time-honored constitutional rules. It framed the GOP as the crazy radicals and the Dems as the defenders of truth, justice and the American Way. The GOP settled for a draw, and the Roberts nomination resulted.

The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina offers Democrats another chance to reshape a clearly flawed policy, if the problem is correctly defined. Stay tuned.

Labor Day

Ran into an interesting piece in, of all places, USA Today. It described how the labor movement is changing tactics to fight off Wal-Mart anti-unionization and help workers gain a better life.

Instead of going through the long battle for union certification and the rest, they're organizing worker "associations", simply voluntary groups which allow workers to meet, plan and lobby for better pay and working conditions. By casting themselves as consultants as well as organizers, the movement can do a lot more for workers with less.

The American labor movement has never been the equal of its European counterparts. It's never been able to organize anything close to a Labor Party. A lot of this is due to the nature of the American worker and society.

Every Saturday night as a kid I'd take my bath, then turn on the "Flintstones", a nice cartoon blend of "The Honeymooners" and "The Life of Reilly." Fred was a blue-collar guy, moving rocks for a living. But he lived a middle class life. His wife didn't work and loved her credit cards, and Fred pulled into a nice bungalow with garage at the end of every work day. This was and is the image of the workingman (and woman). It's a pretty bourgeois life.

As a result, the American worker has generally considered himself or herself one of the owning class. This has been propelled by the fact that workers nowadays often own and direct part of their own retirement plans through 401(k)'s and the life, and the shift away from manufacturing to office work, even for the grunts. Son and daughter at the tech firm may earn proportionately less than Dad did at the car plant, but they wear business clothes to work, can manage their portfolio from their desk over lunch and don't have to get their hands dirty at work. They think they're even better off.

So the challenge for the labor movement is to recast itself from class warriors to business consultants. It isn't the shop floor vs. the big office. It's working on behalf of your retirement investments, your health coverage and leave policy, as a matter of business. No more firebreathing union meetings. You want a better deal? Get some of the officemates together and we'll meet after work. After all, with no health care policy to rely on, Social Security under fire and the high cost of a tank of gas, you gotta know where and how to cut the best deal with your boss. And labor is here to help.

Welfare Reform = Socialized Medicine

Again, one of my favorite themes in politics is the unintended consequence.

It turns out that Medicaid is being turned into the nation's health care safety net for the working poor as a conscious effort to help folks stay off the welfare rolls.

The full story here:

It makes sense, and amazingly, the Republicans have been both practical and thoughtful. As one said, "The original sin of social policy was tying Medicaid directly to welfare. Now, it's tied to working." In short, it's a needed net for people who are already at the tipping point regarding work and paying the bills.

Of course, the GOP can't take credit for it because they're trapped in their antediluvian mindset that anything from the government is tainted beyond belief, so I will hereby crow that the Democrats are completely responsible for this bold and far-sighted initiative and dare the GOP to disagree.

Many have written and said that the answer to the uncovered was just expand Medicare. Why reinvent the wheel when we've already got the system and the business model in place.

Thanks again, to our great and glorious former President Clinton, who succeeded in ending "welfare as we know it." He'd have known how to handle the New Orleans flood. After all, Louisiana voted for him.

Print vs. Video

Like most people, I've been glued to the new media for updates on the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Unlike a lot of people, most of this was radio, print and Internet reporting. I missed the teevee coverage.

So I was pretty surprised to find that the "big" story for several days on teevee was the looting of what remains of New Orleans. Young Negroes scurrying around with items which didn't originally belong to them, acting like, well, like most young men in the aftermath of a disaster. This seemed to be the dominant theme for a couple of days. Teevee viewers shook their heads, tut-tutted and said to themselves, "They don't make much of a case for helping them. Where's the charity, the neighborliness, the warm, fuzzy stories of people helping people we need in these times?"

They were all over the print, radio and Internet. I read them and was amazed at how many children seemed to rise to the occasion. One story told of a boy who pulled his family members who couldn't swim to safety as the house was flooded. Another told of a six-year-old boy who had six or seven smaller children in tow, leading them to safety without adult supervision. These stories were all over print, radio and Internet sources.

Someone once said they preferred radio over television because the pictures were better. With teevee, you need immediacy. You need, "here's a picture of what's happening now" to make it sell. But rescue stories generally come out well after they're reported. They read well, but they don't look good enough, often a static interview, which just can't compare to the naked visual of people running rampant.

Radio and print, in comparison, can draw complex pictures, and tie together disparate images. They can tell more, and in more varied ways. That's where the news is. But in times of trouble, the tendency is to run to the tube and see what's happening, even though it really isn't. We feel more connected when we see pictures. But it's not the news.

So middle America ends up with this weird distorted vision of what really happened in and around New Orleans. Eventually, the whole truth will come out. Fortunately, there's NPR, New York Times, Washington Post, New Orleans Times-Picayune and the rest of the real media to tell the tale.

The Big (Not So) Easy

Anonymous said...
I've perused your site and seem to have a similar opinion of most topics...but, having grown up on the Texas coast, I supposed I have a different point of view about living in hurrican alley versus the earthquake zone. Both frighten me...have done for my 51 years. Having dealt with one devasting hurricane as a high schooler, I now know that I would high-tail it out of town if I lived anywhere near a prospective strike point for a hurricane. Not sure just how to do that for an earthquake. Would enjoy your comments about my blog, www.musingsfrommyopia.blogspot.com

----------------------------------------

Like your blog. Interesting comments about New Orleans, whether it never should have been built there in the first place. I've been to the Big Easy, and there's definitely something weird about walking uphill to see a riverbank.

Still, people and particularly Americans are a hard-headed and persistent bunch. I suspect the city and surrounding area will be rebuilt simply to prove the point to Mother Nature.

It seems so sudden. After a seemingly endless line of hurricanes earlier in the year, this one seemed a yawner until it hit land. I can't imagine being crushed by a wall of water.

I live in a former flood plain near the confluence of the Sacramento and American Rivers. I have flood insurance even though my lender didn't require it. I feel safe and secure behind the levees. My wife points to the CNN feed from the Gulf States and says, "aren't you glad we got the rider?"

Again, that's why I prefer earthquakes as my instrument of doom. They come, do their stuff and leave. You can also defend against them. When the '89 quake hit San Francisco, the only part of the city which failed was the neighborhood built on the mushy landfill from the 1915 World's Fair. The Oakland freeway fell for a similar reason. The big buildings stayed up, because they're designed to roll with the punches. I worked as a night watchman at a downtown construction dig during college and the architect showed me how he literally built the skyscraper to bounce and swap during a quake. You just can't do that with a hurricane. You're stuck.

Thought for the Day

With thought to California's pointless special election, called by the Governator for this November, where recent polling finds that both of his key ballot proposals are supported by just over thirty percent of the voters.

-------------------------------------

"In my lifetime, we've gone from Eisenhower to George W. Bush. We've gone from John F. Kennedy to Al Gore. If this is evolution, I believe that in twelve years, we'll be voting for plants."

- Lewis Black

The -True- Home of the Free

From a friend's story of his recent trip to British Columbia:

----------------------------------------------------------

Canadian law enforcement is going after an American member of the Marijuana Party, at the behest of the U.S. Gum'mint. More information here.

"Well, what the Canadians are pissed most about is that their cops are busting Canadians at the behest of the U.S. DEA ...".

"We were nervous, but dressed just like Vancouverites (imagine a giant Berkeley). If pressed, we said that no, we weren't Americans, we were from California."

There's a Stiff Wind A' Blowin'

From today's New York Times:

"I'm afraid this is the one we've dreaded. I don't think the scenario could be any worse for us."ROBERT R. LATHAM JR., director of Emergency Management Operations for Mississippi.

-------------------------------

As a native Californian who travels to and talks to the rest of the country for business, I'm constantly asked, "How do you people live with those earthquakes?"

My answer, "How do you live with those hurricanes (and tornadoes)?"

Response, "But we can see them coming!"

Counter-response, "Doesn't seem to do much good."

In 47 years of living in California, most of it in the Bay Area, I've rolled through two major shakes and any number of minor ones. Ain't no big. You roll with, pardon the pun. Since you -don't- have warning, you don't worry about it.

I can't imagine anything scarier than seeing a big. black twister barrelling toward you, or the wind picking up more and more speed as the hurricane descends. That's a living horror movie, where the monster/crazed maniac slowly sneaks up on the helpless victim, who can do nothing but think about the dismemberment to come.

Hurricanes come early and late, and seemingly quite often. You have "hurricane" season. Ever hear of "earthquake" season? There ain't one. There ain't even an earthquake decade.

Who foots the bill to rebuild every mosquito infested "Red state" after its monthly attack by Hurricane Kickass? Why, the Blue staters, of course, through the generosity of our contributions to the federal government. Third World economies in Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina certainly can't do it. Only the hard-working stiffs of the coastal and Northeastern states have that collective capability.

Perhaps we Blue staters should consider withholding our portion of the federal budget for this. After all, why should we subsidize their poor choice of where to live?

Failure -is- an option

Do a "Google" Web search on the word " Failure."

--------------------------

The second choice is perhaps the most misunderstood recent resident of the Big House. The third one is just there for political "cover thine ass" balance.

Roe vs. Wade meets Welfare Reform

One of the fun things about public policy are the unintended consequences we bring on ourselves.

Take abortion. For years, educated, professional women were the backbone of the pro-choice movement because they had the most to lose due to an unplanned pregnancy. When I was in college I knew several women who had terminated pregnancies (none due to me) because they had classes to attend, internships to accept, a future to build for. The female cadres of Operation Rescue yahoos were generally uneducated and less to lose through an unwanted pregnancy.

That's changed.

According to a recent report, the number of abortions performed has diminished considerably. That's good when it means that more men and women are using preventative measures, bad when it means there are no service providers about. In general, though, both sides agree that in a perfect world, there would be no abortions. Of course, that can't happen, so we need reproductive choice.

What's interesting is that even though the numbers have gone down, who is getting abortions has changed. With the passage of welfare reform and back-to-work and all for welfare mothers, more working class and less educated women are terminating unwanted pregnancies. For the same reasons my college acquaintances did. An unwanted pregnancy throws a serious curve into life plans. If the government wants 'em working, they'll work, by God. And no unwanted pregnancy will stop them.

So we have to thank the Republicans who worked with President Clinton to bring more women into the workforce, off welfare. As a result, we have even fewer unwanted children, too.

Time vs. Newsweek on Darwin

Time magazine recently featured the evolution wars. At the same time, Newsweek highlighted new research into infants' minds. It's too bad no one wrote about the connection between the two.

People are social creatures. We can't help it. It's why we survived millions of years being chased by beats on the savanna, and how we managed to have mastodon burgers for dinner. One guy couldn't fight off a sabertooth tiger or bring down a hairy elephant, but a bunch could. And did. And those who did lived to pass on the tendency to their survivors.

So the first thing any babe needs to do to survive is locate and connect with their caregivers. Those who do this well survive. Those who don't, don't. So the trait survives in the species. Evolution at work.

This is really obvious when you see infants at work. My son didn't mind being held by others as a baby. As long as I or his momma or aunt were nearby. He'd look up at the stranger holding him, then look over to make sure a familiar face was nearby, and he was fine. Just insuring his defense, if needed. Again, evolution at work. Those babes who didn't keep the first line of defense on hand didn't survive, and didn't pass it on.

After a time, my son started to squirm and cry in the stranger's arms. "He misses his dad", they'd say. "No, he's sleepy", I said. "Just watch." Sure, within minutes of coming back to me, he was sound asleep. "How'd you know that?", they'd ask. "Simple. Sleeping is when a child is most vulnerable. He might sit in a stranger's arms and be fine, but he'd be durned if he was dozing off with someone who might not rise to the occasion if a saber-toothed tiger threatens him. He'd cry if he woke up from a nap and didn't see anyone. All I had to do to calm him would call from the next room, to let him know his parents were near. He'd stop and start cooing. Didn't need to see us, just know that we were near in case the hyenas came along. Again ...

This isn't to say that we're just critters, or as some have said, "monkeys with car key." Alone of all the beasts on the Earth, people can wonder. We can look up at the sky and wonder where all the stars come from and what they do up there. Without scientific knowledge, people created astrology, because we knew there had to be a reason for all that up there.

And the universe, through whatever agency, had to create people. After all, why have such endless splendor if there were no one around to wonder about it all? It would be highly illogical, to quote a well-known Vulcan, for it be otherwise.

Swimming with Sharks

The Tennessean reports that Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., “accuses Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of betraying him during a GOP revolt in a new, tell-all biography that expresses little remorse for the racially tinged remarks that led to Lott’s loss of power and Frist’s ascension.

In ‘Herding Cats: A Life in Politics,’ available in bookstores Aug. 23,” Lott “blames the media and a handful of his GOP colleagues for the loss of his Senate leadership job in December 2002.” Lott writes that ‘“I consider Frist’s power grab a personal betrayal,’” because ‘“When he entered the Senate in 1995, I had taken him under my wing. ... He was my protege and I helped him get plum assignments and committee positions.’”

--------------------------------------------

My momma would say:

"You swim with sharks, you get bitten."

"You're known by the company you keep."

But perhaps Honest Abe (the last honest Republican) said it best:

"Character is like a tree and reputation like its shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing."

G.O.P. Spells "Pork"

From the Washington Post:

"If you look at fiscal conservatism these days, it's in a sorry state," said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), one of only eight House members to vote against the $286.5 billion transportation bill that was passed the day before the recess. "Republicans don't even pretend anymore."

Last week, Congress approved transportation and energy bills that burst through the president's cost limits. Annual spending bills are inching above caps set by Congress itself in its budget plan for 2006. And a massive water projects bill passed by the House last month authorizes spending that would exceed current levels by 173 percent.

Lawmakers have seen little to fear from a political backlash, some acknowledge, and Bush has yet to wield his veto pen. In fact, the White House has proved itself largely unable to overcome the institutional forces that have long driven lawmakers to ply their parochial interests with cash.

Indeed, Congress has exceeded the allocations or assumptions in its budget resolution four times -- and the year's legislative work is far from complete. According to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, those budget violations have raised spending through 2010 by roughly $2.2 billion above Congress's limits and tacked $115 billion onto the federal budget deficit through the end of decade, including $33 billion in 2006 alone.

When lawmakers return in the fall, they are almost certain to vote for more tax cuts. They also will vote on a huge new defense spending bill. But proposals for cutting entitlement programs including Medicaid have yet to pick up much support.

This week, House GOP leaders sent their legislators 52 pages of talking points, some addressing fiscal discipline, others touting the spending. The final page lays out 12 "Ideas for August Recess Events," none of which trumpets small government.

"You have to be courageous to not spend money," said Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), "and we don't have many people who have that courage."

------------------------------------------------

"Do as I do, not as I say", the wise men advise. Now, when the Democrats take back Congress, we won't have to listen to all that "tax and spend" nonsense. Proof's in the pudding that, like many revolutionaries, the problem the GOP wasn't a matter of principle, it just a matter of power. Spending like a German tourist in Bangkok is just fine when you're the one doing it.

Now that they have the keys to the national safe, well, they're true to form. It's just one corporate welfare bill after another. While "welfare momma" is told to get her lazy butt down to Wal-Mart or starve, Halliburton gets license to spend whatever and whenever in Iraq. And if we don't pay up, well, the good people of Iraq will have to, according to Donald Rumsfeld, although they never had any say in turning over their hard-earneds to Cheney's boys in the first place. Haven't you Americans ever heard of "No taxation without representation?" they must wonder.

Then there's the energy bill, which gives fat energy companies gazillions in tax breaks because the free market rise in energy prices just ain't good enough. Since that money that's not going into the federal treasury will have to be made up by borrowing and borrowing and borrowing, it's a backdoor subsidy without the efficiency of just handing them the money directly.

Then there's the prescription discount for seniors. Ridiculously pricey because the government can't haggle for bulk rates under the law. You know, like a business would. (Whatever happened to "running government like a business?")

The economic cost of this will be felt for years to come. LBJ tried to run a cosmetics-and-cannon fiscal policy during the Vietnam year and we paid for it with 1970's "stagflation." Bush, Jr.'s borrowing and borrowing and borrowing, in good part on an equally pointless war, certainly risks the same. If we're "at war", where's the call for sacrifice? Americans willingly paid an extra charge on plane tickets for airport and related security. Where are the Iraq war bonds? Where's the call to duty on foreign shores and deserts?

Nowhere. The result is spend on useless armaments for a war with no reasonable goal and domestic transfers like energy and prescription drugs which could be left to the market or direct government subsidy. It's nothing for nothing, and we're all going to pay for it.

I believe most Americans want their government to take in and spend the way they do, take in what goes out, with credit used for long term and/or extraordinary expenses. The Dems need to remind folks that "tax and spend" is a problem when spend exceeds tax for no reason, and when spend is spent on stupid stuff, like corporate giveaways instead of Humvee armor.

Who would have thought that one of George Bush, Jr.'s legacies would be to turn the Democratic Party into the land of fiscal responsibility? Perhaps we should erect an inexpensive statue in his honor outside DNC HQ in 2009. It is, indeed, a pretty fundamental realignment and he should be. Something made of tin, several statues, with George taking a hammer to a child's piggy bank while a much bigger pig labeled "Greed, Inc." stands by waiting for the result, ought to do nicely.

Preschool Enters the 21st Century ... finally

Sacramento's known for its toasty summers, but the afternoon was quite pleasant in the (dry) high '80s when I picked up Leroy from his afternoon daycare. I chatted with his teachers and some of his friends, and we left for home.

Leroy's been attending his particular daycare for two years now. He started when he began kindergarten. The daycare program is on-site, which meant that he simply had to go from class across a short yard to aftercare. As he was still on the school grounds, he could eat in the school cafeteria.

The program works under contract with the school district. This means it's subsidized in part. The rates are a hundred dollars a month less than local private care. Best of all, the staff gets paid a decent wage, with benefits. As a result, they stay. His private daycare, before he started school, attracted decent enough staff but many of them were in life transition. The young ones were working before or right after college. The older ones were often just working to get out of the house. There was easily about a fifty percent turnover each year, and the owner bemoaned how hard it was to get folks to stay for longer than two years.

There's a long argument wracking Congress over how to re-authorize the welfare bill. Part of it deals with how to fund daycare for workers going back in to the workforce.

The rightwingers want to limit it. The sensible people realize that a worker who can't pay for daycare won't be a worker much longer. The rightwingers don't like the idea of mommy not playing "Donna Reed" like the "good old days." The sensible people realize that that was then, this is now, the time of the two-income couple and single moms.

So we need universal daycare. The arguments against it are pretty much the ones heard 150 years ago when universal public education was first proposed. "Why is some other kid -my- responsibility?" Because when every child is educated, and comes into school well-attended and prepared, we all do better.

It's really just an extension of the universal public education, given what we demand out of kids today.

Kindergarten was developed on the idea of giving kids some prep on the basics of sitting in class. That's been done away with. Today's kindergarteners get homework. It's really not kindergarten anymore, it's pre-first grade. Preschool/childcare has become what kindergarten used to be. We need to finally accept that.

Like most good progressive ideas, this is built on enlightened self-interest.

Like public education, it will come. And it will come because business will insist on it. Just as the economic interests understood the need for an educated workforce 150 years ago, so they'll come to see the value of kids coming into school well-prepared. They'll also see the value of workers who aren't juggling home and family care as much. I know from my own experience and that of my co-workers with kids, you're a lot more focused when you know your young 'un is well-cared for while you're at the office. Many business benefit packages already offer childcare reimbursement as part of pre-tax benefits.

They'll come 'round. You can't outsource everything. Some economics are predicting another coming labor shortage, which puts employees back in the driver's seat, as it did with health care during the Clinton Prosperity of the '90s. Little Jane and Johnnie will like that.

For an interesting brief on the need for universal pre-school:

http://readysetgrowctkids.org/press_article_35.html

Family Values

July 29, 2005
French Family Values
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Americans tend to believe that we do everything better than anyone else. That belief makes it hard for us to learn from others. For example, I've found that many people refuse to believe that Europe has anything to teach us about health care policy. After all, they say, how can Europeans be good at health care when their economies are such failures?

Now, there's no reason a country can't have both an excellent health care system and a troubled economy (or vice versa). But are European economies really doing that badly?

The answer is no. Americans are doing a lot of strutting these days, but a head-to-head comparison between the economies of the United States and Europe - France, in particular - shows that the big difference is in priorities, not performance. We're talking about two highly productive societies that have made a different tradeoff between work and family time. And there's a lot to be said for the French choice.

First things first: given all the bad-mouthing the French receive, you may be surprised that I describe their society as "productive." Yet according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, productivity in France - G.D.P. per hour worked - is actually a bit higher than in the United States.

It's true that France's G.D.P. per person is well below that of the United States. But that's because French workers spend more time with their families.

---------------------------------------------

Nothing highlights social conservatives' hypocrisy than the fact that they beat the drum for "family values" yet refuse to support or outright oppose policies which actually support families.

The U.S. has by far the least modern approach to reconciling work and family life. We allow little maternity leave or time for family. Want to have a baby? Sure, just be back at the desk in a couple of months, eh? Got to take time for a sick spouse or family member? Fine, but get back soon or your job belongs to someone else. We're not here to help you work through your life, kid. In other words, choose between taking care of your family's financial health or physical and emotional health. You can't do both. So many people don't. And they end up criticized for it.

Business screams that it's not fair for them to foot the bill. Yet Europe shows that when the cost is mandated across the field, it levels it. The result is a happier and healthier workforce, and more cohesive families. Which is what the social conservatives want, isn't it?

This contradiction points out just how far the social conservatives are well-used by corporate interests. In return for gobs of cash to push antediluvian social policies, they get thousands of earnest ground pounders who buy the "anti-everything" (except expensive tax breaks) line. It's a happy marriage, pun intended, which undermines adopting and implementing true pro-family policies.

It's so sad. I wonder what Jesus would say about expanded family leave? He'd probably think it's a good idea.

God vs. Darwin (another reply)

Joe Ebola said...
What I can never wrap my head around is the total lack of any scientific evidence for creation. The fundamentalist Christians call it "intelligent design" and try to have it taught alongside evolution in schools because they believe there are gaps in the scientific evidence of evolution. But they offer absolutely no evidence for ID. All they have is their faith. I can respect that, I don't bedgrudge them their faith, but it certainly shouldn't be taught in public schools. I understand the need to that mankind is special, but all the evidence points to us being talking apes.

-----------------------

This is my frustration with the anti-Darwin side. Because their view is wholly based on faith, they immediately assume every counterveiling is the same. They don't take time to understand the science.

It’s a clever device, in that when one can’t argue the scientific point, all that’s left is to insist it’s all a theological discussion, which requires equal time for all sides.

Your point about "talking apes" is what fuels a lot of this. If there is no guiding force, then we really might not be a divine creation's best work. And, it their view, it justifies people acting like "animals." They don't like where they think the theory takes them, so they reject the theory itself. Despite all the evidence in favor of it.

God vs. Darwin (reply)

Herminio Hernandez, Jr. said...
ok, evolution is not random, but is developed by the natural world. so are you saying that nature has a will, that it guides and control the course of the universe? is nature personal? what is nature? is it soly material? there are a whole range questions that you just glossed over. to just write off the christian understanding of evolution like that i find quite surprising.

--------------------------------------------------------------

The question is whether or not nature requires an external motive force to kick it into gear. Could be, but that’s impossible to prove empirically. Faith says it does. Science says maybe, maybe not, we can’t say. All we can do is observe. That’s why the results of our observation is given to teachers to describe, the why of that why is given to theologians to ponder and discuss.

Evolution, from my good understanding of the science and all, is simply an explanation of the observable process of how life develops. Change the landscape, and you change life, because life has an inherent insistence on adapting and diversifying as way to maintain itself. Even death has a vital role here. Genetic changes are incorporated into new life as the "older" models die off. In a prior post I noted that I don't see evolution and divine creation as inherently incompatible, as many theologians seem to.

Some folks, including physicists who understand the minute dynamics of physical reality better than we do, posit the idea of the Watchmaker, where the creative force sets the universe into motion under clear and observable physical rules. Another friend calls it the NFL Commissioner approach to managing reality. “Here’s the playing field, the universe, these are the rules it runs by.” Evolution, in this view, is simply the system in operation.

What is the “Christian view of evolution” to you? Does it incorporate the theory in any way?

Darwin vs. the Pope

July 9, 2005

Leading Cardinal Redefines Church's View on Evolution
by CORNELIA DEAN and LAURIE GOODSTEIN

An influential cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church, which has long been regarded as an ally of the theory of evolution, is now suggesting that belief in evolution as accepted by science today may be incompatible with Catholic faith. The cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, archbishop of Vienna, a theologian who is close to Pope Benedict XVI, staked out his position in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on Thursday, writing, "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not."

----------------------------------------------------------

One of the things which drives me nuts about the constant war conservative Christian belief has with Darwin is that the conservative Christians don't bother to take the time to actually -study- what Darwin actually began.

Evolution is not "random." It simply holds that life develops and is shaped by the natural world around it. Mammals rose in good part because a comet cleared out the dinosaurs. (And the dinosaurs, apparently, benefitted from earlier mass extinctions which cleared the road for them.) If not, who knows, intelligent reptilian religious thinkers today might be sneering at the idea that we all came from dinosaurs instead of apes. Yet, Darwin critics can't grasp this.

Part of the problem is that organized religions have a poor sense of time regarding the physical universe. This isn't surprising if all you rely on is the Book of Genesis. Man jumps into the universe soon after its built. The implication being that the universe was created primarily to house humanity. So, the rest of natural universe's life, say, four billion years or so, is dispensed with. It's hard to grasp the thousands and millions of years life has developed over the Earth while adapting to changing circumstances if you're looking at the world's life through the lens of a couple of thousand years after the Explusion as your general yardstick.

What's long bugged organized religion about evolution is that it implies that we're all "animals", not God's prime creation. But even a cursory look reveals that we're beasts of the field. We're built the same way as the critters, breath the same air and reproduce like they do. What's specifically different is our apparent sense of and level of individual consciousness. So why couldn't a Spirit fit in there too? A container doesn't have to specifically define what it contains, does it? Just because our physical selves eat salmon like a forest bear means our mind and soul has to be "bearish" too.

Understanding our animal nature helps explains us to ourselves, too. A lot of the (generally) ridiculous works on parenting emphasizes how damaging it is for children to want to sleep with their parents. But it's quite natural for children to want this. As vulnerable young, they have a "natural" inclination to be in a safe place when they sleep, and the young of almost every critter knows that place is with momma or the nest.

Heck, when babes are born they've proven to have an instinctive recognition of the human face. Makes sense. New born ducklings head toward the first big moving thing they see, usually Momma Duck. Any new born has to make immediate connection with its caregiver or it's not surviving. Needless to say, over the millennia, the ones who make this connection survive, and pass it on to their kids. Evolution in action every day a baby is born.

The most frustrating thing about the Catholic Church getting involved in this is all the time and energy it'll waste fussing over nothing. With war, famine and environmental destruction hanging over the Third World, where most of its new converts are, you'd think they'd focus on something more relevant to its members. But I guess that's why you bring in a German to run things. If you want to establish order and re-fight the mythical past, you bring in the experts.

Your Thought for the Day - updated

"Other than telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, now, die, I think the Republicans have done a fine job of getting government out of our personal lives."

- Editorial Page, Sunday Portland Oregonian

--------------------------------------------

This is where the new Christian social conservative types turn traditional Republican doctrine on its butt. They say they want limited government, but what they leave standing after they destroy everything else is completed directed toward telling how people should be running their lives. It's really a theocratic form of social engineering. Whereas conservatives used to pound on liberals for trying to use public policy to recast personal behavior, the right wing Christian types are up to the same trick, using the power of the state to push everyone into a pew.

This is why they hate the Islamist jihadists so much. They know exactly what the jihadists have in mind, because they see it in the mirror every day.

(Non) Idiot Dad

From June 22,2005

Idiot Dad
So the poor kid who was lost in Utah has his dad to blame him for being lost for so long. Idiot dad. Dad told son not to talk to strangers, because they'd carry him off.

--------------------------------

Fortunutely, I didn't teach my son such foolishness.

The family spent about two weeks earlier this summer travelling around the West, through Nevada and Idaho to Glacier National Park, then down through Yellowstone to my brother's weekend getaway on Bear Lake on the Utah/Idaho border, then back through the Bonneville Salt Flats back home. It was great fun. Folk can read all about it here:

http://mercerpreston.blogspot.com

We had the rented van 'til a few days after the trip, in part due to midcourse correction on the trip which shorted it a day, and because we wanted to use it to carry bookshelves and other stuff back from the Ikea furniture store near Berkeley. So we decided to spend a day and a half at Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk, then back up to Ikea on the way home. It was triple digits here in Sacramento, so the cooling shoreside relief was mighty welcome.

Santa Cruz beach is big. And fun. So much fun that Leroy got separated from us while we romped around like maniacs. After a brief search, we contacted the nearest lifeguard tower and told him our son was missing. "You must be Leroy's parents", the guard said nonchalantly. "He's at Tower 3. We'll drive him back."

Turned out that once Leroy realized he'd gotten separated, he looked around briefly, then went up to the lifeguard tower and turned himself in. He gave some pretty detailed descriptions too. The lifeguard laughed as he drove up, telling Alice, "So you're a teacher, huh?" When asked to describe us, Leroy replied, "They wear glasses!"

Moral to the story: is that if I were one of those weirdos who told my son never to talk to anyone he doesn't know, he wouldn't known to go to the lifeguard tower, which returned him to us will little muss or fuss, just a bit of worry. We train our six-year-old with happy feet where to go for help if he needs it. As a result, he's less likely to be carried off by weirdos and Gypsies. And we won't run from people looking for him on the trail.

This is probably the biggest thing we gain from relying on fair and balanced NPR instead of Fox40 for our news. We can see the world as it truly is. Full of more people who want to help than hurt, and to help our son use this fact when he needs to. I'm a good daddy.

Urban Renewal - 2005

Stuart Sibley wrote:
We agree, Terry. I think it is a good idea to move the poor out and give their land to rich corporations for the benefit of shareholders. This ia a very Republican idea, if you believe Kerry. Who needs urban blight?

-----------------------

Or suburban sprawl. That's just one of the benefits of this ruling.

The law has always stated that anyone who loses their property through eminent domain receive market compensation for the loss. So while one may lose land, one isn't losing one's wealth.

As for the benefits, the poor overall will be better off. The whole point of the case in question was whether the city could use redevelopment and eminent domain in this way to help grow the city's tax base. A sound capitalist approach is to encourage private capital to invest, wouldn't you say? A new mall brings in higher property, sales and other taxes, making it easier to pay for public services for all.

See? Welfare mommas still make out under this ruling. The rich get richer and poor get more welfare. Everyone's happy. How can any thinking American be against this?

"This land is your land, this land is my land ...!"

stuart sibley said...
Would you care to comment on the liberal Supreme Court's decision on eminent domain? While you were busy accusing the Rep party of being in the pocket of big business, your lib buddies just sold your property to Pfizer.

--------------------------------

I think it's a fantastic decision.

First, as George Will wrote, the decision kinda shows conservatives that a little judicial activism is a good thing. For years, the right wing has been hollering that courts need to step back and let legislatures define all legal meaning, with courts properly deferring to whatever interpretation they come up with. If people don't like their definitions, toss 'em out and vote new legislators in.

Well, the court in this case agreed. It allowed legislatures to define "public purpose" themselves and act accordingly, through the power of eminent domain. Sometimes, Stuart, you gotta be careful what you ask for.

It's a fine ruling in practical terms too.

Our glorious nation suffers sprawl in part because of all the work it takes to rebuild our core cities and older suburbs. Having spent time in local politics in Oakland, California before moving to Sacramento, I know how hard it is to redevelop an urban core. You can't rebuild without moving something out, and that's hard. It's expensive, complex and a disincentive for businesses to work through. That process has potentially gotten a lot easier with this ruling.

Development and redevelopment has always been an intense political issue. The court noted that this ruling could give the richer and more powerful more say in getting private land repurposed for them.

But business has generally seen it the other way around. The planning process as it stands is intensely procedural. Any developer or business owner has a couple of horror stories to tell.

Here in Sacramento we just hosted the 2005 Triple A All-Star Game at beautiful Raley Field. But it was a nightmare to get the park built. Lawsuits and reviews and reviews of the reviews came up and came up again. There are whole tribes of lawyers who live just to work in this field of policy. Some decisions, like a recent rejection of a Walmart store by referendum in a depressed Southern California city, show that the people can speak when the policymakers can't or won't.

The court majority in this case trusts democracy to work. Too bad many conservatives can't.

Flag Burning - Symbolic Speech

DHGulley said...
Define "Symbolic Speech" for me, Terry

-----------------------------------------

Oh, leafleting, picketing, demonstrating, things like that. There are a lot of ways to make one's opinions known besides letters to the editor.

Sometimes you need a visual device to get your point across. Burning a flag as part of a demonstration is one way to do it, and as long as it's not violating local fire ordinances, it oughta be protected. The anti-reproductive choice crowd likes to use pictures of fetuses. That's symbolic speech too. If Congress can regulate flags, what stops them from regulating pictures some might object too, hmm? The socialist conservatives need to think about that.

I use the term "socialist" conservative here because I've realized that's pretty much what the social conservatives are, folks who want everyone around them to walk in the same lockstep, much like the Commies did. I'm using it from now on, and I'm applying for a copyright.

That's what "freedom" is son, the duty to protect others when they do things you think are silly, as long as they're not hurting anyone doing it. Like flag burning.

It's great to live in a free country. I hope Mr. Bush remembers this when he makes his Supreme Court pick. The Dems certainly will, which is why they're my boys and girls.

Flag Burning

So the GOP, in its current crusade to avoid its bitter defeat on Social Security, military and political doldrums in Iraq and their president's declining popularity, now want to save Old Glory from the torch. I guess symbolic victories are better than nothing.

It is, of course, a stupid idea, for a number of good reasons.

Flag burning is a matter of free speech. If we allow this, then it will open the door to other restrictions on symbolic speech. The GOP needs to think about this. What happens when those darn liberal Democrats return to power and call for a constitutional amendment for symbols they don't like? Bye bye, Washington "Redskins".

Most flags are private property. It's not our flag if I buy it, it's mine because I own it. If I wish to burn it, it should be within my property rights, as a good American, to do what I will with my property as long as no one else is harmed.

Finally, if the GOP stops to think about it, the amendment will just encourage more flag burning because protestors will get a symbolic arrest on top of the symbolic burning.

Word on the street is that this thing might actually pass the Senate this time. As a good Democrat, I suppose the good in this is that it means the GOP's not winning anything anywhere else if they're desperate enough to bother with this. So maybe there's hope for the Republic yet.

Idiot Dad

So the poor kid who was lost in Utah has his dad to blame him for being lost for so long. Idiot dad.

Dad told son not to talk to strangers, because they'd carry him off. Unfortunately, he didn't train enough common sense or basic knowledge into the kid to let him see that the odds of weirdos hiding behind bushes to carry you off to sin and depravity are pretty slim up there in the Utah outback. (Unless you hit some crazy bad of polygamists.)

So dad would rather his son die of exposure or starvation than talk to some hairy legged hiker on a back trail. I guess this is why families move to Utah. So their kids are safe.

I'll stay here in the blue states, thank you. Where it's safe to let your kid know to go for help when they need it.

Be-Coz ...

stuart sibley said...
Oh, how embarrassing. Did you think I was referring to Black folk when I said "shiftless, lazy"? No no. There is no white conspiracy. I'm horrified to learn of this black-on-white conspiracy that Coz speeks of. You people should be ashamed.

----------------------------------------------

Of course there's a white conspiracy. It's well documented. The president of the United States is white. The chairman of the Federal Reserve is white. Bill Gates is white.

'Nuff said. Heck, you wouldn't be denying it if it weren't true.

Flag Day

With Flag Day just behind us, it's time to look at patriotism.

Or more specifically, the Patriot Act.

As a long-time library booster I'm pleased to see that House Republicans of all people have agreed that allowing the feds power to root through my library checkout record without cause or oversight is just ... un-American. The national librarians' group and the ACLU had been fighting this for years, and when right wing Neanderthal Bob Barr finds common cause with the ACLU you just know something's gone waaaaay too far.

The U.S. declarations of war against the Axis in December 1941 was followed by various Articles of War, including provision for censorship and restricting civil liberties. Few complained because most understood it was for the duration of the war. The Patriot Act, on the other hand, has no conceivable end because there's no enemy capital to march into and declare victory. It will be waaay too easy for these anti-constitutional provisions to simply because part of our body of national law.

This is why, to protect the freedom our soldiers are not protecting in Iraq because Iraq was never threatening it, we need to move with the extremest of caution in this regard. Laws which allow free-roaming investigation can't be tolerated without a clear given end to them. Otherwise, let's just tear up the Constitution, and don the shield of the cross for a new Crusade. We won't be defending freedom but at least we'll fight our pointless battles against the brown Muslim hordes knowing that if killed we're all going straight to Heaven (hmm, wonder if there's one side of heaven for blue staters and another for red?).

The administration could have helped itself out here, once again, by declaring war against either Al Qaeda and its allies or Iraq. We're being asked to surrender our freedoms and our young sons and daughters without a consequent call for national sacrifice. So there's no wonder support for the Patriot act is weakening inside the president's own party, that recruiting is down and that the guy who called for "freedom fries" is now insisting on a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq. Without a clarion call for national effort, you don't get one.

Articles of Blue/Red Confederation

One of the reasons politics today is so ridiculously intense is that everyone feels like they're fighting for the soul of the country. This is because we've all forgotten the beauty of states' rights.

Strom Thurmond and his racist gang gave states rights a bad name by constantly using it to defend American apartheid. But given all the blue vs. red going on, let's rediscover it.

If right wing Christians want to ignore science and follow Bishop Usher's belief that the world was created a little over 6,000 years ago, let them. They'll end up with ignorant kids in their schools but that's the risk they take. If liberals want universal health insurance, let 'em work it out at the state level. Collaborate with other blue states on a large insurance pool to spread risks and cover costs and leave the red staters dying by the side of the road without coverage if that's what they want.

There are fifty states in this here Union. Surely we can all find a state we want to reshape in our own best image, be it a modern 21st century blue state or a cardboard mockup of 1955 red state.

For us liberals, it means moving away from the nationalizing impulse we've had since the New Deal saved the country. Oh, there are some internal matters which still require a national response, such as environmental regulation because the costs of stupid red state decisions can so easily cross borders. On most other matters, let's just agree to go to our separate corners. No more shaking our heads at blue staters' silliness, just let them be.

Besides, we blue staters have more of the country's money. Why should we be forced to subsidize red state stupidity? Isn't enough, enough?

The Coz - update

Stuart Sibley said...
White folks have a lot in common with Negroes. We, too, are frequently engaged in conversations like, "Lazy, shiftless, etc." until LaSheniquakia enters the room.

-------------------------------------------------

Yes, but that's not news. Black folks have long known about the hidden white folks' conspiracy which holds us down while running the world. (Anyone here remember Eddie Murphy's hilarious "White Like Me" spoof on SNL twenty years ago?) We've just managed to keep our own conspiracy hidden from the white folks until Cosby was "outed" by the damned liberal media.

Minor League Ball

One of the little treasures I found after moving to Sacramento from the Bay Area in 2001 was the Sacramento Rivercats minor league baseball team, the Oakland A's top level farm team. The Wall Street Journal recently wrote a good story on minor league ball's current wave of success and noted the 'Cats, who have been one of the minors' best drawing teams since coming in to the league in 2000.

It's not what the visionaries once predicted.

Back in the late '60s, when I started following the game closely, the future historians predicted that teevee would kill minor league ball. Why go all the way out to see the Toledo Mudhens when you could get the Yankees in the comfort of your very own home? One thought was that college baseball would end up being the "minor leagues", like it is for the NFL and NBA.

Not only has minor league baseball gone completely in the other direction, but often right under MLB noses. Brooklyn has a Mets farm team. There's a successful independent team in St. Paul, right next to the Twins. I read an interesting piece on how suburbs of MLB teams are some of the best places for minors because you've got an already interested fan base and corporate customers. (Heck, I get to a lot of 'Cats games through a local firm's corporate season tickets. If they aren't used for the day, they lay 'em out and let their friends grab 'em for free after noon gameday.)

The other big change, I read elsewhere , is that now most minor league teams are locally owned. The old PCL Phoenix Giants were once owned by the San Francisco Giants to just serve just as a breeding ground to fill the major league roster. The MLB Giants didn't have to care much about the quality of the food or the parking down in Phoenix. Then a local owner bought them, renamed them the Firebirds and primed the market for the MLB Arizona D'Backs.

Like the WSJ story notes, these teams are run like real businesses, in pleasant stadiums with real amenities. They've also been able to tap into some of the same urban planning which built a lot of the latest MLB parks, creating a downtown destination. Memphis, which is discussed in the article, is invoked up here in Sacramento as an example of why a new basketball arena is a marvelous jumpstart for local business.

The amenities are refreshingly simple. Local high school choirs butcher the national anthem while the school's cheerleaders jump and stomp. If the San Francisco Giants' SBC Park did have a hot dog shooter, like Raley, it would be sponsored by 3Com and shoot $6 custom German sausage. That's another thing I like about Raley Field. They stick to good beer, cheesy nachos and foot long dogs. At a (relatively) reasonable price. I admire SBC's top notch marketing. But there's something which connects you to your community about watching the a local hardware store hold a race around the bases for 7 year olds as part of the seventh inning stretch.

My good friends in Oakland are in a quandary about a new ballpark for the Athletics baseball team. I wonder if Oakland (pop. 370,000 compared to Sacramento's 425,000) is simply trying to play in the wrong league.

The Big Picture is that despite all the endless on and on about how we're all getting cocooned in our high tech entertainment dens, were are at heart and soul social creatures. We need companionship, even if we're just one of the crowd. If we build it, it turns out we will come. We have to. It's our nature.

The Coz

In response to a question to me regarding Bill Cosby's comments last year about po' black folks needing to get up off the dime and to stop reinforcing bad behavior

Over the years, no one has talked more trash about lazy, shif'less colored folks without jobs than black folks who had jobs. The General Rule was that you just never did it when white folks were around. It was more important to keep up the solid front.

I've been in these conversations. "Lazy, shif'less, etc." 'til Skipper walks into the room, when the comment suddenly turns to, "... and it's all Reagan's fault!"

Cosby probably felt the same way, when he made his comments to a black audience. But it got out into the news and I had a conservative Christian co-worker proudly trump that it showed the triumph of conservative thinking among blacks. Big deal, I told her. I heard the same thing all while I was growing up, right before "be sure to vote Democratic, because the Republicans will send us all back to the plantation if they have their way." Really?, she said. -I- don't hear this, she continued. That's because you're never in the room when it's discussed, I told her. It violates the rules.

This can drive white liberals crazy. "I can never have the same conversation from blacks as you do", one once told me, and I've just got through a big hooraw on another list over a white woman talking about the self-destructive welfare momma mentality among young black women, who was torched as a 'racist.' "How can we talk about race, as good liberals are supposed to do, when we can't talk about race?", he said.

Good question. I personally feel that blacks -should- take the discussion "outside" because it's healthy and politically expedient to do so. Without it, it's easy for whites to assume that How to Be Black 101 starts off with how to find the food stamp line. It also brings in more creative thought than you ever get holding an inside-the-beltway discussion.

Jesse Jackson often says that success is opportunity meeting preparation. It's society's job, pushed by good liberals, of course, to create the opportunity. But it's up to the small actors, the parents, teachers, ministers, business people, and on to insist on the preparation.

Besides, ever since President Clinton's welfare reform, being a welfare 'ho' just ain't worth what it used to be.

The House Rules

Well, let's see how the Political Betting Fool is doing:

From April 30, 2005 - followed by today's betting results

1. DeLay is out by the end of May. / 2-1 and on its way to a sure thing.

Oh, I lost on this one, having underestimated DeLay's ability to hang out and the Reps' inability to dump a liability. But I can't fret too much. Even the GOP sees this as a big problem for the party in '06. So I lose a few bucks, but I consider it a worthy investment.

2. Frist compromises on the "nuclear option." / 4-1 and growing (he "wins" short-term by stretching out the fight).

This was almost a gimme. There was no way enough senators were going to torch the august traditions. Frist wins with the nutcase GOP right by getting enough of his fruitcake nominees voted on while keeping arm's length from the compromise which made it possible. Well played, Dr. Frist. Now if only someone can teach you how AIDS is -really- transmitted.

3. Bolton is confirmed for the U.N. / 3-1 and growing the longer it takes.

The house now holds this as even money. The White House loves piss 'em off diplomats, then whines that not enough countries support us outside of Burkino Faso, but even Boltie's proving hard to swallow. The Senate plays a much stronger role in foreign policy than the House, approving foreign policy officials, ratifying treaties and the like. After the "nuclear option" compromise, it might like to solidly its institutional resurgence by knocking off a thoroughly detestable fellow like Bolton.

4. Bush splits SS benefits/taxes from personal/private accounts in order to get something, anything, through so he can claim victory. / Even money

Since the rest of the players have walked away from the table here, the house will follow and close the bets. SS appears saved for now. Bush appears willing to play with himself on this issue.

5. Michael Jackson is convicted of underage freakiness. / The house won't touch that money (yuck!)

Again, the house folds due to lack of interest. Even the Rodney King riot crowd can't get up for this one.

Teevee in the 'Hood - another update

So today I told someone that I didn't watch "Lost", "Survivor", "American Idol" or "Desperate Housewives" or anything like that.

The head shaking response: "Geez, man, you need to get out more!!"

He said it with a very straight face.

"Doc, Can I Use It 'Til I Need Glasses?"

In today's news:

From Reuters:

U.S. health regulators on Friday said they have received more than 40 reports of a type of blindness in men taking impotence drugs, mostly involving Pfizer Inc.'s Viagra.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said it has received about 38 reports of the rare condition among users of Viagra, four reports of blindness among users of Eli Lilly and Co.'s Cialis and one report of the condition in men talking Levitra, made by GlaxoSmithKline Plc.
Pfizer said outside of clinical trials, Viagra has been used by more than 23 million men worldwide over the past seven years. It said reports are extremely rare of visual loss due to the condition known as non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION).

"FDA is aware of these reports but has not determined there is a cause and effect due to use of Viagra ... We're working with the company to make sure this information is available to doctors and patients," FDA spokeswoman Susan Cruzan told Reuters.

New York-based Pfizer acknowledged the rare cases of blindness and is weighing a label change. But it emphasized no proof exists that the blindness is linked to the drug, which was introduced in 1998 and had $1.68 billion in sales in 2004.

"We are in discussions with the FDA to update our language to reflect these rare ocular events that have occurred," Pfizer spokesman Daniel Watts said.

More Perspective

Unknown said...
Bearing in mind that we are dealing in the realm of Myth... Your take on the Fall is tantalizingly close to Terry Gilliam's "Time Bandits". (You should get that for the kid, if you have not already.) I see the Fall somewhat differently...probably due to my residual Calvinism. I see the Fall as tantamount to diving into a 900 foot deep lake, having willingly donned a cement overcoat. This in spite of a large flashing neon sign that states: "Do Not Dive into Lake whilst wearing Cement!"

----------------------------------------------------

I remember "Time Bandits" a little bit, but not enough that I wouldn't enjoy seeing it again. I just returned the '50s classic Earth vs. the Flying Saucers to Netflix, and have The Angry Red Planet due to hit after "Spanglish." Leroy likes stuff like this, which proves yet again his sound judgment and good character, and being a solid chip off the old man's block.

"Earth vs. ..." was good fun. For one, it set up a lot of what we now consider standard sci-fi fare, like the bad guys knocking over national monuments for dramatic effect, and their space ships designed to having a grim and deadly personality of their own. The DVD's best surprise was a long retrospective on special effects guru Ray Harryhausen, who it turns out was a close friend of Ray Bradbury. But I digress.

Your Calvinist take on the Fall reminds me of my days working as a private security guard during college. It was guaranteed work for a 6,'2" presentable young African American male, at good hours and with no intellectual challenges to tire my busy mind before or after class. I'd stand there on duty right next to a big red "X" on the ground with a big sign right next to it screaming, 'FOR GOD'S SAKE, DON'T STAND ON THIS "X" OR YOUR HEAD WILL EXPLODE!!" With the sign, it makes you wonder why they needed a guard, eh?

I was constantly amazed at how many people would walk up, look at me in my little toy cop outfit, read the sign, look at the big "X" ... then try to stand on it. Or ask me, "you mean I can't stand here?" and look for my permission, just to see what would happen.

Which just reaffirms my belief that the whole "don't eat that fruit" thing was a scam, as set up. Not as good as the set up which caught D.C. mayor Marion Berry, but close. The critical difference is that Eve's set up was liberating, Marion's ... wasn't. (And Marion apparently is still trying to see the difference between right and wrong.)

Teevee in the 'Hood - update

dhgulley said...
Having never watched such shows as "Seinfeld," "Friends," or any of the other so-called "Blockbuster" sitcoms m'self, I always question why I'm not in the majority who enjoy this type of show. So I asked m'self....M'self said, "I'm not learning anything new."So I guess I'm going to have to admit to being one of those odd people who enjoy watching something such as "Nova" and coming away knowing something I didn't know before. Weird, huh?

----------------------------------------

Then people look at you with wide-eyed wonder and ask, "Well, what do you -do- then? Like they can't possibly imagine doing anything else with their free time. Even on the tube, when people ask me what I do watch and I tell them the History or Science or National Geographic channels, which tell me something I didn't know before, it's like saying you asked the teacher for more homework. Oh well.

Here in Sacramento the NBA basketball Kings are gods. I'm not that that big of a pro basketball fan, which also elicits wide-eyed wonder from folks who can't imagine such a thing from a 6'2" black guy. My problem is to really follow pro basketball you have to see it visually to really get into the game. It just doesn't work over the radio. "He drives to the basket and scores!" just doesn't do it. You have to see exactly how he did it to appreciate it.

Baseball, however, works great over the radio. The relaxed pace lends itself to good descriptive narrative. One of my favorite Giants announcers once said he preferred doing radio over teevee "because the pictures are better". I don't have to come home and park myself in front of the tube for three hours to follow the Giants, like my Kings fans friends do.

As a matter of fact, the multimedia approach works great. On a typical evening I can "watch" the first part of a game via Internet updates on Yahoo! Sports, listen to the middle on my car radio and watch the last few innings on cable teevee. I'm not tied down for the late afternoon or evening.

Yet another reason why baseball is the world's best sports pastime.

The Golden Years - update

dhgulley said...
Hey! How about Roger Rocket?

-------------------------------

Same rule applies. If he just didn't want to pitch for the Bankees, he shoulda just said so. Under my law, uttering the word "retire" or anything associated with it automatically drops you outta the market.

I mean, we need order here. This running in and out has got to stop.

At least Jerry is honest about wanting to leave the profession feet first, I'll give him that.

Killing Monsters

My friends and I played cops and robbers when we were kids, and cowboys and Indians, and commanded regiments of little green soldiers and read comic books where eighteen of the twenty pages were hero and villain beating the crap out of each other. So far, most of us have lived relatively normal lives. It seems to me that if a kid brings a high powered rifle to school and blows away students, teachers and himself, there's a lot more going on there than one too many video games.

I happy to report that I'm supported in my intuition here by the book Killing Monsters, a review of the real need kids have for violent play and super heroes and all that. Turns out that, as common sense would tell us, we really have nothing to fear.

I can hold my head up now when fretful parents roll their eyes at me letting my six year old Leroy watch all that cartoon violence which is supposed to fold, spindle and mutilate his soul. I mean, if the Teen Titans can beat the bad guy into next week, won't Leroy want to do the same thing too?

"Killing Monsters" says that kids do understand the difference between fantasy and reality. I think it's right.

Leroy loves the big Star Wars media blitz. He loves the lightsabers and the action and says he wants to see the movie. He's interested in who's the Good Guy and who's the Bad Guy. This is important to him. He knows that there's difference between protecting someone and hurting someone, that there are Heroes and Villains. This is what fantasy is all about, even the fighting part. Kids want to be Heroes, and as small, powerless people, they intuitively understand how Villains can work. So they naturally want to imitate and emulate Heroes, larger-than-life characters able to chase the bad things away. Which children understand that they really can't do.

Leroy also likes living things. He loves animals, nature and the outdoors. He's fascinated by how plants and animals work, how they live and how they make more of themselves. This morning he and I came across a snail which was making its way along the sidewalk near school. It was crawling about six inches off the walk.

This worried Leroy. "We have to get him out of the street or a car will hit him," he said. I agreed. Leroy gently picked up the snail, and we found him a nice grassy place to drop him where he'd be safe and moist. A day later, we came across a worm wriggling on a hot sidewalk near another patch of grass by the school. This too demanded immediate response. Leroy worked for a long minute to catch the maniacally tossing slimy thing. Once he did, he dropped him into the grass and watched as the worm eased down into the green and dirt.

"He's back in his house now," Leroy stated quite matter-of-factly before going on into class.

I feel good. Even better, I feel safe. Leroy seems to understand that being bigger than the snail and the worm means that you have a responsibility to protect them when you can, not hurt them. Best of all, he feels good doing it. So tonight, we're curling up in front of several episodes of Cartoon Network's "Clone Wars" series. Leroy and I will both be rooting for the Heroes to win.

The Golden Years

"Jerry Rice talks about playing in Denver."

Rice, probably the best wide receiver ever to play the game, could have gone out as 'Niner several years ago, to screaming fans and the memories of being a part of one of the most exciting and successful scoring machine in all sports. It would have been great. He would have been remembered as great.

Now, he looks more like an over-the-hill boxer fighting palookas for meal money because he can't do anything else.

It's not like he needs the money. He could certainly never get out of bed for the rest of his life and lay well on satin sheets. It's the ego. As a number of athletes have said, it's hard to walk away from the screaming stadium, the huge stage that is pro sports, esp. pro football, where each game is special event.

But we don't need this. We don't need pitiful ego-addicted men trolling the byways for years past their time. We need a law.

With Congress up in arms over steroids, because the war in Iraq, Social Security and the federal deficit will surely take care of themselves, it's time for them to take action.

Federal law should provide for mandatory retirement for any pro football player over the age of 36. Exceptions will be allowed only for those who have passed a skills test where they will be required to perform at at least 80 percent of their level at age 30. Those who pass can only be given one year contracts, and only for the league minimum. Athletes over 40 will be required to pack it in if a confidential poll of players and season ticket holders, who are forced to watch Rice's travesty up close and personal, finds that a majority of those polled disagree. We'll call it the "Jerry Rice Law" and chalk it up to his legacy that we agreed that he'd be the last to have us watch such foolishness.

But let's not stop there.

Additional federal law will ban players and coaches who retire from unretiring. I mean, a guy gives the tear jerker farewell and heads off to presumably a pleasant second life of mindless sports commentary, only to jump back in a few years later. This has to end.

This law will cross all sports. No MJ hopping in and out and making a Jerry Rice-like fool of him-self. No Ryne Sandberg coming back to waste our time trying to reach balls he could have fielded blindfolded two years before he left. No Joe Gibbs deciding that watching 350 lb. men hit each other repeatedly was more engrossing than staring at cars going 'round and 'round and 'round in circles. I call it "One Strike, You're Out." If you're packing it in, pack it in, for God's sake. Don't force us to watch the sad consequences of your inability to find a hobby.

That's it for tonight. I'm off to have my bran muffin. I get cranky when I'm not "regular" you know.

Teevee in the 'Hood

A recent line of Boondocks comic lampooned the ridiculous way African Americans are shown on teevee. It was funny, but not news. Teevee, being what it is, shows most identifiable groups in a stupid way. It's a stupid medium, so it has no choice. But Boondocks had it wrong. The news isn't how African Americans are shown on teevee, it's how many African American are watching this and the other swill which makes up most of popular television.

Black folks watch more teevee per eyeball than any other American group, as reported by the good people at Nielsen who track this stuff. This drives Jesse Jackson nuts. Turn off the teevee and do homework with your kids, he says.

I admit, I've got issues with how much teevee people watch. It's been a hurdle all my life. This is why the Boondocks piece struck a nerve.

I once had a girlfriend whose crew just had to watch 'Laverne and Shirley' after work every day. When I left the room to do something else, or opened up a book, one of the crew snorted, "I hope we're not -boring- you!!" No, you're not, I said. The teevee show is. I'm stilled stunned by how many black parents give their kids full cable access, then complain about how their little tykes want to buy everything they see advertised and can't manage to finish their homework or get to bed on time. Duh. Ask them why they don't vote and "I ain't got the time", followed by an excited monologue on who's pissed at who on World Wrestling. Right.

A big piece of what I hate is the weird shared cultural experience teevee creates that I miss out on. At the office lunch the conversation inevitably moves to the latest episode of 'Lost', 'American Idol' or 'Desperate Housewives', which leaves me to do nothing but gnaw on my chips 'til the meal's over. My co-workers get itchy and start insisting that I'd really like the show(s) if I took the time to watch them over the next few weeks. Reminds me of my former girlfriend's pal years ago. They see the fact that I'm not watching the same crap they're watching as some kind of judgment I'm making on them. Well, it is. Having never watched a full episode of 'Seinfeld' (the stories about nothing are just that, about nothing) does make me a better person.

I don't hate teevee completely. I've got my shows. Heck, I pay Comcast Cable $57 shekels a month to get what I do watch, ESPN Classic, the History channels, my wife's home shows and all the great cartoons Leroy likes and we often watch together. My favorite show was the recently cancelled Star Trek entry Enterprise, (sob!) I just don't want it to run my life or my family's. When it gets to where my nights are completely shaped by what the sellers of my eyeballs to commercial vendors do, it's time to head for the hills.

As for now, it's off to ESPN's "Baseball Tonight" to check on today's action. I mean, no point in being unreasonable about all this.

A Matter of Perspective (Update)

DHGulley said...

Watch it Preston, you're starting to sound a bit religious. Maybe old age is setting in?

---------------------------------------------------

My momma did her best to make me a good Baptist. The problem was, I like asking questions. And Baptists ain't too fond of that.

The story of The Fall made no sense to me, as I told my Sunday School teacher. So it was better to run around nekkid with no sense of morality? That' s what the fruit (not an apple) of the tree provided, the knowledge of good and evil. This is growth. It's what separates adults from toddlers and people from the critters of the field. My pet dog won't hop on the sofa when I'm gone if I've trained him not to, but not because it's "wrong" but because he wants to please the alpha human.

Also, without that knowledge then God as a moral force becomes unknowable. How can you choose between good and evil if you can't recognize it? Doesn't the Christian story of The Fall strongly imply that moral ignorance is paradise? Me, I find knowing good and evil a lotta fun. Why would I be better off without it? Wouldn't that make me little better than the dog I noted above? See, this is where this line of reasoning takes you.

As a parent, I've come to see The Fall in a whole different light. It's all about family. You raise the kids and make sure their needs are met without their worry. That's the Garden. But you know they're going to need to think for themselves once they get out into the great wide world. So you give them knowledge, insight and self-awareness. This is the eating of the fruit and the realization of nekkidness. (And how do you make sure your kids stick their mitts into the cookie jar? Tell them not to. Sound familiar?) The serpent is the instigator because serpents, which shed skin, are considered symbols of catalytic change across the world.

Then you boot 'em out where they fend for themselves. This is the Expulsion. This is Daddy saying, "Enough lying around and eating fruit. Get out there and work!"

The end result is a planet crawling with vibrant people full of all kinds of goodness, badness, weirdness and indifference. Grown-ups.

Now, the story is an analogy for that point where humans developed past hairy-knuckled furballs roaming the ancient plains to moral awareness. It tells the story, as all good cosmological tales do, in a way with synthesizes what happened in a compelling and understandable way.

The second disagreement I had with my Sunday School teacher comes right out of the first. Since we're all given moral choice, it makes no sense for a supernatural deity to constantly interfere in those choices. I don't think God personally intervenes in human affairs. Praying or meditating can connect one to the divine but it's not going to make that rash go away or save your son on patrol in Iraq.

Because we have to make choices, we have to free to live with the consequences of those choices. Otherwise the choice made becomes irrelevant. And if the divine intervenes one day and one place to save someone from their own or another's folly, then logic and fairness would require such intervention everywhere. Otherwise the divine is playing favorites for no apparent reason, and again, completely undermines the nature of a moral universe.

So this is why I've cast my lot with the Unitarians. In Baptist church my momma got mad at me for raising these questions. With UU'ers, it's more food for thought. I like to think and eat, so it suits me well.

Partisan Warfare

I love Bi-partisanship. Since my party holds the minority in the U.S. Senate, I'm all for a "bi-partisan" solution to the judicial filibuster mess. Because it's the best way to mitigate the damage. That's when "bi-partisanship" works best.

I want political leaders I support to do what I want. I want universal health care. I want strong U.S. support of a strong U.N. I want Social Security protected and preserved. That's my "partisan" position.

There's nothing wrong with being partisan. Democracy is premised on it. The point of the republican exercise is to organize like-minded people who share a collective vision and work through a peaceful process to put that vision into power.

I don't understand why being considered "bi-partisan" or "non-partisan" puts someone on a higher moral realm. Say that something's Non-Partisan or Bi-Partisan and it's placed on a higher realm of political morality. Non-Partisan is fine when it presents information or activity in a neutral manner. But there's nothing more moral about the Red Cross because it acts in a non-partisan. It's simply a logical application of its work.

Bi-partisan doesn't necessarily mean better or more virtuous either. No Child Left Behind (kaff!) is considered a Bi-partisan measure because liberal icon Ted Kennedy supported it. Whee! Liberal and conservative working hand in hand for our nation's kids! But it's a crappy piece of legislation designed to pump public money into private businesses' hands with no accountability and little result. Like much of the Bush domestic agenda, it's more corporate welfare. That's "Bi-partisanship" like I understand it. A Partisan initiative couched in supposed middlegrounding to make it sellable.

I don't fault Frist and DeLay and the other numbskulls for their partisan approach to political warfare. I admire them for it. I wish I could get as much gumption from the Democratic Party's poobahs. I figure that soon enough some GOP leaders will realize that they've reached too far and start calling for "Bi-partisanship". Which will be good. Because it gives my partisans a shot at slowing 'em down.