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?
Friday, July 29, 2005
Thursday, July 28, 2005
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
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.
- 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.
Monday, July 18, 2005
(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.
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?
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?
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
"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.
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.
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.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
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.
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.
Wednesday, 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. 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.
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.
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.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
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.
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?
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.
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.
Saturday, June 11, 2005
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
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.
The head shaking response: "Geez, man, you need to get out more!!"
He said it with a very straight face.
Friday, May 27, 2005
"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.
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.
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
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.)
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
