The Federal Republic of Earth

It was a minor scene in Star Trek: Enterprise, the speaker noted, but it said everything about where the show believed that we can and will go in the future.The famous starship captain had just finished a call-in interview from space with a grade school class back on Earth. “Now class, let’s say the pledge”, the teacher said. The class replied, “We pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the Federal Republic of Earth …”.

The speaker, Tad Daley, visionary, professor, advisor and congressional candidate, (go here for the full bio) came to Sacramento to speak a presumably supportive collection of Unitarians and fellow travelers on a warm October 2005 Sunday afternoon. Having always been a fan of Star Trek in part due to the vision of planetary unity (a popular theme in science fiction) and the speaker’s views on the United Nations, I just couldn’t resist.

Daley challenged the idea of reforming the UN under current proposals. The fundamental problem, he said, it’s that it’s still a collection of states and can therefore only serve particularly state interests. We need to “reinvent” it, he said. This requires connecting the body with people, not national governments. Reinvention requires: 1. Direct election of representatives to a new arm of the body

2. Expanding membership of the Security Council and ending of the single veto in favor of majority or supermajority decision making.

3. A separate funding system for reliable and independent revenues

4. A volunteer peacekeeping force not provided by nation states but by individuals

Direct election of representatives to a new “Assembly” body would put UN and international issues on the political burner for the average person. Citing the European Parliament as an example, he said such a move would likely encourage development of international political party alliances, as groups with common international interests would find cause and reason to find common ground, as we see in national campaigns and elections today. It’s a matter of fundamental right, Daley said. We all live on the same planet. Why should our political representation stop at the water’s edge?

My own view is that this body should replace the current General Assembly, which has fallen into obscurity after initially being established to provide a similar “legislative” function as Daley prescribes for his Assembly. It was the General Assembly, in fact, which approved the partition of Palestine which led to the successful birth of Israel. It’s never held that kind of political power or responsibility since.

Daley holds that the Security Council is an anachronistic relic of the post-WW2 arrangements and subsequent Cold War. It needs to be expanded and the power of a single nation to block action removed. The current veto arrangement, he says, is the UN’s most undemocratic process and frustrates the will of the majority to deal with real issues.

Now, personally, I’m not too sure about this part. Passing resolutions which would simply be unenforceable against larger powers would lead to frustration and the appearance of impotence at a time it needs to appear stronger. It seems to envisage the Council as morphing into an international Senate to complement the two current and proposed Assembly bodies. The practical point of the Security Council was to have the countries with the most firepower accountable and responsible for keeping the peace, since they had the guns to do it. Unless the UN is willing and able to develop a consequent military force able to take on, say, Iran, then the current arrangement, as frustrating as it can be and as undemocratic as it may be, should stay put for now. As a compromise, certain acts, such as economic sanctions or non-binding censure motions could be taken out from under the veto. This would empower nations who at least want to get a loud opinion on a matter spoken and heard.

One of the problems our constitutional founders had to deal with was Congress’s initial inability to raise direct revenue. The UN faces the same problem, always subject to blackmail by nations looking to use national contributions for political purposes. The solution is simple. Give the UN an independent revenue source. Daley proposes a modest tax on international currency exchanges. Average people won’t have to pay it, the system for collecting it already exists and given the size of the exchanges made on an annual basis would bring in enough revenue to fund the body.

What would the revenue pay for? Among other things, an international peacekeeping force made up not of national forces, but by volunteers who signed on to the UN directly. The forces would require transport and support, and would be authorized to shoot and defend themselves if necessary. The Secretary-General could order them in during a clear humanitarian crisis, or the Council could authorize an extended deployment, Daley proposed. These arrangements could be worked out. But imagine, one in the audience said, if such a force existed today then Rwanda and Sudan, where those massacred don’t have the benefit of oil to interest outside powers, could have been prevented.

Visionary? Yep. But likely too, and Americans of all people should see this. The Civil War was fought over whether the land was one nation or a collection of sovereign states. With the Commies’ fall ending the Cold War, our own global “Civil War” has ended. We just haven’t worked out how to unite, or reunite, if we go back to before the rise of the nation-state, the world. But it’ll happen. The great story of the 19th century was the struggle to develop stable nation-states (US, Germany, Italy as example, Austria-Hungary as an example of how not to do it). The 20th century was marked by the assault on liberal democratic national ideals by nightmarish nationalist (including Communism as it developed) ideologies. It seems logical then that the 21st century be the time we all learn the pledge to the Federal Republic of Earth.

Besides, after that happens, can faster-than-light space travel be far behind?

Go here for more information on what we can do to reinvent the United Nations.

Rising to the Occasion

Even the major news magazines are taking Bush to task for “living in a bubble”, surrounding himself with cronies and sycophants tell him just what he wants to hear. He needs to break out of this, the pundits opine, and put more challenging people around him. As some say, you know, like Lincoln did during the Civil War.

The Lincoln comparison comes out of Doris Kearns Goodwin’s recent book “Team of Rivals”, a brilliant look at the political genuis of Abraham Lincoln as seen through his selection and use of his Cabinet. I can recommend the book even more, it's a great Christmas gift, but what gets me is that so many can look at this story and expect George Bush, Jr. of all people to rise to this level.

George Bush, Jr. is a very small man who has succeeded at nothing except serving as amiable front man for corporate raids on the national treasury and neoconservative international dreams. If left to his own devices he’d hardly be able to run the local butcher shop. There’s absolutely nothing in his personal or political resume which would lead a reasonable person to think he’d come close to some Lincoln-esque gesture. He’s risen to the Oval Office through the “undying loyalty” of people who seem his as a convenient figure, knowing that they would always be able to pull the strings.

Our popular image of Lincoln is of a simple “western” man from small-town Illinois who rose to the occasion. The truth is, people around Lincoln at the time of his ascendancy recognized him for a clever lawyer and shrewd politician. He was extremely well read. The “rube” image came out of the East, in particular from William Seward (a Republican presidential candidate from New York) loyalists and New Englanders, who shared the big city’s sneer of the backcountry yokels. Lincoln’s peculiar talent for communication came from being able to translate big ideas into words and phrases the common man and woman could relate to.

Bush speaks in all-too-common language but nothing in his life shows that he’s turning Aristotle into plain English. Unlike Lincoln, he is what he is. This means he’ll be surrounding himself with people whispering sweet political nothings into his ear and kissing his presidential rump until 2009.

“Stay the course.” Why would or could he do anything else?

10 Things In Football

10 Things In Football That Sound Dirty


1. The hole closed on him before he could penetrate it.

2. He's off to the sidelines for a quick blow.

3. It's a game of inches.

4. When you get down in this area, you just gotta start pounding.

5. He's gonna feel that one tomorrow.

6. He found his tight end.

7. He had to stretch to get it in.

8. He could go all the way.

9. He goes deep.

10. He found a hole and slid through it.


Is it any wonder this game is so popular?

Molecules

The good news is that "intelligent design" got voted out in Dover, Pennsylvania, where, as one successful school board candidate put it, "there's a church on every corner."

The bad news, according to one numbskull preacher, is that God will surely throw some disaster Dover's way for allegedly voting Him out of the classroom.

This explains the socialist right's frustration with the federal judiciary. They can't apply any retribution on it because the Founding Fathers wisely protected the federal bench from all that. Why does the socialist right hate the Founding Fathers so?

Anyways, back to the issue at hand, the "intelligent design" mess was brought up not just by local election results but by my seven-year-old second grader son on election night. He was asking me how molecules worked. I told him that the protons did this, and the neutrons did that and the electrons did the other side and the whole shebang acted one way when connected with some other atoms and other ways when merged with others.

"Why?"

And there is why "intelligent design" fails as an 'alternative' to science and evolution.

Science and its theory of evolution attempt to describe -what- happens in the natural world. Light travels this way, planets go that way and nature evolves life through this apparent process. It -doesn't- try to explain "why" at the level my son asks.

Why doesn't light travel faster or slower than 186,000 miles per second or so? Why does water evaporate at a certain heat? Science can and does describe the process but no one can explain exactly why it all works the way it does. Nor does science try to.

Theology and belief does. Even early human knew that the sun rose and set by a predictable observable schedule but they couldn't figure out -why-. So they created myths. The sun was a magical creature, or a flaming chariot rode by a deity as his job description. They needed to understand why the sun did what it did. It's a natural desire.

But it's not science. It's theology. Which is what "intelligent design" is, no matter how its proponents try to wrap it. You wanna know -why- animals adapt to changing surroundings? Ask God. Or gods. Or the great Karma. Or no one. Or just ponder it all under a tree. For most of this work, there are religious organizations willing to help you work it out. There are plenty of trees available if you just want to sit and think about it. Finally, there are ballgames to watch if you'd really just not worry about it at all. After all, some might feel that if we're here, we're here, who cares where we came from?

In short, evolution vs. intelligent design is an apples and oranges fight, bad science invented by foolish people for political gain. It's good to see that some solid and sensible people in the heartland see this. There's hope for the Republic yet.

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Inspired by a recent vote in the state of Texas.

Conan vs. California

"Crom count the dead!"

It makes for a good description of Arnold Scharzenegger's ballot measures after yesterday's special election in California.

I knew Schwarzenegger was toast right after his election in 2003. He promised California voters that he could provide the same level of public services while rolling back a vehicle license fee by finding efficiencies, waste, blah, blah, blah, in the state government. “Something for nothing!” the people yelled. They liked that.

Of course, you can’t deliver the same for less so Arnie’s fortunes inevitably failed. Given the size of the gap between what comes in and what goes out, taxes would have to be raised and services reduced to produce a real balanced budget. But that requires pain on both sides of the ledger, from liberals who want more services and conservatives who won’t raise taxes. Arnie needed to fight both ends from the middle to produce real results. But he didn’t. He chose to blame a Democratic majority legislature in a Democratic majority state. This is tantamount to fighting the Russian army in downtown Moscow.

The pundits are on and on about the “dysfunctional” nature of state policymaking. Really, there’s nothing dysfunctional about it at all. It’s the classic divide between what we want as a society and what we’re willing to pay for.

Fyi, the California state deficit is a byproduct of the Dot Com boom. The Democratic governor and legislature overtaxed the rich kids who came out of that and reduced taxes on everyone else, and increased services. When the Dot Com well dried up, the deficit came and ballooned out of reason.

Arnie didn’t use his prior stature to get people to see the either/or involved. Taking the easy way out, he promised gain with no pain. He wasn’t the first. Reagan did it with his “supply side economics”, providing more revenue by –lower- taxes. Reagan made “WIFRA” his mantra, “[W]aste, [Fr]aud and [A]buse!” Get the welfare mommas off their duffs and we’d be in like pigs in clover. Anyone with an eighth grade math education knew that tossing even a few thousand $750 a month welfare queens out won’t make a decent in a multi-trillion dollar budget. But it’s a siren song which can be counted on to cause enough folks to put the math book aside before voting.

But Arnie’s not running the federal government. His budget, though sizeable, still isn’t the US government’s. He can’t print money and he’s under a specific constitutional demand for a balanced budget, although nothing says he can’t borrow money to balance the books. He’s also got a state constitutional requirement that calls for two-thirds of the legislature to approve the annual budget and any tax increases. This gives the minority, in this case the GOP, power all out of proportion to their political standing to hold down revenue increases, locking in the shortfall against a majority which reflects the voters’ level of desire for public services.

Arnie could use his standing with the GOP to argue tax hikes out of them in return for service cuts from the legislature. He could have governed truly from the middle. But he didn’t and now he’s dealing with a legislature which sees him cut down to quite mortal size.

I have no love for Arnie. He shouldn’t be governor. The GOP mounted the recall attempt right after losing the 2002 governor’s race. It was a case of “let’s keep voting until we win.” Gray Davis wasn’t a great governor but he was fairly re-elected. Recalls should be used for malfeasance and similar activities, not by sore losers.

I also can't stand the ridiculous idea that a guy who kills special effects-produced monsters on stage somehow carries that same talent over into the real world. Pro sports players and coaches enjoy the same assumptions when they run for office. But I suppose there's no use fretting about that. Americans have had an unreasonable thing for “heroes” dating back to Andrew Jackson. That ain’t gonna change. Still, it’s good to see it shot down every now and then.

I love California. It's a fantastic place to live, work and play. I want my son to live here and be happy too. I’d like to live in a state with some fiscal sanity. But it ain’t gonna happen under Arnie after last Tuesday. The work now is to elect a Democratic governor who can convince the voters to get rid of the ridiculous budget and taxes supermajority so we can tie wants with needs and the governing majority can really govern.

The Real Meaning of All Hallow's Eve

Garrison Keillor says that Halloween as a Republican holiday. Why?

You try to scare folks to death while grabbing all the goodies that you can!

I wonder if garlic and holy water will run them off. I'd suggest wooden stakes and silver bullets too but the Secret Service might have a problem with that.

What's a little Death between friends?

Donors setting up funds from beyond grave

By SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writer
Published 10:52 am PDT Friday, October 28, 2005

WASHINGTON (AP) - Dozens of political donors are reaching beyond the grave to support candidates and parties, setting up their estates to continue giving campaign money long after their deaths, a study released Friday found.

Presidential and congressional candidates and political parties have collected just over $1.3 million from at least 100 deceased donors since 1991, according to the Halloween-themed "From Coffins to Coffers" report by the Center for Public Integrity in Washington.

Political parties are the biggest recipients. National Democratic Party committees have received at least $644,000, while Republican Party committees have taken in roughly $588,000, the nonpartisan watchdog group's review of campaign finance reports found.

In the last election, posthumous donations totaled at least $72,851. That compares to roughly $679,000 in the 2002 election cycle, the last time donors could give unlimited sums to national party committees.

Many recipients identified the donors' occupation as "deceased" on reports to the Federal Election Commission, or said the contributions came from an estate.

Deceased contributors face the same donation limits as the living: $2,100 per election to a federal candidate and $26,700 a year to a national party committee.

Read the report at:

http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=756

Foxification

San Francisco Chronicle sports columnist Steve Tady, a.ka. "The Betting Fool" recently bemoaned what he described as the "Foxification" of sports broadcasts, using the example of the World Series. This process requires ridiculous camera shots, massive overuse of graphics and things like the "Right Now!' box, which tells you in big box print what you're already looking at. Read the sage wisdom at:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2005/10/25/fool385.DTL

This naturally required a thoughtful response:

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

Dear Betting Fool,

The problem is that the "Foxification" of sports mirrors the Foxification of life. You see it everywhere.

I have a co-worker who watched the playoff day games over Mlb.Tv in one window on his computer while a stock ticker scrolled across the top of his screen and ESPNNews ticker ran across the bottom, while he worked in both Word and Explorer. Oh, and when a new e-mail message arrived, it popped a message in the middle of the mess. He thinks this is perfectly normal.

Then there's the bud who asked me by to watch a football with him. It was a good game, a game he spent reading and writing e-mail on his laptop while we watched. Great sports company, eh? "Don't worry, I can talk, watch and do e-mail at the same time," he said. He couldn't, of course, but he won't believe that.

Go to a kids Saturday soccer game and see all the soccer moms and dads spending as much time on their laptops and cell phones as they do cheering on Jr. and Jr. Miss. Can't waste time, y'know.

People complain about fans at SBC Park leaning into their the cell phone instead of watching the game. But everyone does this nowadays. The only "problem" at SBC is that everyone's doing it out in the open at the time at the same place.

Needless to say, I think this is all madness. The scientists tell us that we really can't "multitask." We're not wired for it. It gives us headaches and insomnia. But our machines are wired for it, and because they can, we think we have to as well. Based on current mass behavior, Fox logically assumes we're all attuned to this, and broadcasts accordingly, desperately afraid that we're going to "multitask" away to something else unless they keep our mind and eyeballs a' jiggling all game long.

Whine not at Fox Sports, who at least promotes the World Series. They ain't NBC, whose marketing chief publicly called for a four game sweep in 1997 when Miami and Cleveland went head to head in what turned out to be a riveting seven game down-the-last-out show. Weep for the masses, who can't put down their frickin' doodads long enough in Fall 2005 to really appreciate the most exciting four game sweep I've ever seen.

Rosa Parks

It's been too long since I attended college so I forget the guy's name right now. He was a tall, sharp fellow who served with me at the campus Amnesty International group and we took some political science and international relations classes together.

One day we were discussing civil rights and all and I mentioned the Montgomery bus boycott which set off the modern movement. It started, I said, when Rosa Parks refused to get up and give her seat to a white man, as was required by law. He looked at me. "She had to do what?", he asked. I took some time to explain the system.

Under the law, I told him, whites filled the bus from the front to the back. Blacks filled the bus from the back to the front. When the two groups met in the middle, any subsequent white rider could demand the seat of a black rider. Rosa Parks simply refused to give up her seat. She was tired after a hard day's work and simply wanted to sit. For that, she was arrested and the bus boycott began.

My friend listened, then thought for a minute. Then he floored me. "Are you sure that happened? Where did you read this?", he asked.

This is like asking for documentation of Pearl Harbor.

"Why in the world do you ask that?", I shot back. "It was in all the papers. Trust me. I'll show you where you can look it up."

"Well", he said, "I just can't see that happening. I couldn't imagine getting on a city bus and telling a black person to get up and give me their seat. If I did that on a city bus going home I'd probably get my butt kicked. It just seems odd, that's all."

First off, the poor soul was clearly a product of a poor educational system which teaches him how to pledge to the flag but little about what went on to make the pledge more than just a flowery saying. We could have stuck with "... with Liberty, except for riders of the Montgomery bus system, and Justice, except for blacks everywhere in the South and a helluva lotta places up North and out West ..." but it just didn't rhyme. That's what made Rosa famous.

Second, it explains why there's so little understanding of the civil rights struggle today. It's hard to imagine the world we left behind. It seems surreal, like a bad science fiction novel. But it's real to me.

In the mid-'60s a white woman took my mother's seat as my family traveled by train through Texas, after my mother got up to get food or go to the restroom. Under state law, the white woman was entitled to it. But the rail system was under federal jurisdiction so the idiotic state laws didn't apply. I remember the hooting and hollering, and the white lady sitting quietly but firm before the conductor led her away.

(This is a -big- reason why traditional conservative hate-the-feds philosophy doesn't ring for African Americans. In our view, the feds act as a brake on the states as much as the other way around.)

I suppose as people like Parks dies away, and as kids like me grow up and pass on too, that the memories will be lost and we can finally move on. Some would argue that this will be a good thing. Memories like that, they say, simply reinforce arguments over who did what to who, and who is entitled to what, and which rights apply and on and on. But they miss the larger point that the end of Jim Crow was truly one of the great events in American history, and proves the underlying strength and value of the American system.

The sad part is, folks like my college friend will never see that as it played out through and after Rosa Parks. It's their loss.

Re: One Day at Home Depot

Frank,

Maybe she’s a Red state agent, trying to subvert our beautiful Blue state progressiveness. She’s just not very good at the job.

California Red staters are feeling mighty oppressed these days. The best they can do is a rock star governor who’s really not very good at his job and who avoids the (kaff!) “culture war” nonsense like the plague. Recent studies find that even if the Governator Arnie’s attempt at a Tom De Lay-like redistricting wins, which looks doubtful, the Dems would still hold a majority in the state Legislature.

It’s mainly due to people like me, college-educated and/or colored moving in off the coast. Last February a spokesman for the Greenlining Institute, which works to provide low-income and “people of color” access to financial services told me that of the one million African Americans in Southern California, only 200,000 lived in the “traditional” core areas of Compton and South Central L.A. So the local Red staters are feeling screwed.

In response to this, they’ve come up with an idea which is rotten for just California, but a pretty good one for the country as a whole.

Their idea is to apportion electoral votes by congressional district, not just statewide. Maine and Nebraska do this, and it ends up with an electoral college vote more representative of the state than the current winner-take-all. It means that the islands of blue and red inside every state could have a voice, and an effect on the statewide total.

All 2004 we kept hearing about ‘battleground states.’ In short, both candidates spent most of their time and money in around ten states, a fifth of the Union. California, New York and Texas, were completely ignored. Under this plan, every state’s electoral votes are in play, which means we’d get a truly “national” campaign, and actually less of this divisive Blue vs. Red stuff, which makes for cool maps on CNN and Fox, but really don’t help national discussion or truly represent the states themselves.

As the lady at Home Depot proved.

Terry Preston

---

From: Frank Hay [mailto:anonymous-comment@blogger.com]
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 8:27 PM
Subject: [From the Mountaintop] 10/21/2005 08:23:07 PM

"White Power in Black Hell."

You saw this in CA? Sad.

It's inherently contradictory.

Let's not tell them.

--
Posted by Frank Hay to From the Mountaintop at 10/21/2005 08:23:07 PM

One Day at Home Depot

It was a lazy late afternoon on a typically warm Sacramento fall day. Temps hover at highs in the mid-'80's these days, and to my now-acclimated soul, it's quite pleasant. I took some time to mosey over to my local Home Depot for a little shopping.

You meet all kinds at a large store like Home Depot. This one is located at a large shopping near the junction of two major interstate highways, so it's busy. I suppose I found what I was looking for.

My friends in Oakland sneered when I moved here to Sacramento. "You'll miss the -diversity-", they said. Actually, Sacramento is the most diverse city in the US in terms of housing, according to the census and other stats. My particular area of town is known locally for its diverse bourgeoisie. The marvelously liberal inner Bay Area is becoming less and less diverse as the "people of color" with get up and go get up and move inland. The People's Republic of Berkeley has the dubious progressive distinction of now being the whitest city in Alameda County. But the biggest difference is that around here, you actually see poor -white- people. Never find one of those in Oakland.

So I wasn't all that surprised to see a youngish white woman just in from the trailer park wearing a white patterned tee-shirt strolling toward a cash register. What struck me was the particular pattern itself.

It was a Confederate flag surrounded by the phrase "White Power in Black Hell."

As an aside, Confederate flag lovers always go on about how it's not their fault that the Battle Flag has been appropriated by despicable people, but do they every go out of their way to shut 'em up?

Okay, the Constitution protects this sort of silliness and I'd be the first to the barricades to protect it. But what the heck does it -mean-?

Did it mean that whites are forced to live in a Hell created by black people? If so, I'm flattered by the implication of the deep power I and other furry-haired Americans allegedly hold. I feel like the German Jew who responded to the Nazis' pogroms by saying that he just wished he were half as threatening as they said he was.

Did it mean that whites are taking power in a black Hell? If so, why aren't they aiming a little higher? If I were trying to take over an extradimensional plane I'd shoot for Paradise myself. Let someone else rule in Hell.

Given that, are they admitting that figurative black Hell is where they ought to be? If so, I applaud their honesty. I'll even volunteer to light the fire once they reach the blackest level of the Pit they can find.

In short, to all the white power supremacists out there (clearly imagining living in a world without any pro basketball worth watching), please try and be clearer in your rants. Hatred is a simple emotion. It shouldn't be that hard to get it clearly off your chest.

My last question to her is, if you feel that way, what the Hell are you doing in Sacramento, one of the most diverse cities in the country, particular in terms of housing? I mean, why drop right down into your own Hell?

Some people I'll just never understand.

Re: The Left Hand of God

Frank,

He isn’t. They just –think- he is.

This is why De Lay Republicans can be certified legally insane. After all, people who hear voices in their heads should be put away for their own protection, right? So when dear Tom is put away for a long, long time, it’s for his own good. He might hurt himself.

Terry Preston

---

From: Frank Hay [mailto:anonymous-comment@blogger.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 3:55 PM
Subject: [From the Mountaintop] 10/20/2005 03:55:11 PM

Dear God,

Please stop talking to Republicans!

Thanks,

--
Posted by Frank Hay to From the Mountaintop at 10/20/2005 03:55:11 PM

The Left Hand of God

"He [God] has been walking me through an incredible journey, and it all comes down to worldview ?He is using me, all the time, everywhere, to stand up for biblical worldview in everything that I do and everywhere I am. He is training me, He is working with me."

"It never ceases to amaze me that people are so cynical [that] they want to tie money to issues, money to bills, money to amendments."

For all that you need to know about our GOP House commander-in-thief, go to:

http://www.exterminatetomdelay.com/bug.php

Re: Good Work!!

Frank:

Actually, they’re not being hypocritical. They are being consistent, in a sick way.

For years, they kept telling us that government is inherently evil and that public servants were liars, thieves and scalliwags. When you set such your standards for public service so low, you’re bound to hit them when you finally get your turn.

---

From: Frank Hay [mailto:anonymous-comment@blogger.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 1:29 PM
Subject: [From the Mountaintop] 10/19/2005 01:29:02 PM

With Clinton it was all about the Rule of Law. Now with the CIA leak, Frist's questionable stock sales and the sleazy Texan DeLay they're lamenting the "criminalization of politics".

Their hypocrisy is complete - they've become what they hated.

Good Work!!

I would love to have been a fly on the wall when the following conversation took place:

GW Bush: “I need to reassure my radical base about Miers but I can’t do it myself. Get down to Texas and ask some of the cronies to front for me.”

Soon after, several judges insist that Miers’s religious beliefs will require her to overturn Roe v. Wade. Good work! At least we know that Karl Rove is still on the job.

So the Bush team has managed to do what John Roberts managed to avoid, inject personal religious beliefs smack dab into the middle of the confirmation process. Good work!!

For eons, conservatives have insisted that judges’ job was to interpret and apply the law, not rule on personal convictions. Okay. Last I looked, religious convictions were just as personal as liberal political convictions. If Miers’s religious convictions will require that she rule a certain way on longstanding case law then, by their own actions, the conservatives have disqualified Miers from holding a seat on the high bench. Good work!!

The GOP’s knock on Clinton was that he was all campaign, no govern. After five years, it’s looking like a case of familiarity breeding contempt.

"Houston, we have a problem ..."

Last night’s National League championship series game showed once again why baseball is the supreme sport.

Every other sport requires a clock. The game is played on a rectangular field with the goal of getting the ball or whatever into a goal at the respective ends of the field within a defined time. Fun, but overall pretty derivative.

Baseball is over when a certain number of tasks have been completed, not when the clock strikes twelve. In theory, any team has a chance to win as long as 27 outs haven’t been recorded yet. Last night, the Cardinals showed why. Two outs, top of the ninth, down by two runs, one out away from packing for the winter … and they win the game. Sudden, shocking and unexpected, the very definition of drama. It just couldn’t be better.

This isn’t to say that other sports aren’t exciting. In football, a team down by a score or two –races- the clock to score. I still watch the San Francisco 49ers’ 1989 Super Bowl win over Cincinnati for inspiration. Down by a score, could Joe Montana go the length of the field in time? Yes!! Yaaaay!! But if the ‘Niners were down by two scores, no drama at all. Nada. Nothing. Not in baseball. A team’s not lost until that last out has run up.

Is it any wonder it’s still the national pastime?

Which brings me to my seven rules of “If I Were Commissioner” baseball:

1. No team except the Yankees can wear pinstripes. They set the standard, let everyone else enjoy them. Everyone else just looks like pitiful wannabes.

2. No network is allowed to show two games at the same time, as Fox did a couple of nights ago, putting one on broadcast, the other on deep cable. This unfairly discriminates against obsessive types like me who want and need to tank out in front of the tube or radio during playoff season, and are only given three hours out of a possible six to do ir.

3. No shots of famous people attending a ballgame. This goes for ex-presidents and actors alike. No one cares and it takes away from shots of attractive women, which is what the cameramen and the fans would prefer to see anyway. The only exception are shots of former ‘Niner QB Steve Young at SBC. That’s okay. After all, what other good Mormon boy could enjoy such success in San Francisco, of all places?

4. Maintain the current practice of not showing televised scenes from bars in the road team’s hometown through a formal ban. “Hi, we’re drunk and loud and watching teevee!!” If I want that, I can invite friends over. Stay on the game.

5. Place a ban on any more wildcard teams in the US Constitution. This is critical because greedy owners just don’t know when to stop. Baseball commish Bud Selig was reportedly close to adding a second wild card team a couple of years ago. The two wildcard teams would play a one game playoff to see who’d get to go to the real playoffs. Even -more- excitement, and spinning turnstiles, after the All-Star Game. No, no, no. The current setup is fine. This year, so many teams were "on the bubble" it looked like the MBA. The wildcard works because it –is- “in or go home.” Keep that tension. It makes the wildcard a valid contender.

6. It’s funny to see “This day in 1967” featuring a World Series game while current division playoffs are going on. Shorten the season. This is baseball. It shouldn’t begin and end in a snowstorm. When the last game of the Series inevitably does, some idiot will propose a Super Bowl-style of rotation among warm wintered cities, passing the Series audience off to the same corporate pigs who fill a typical SB stadium, not real people.

7. Get rid of the silly All Star rule giving home field advantage to the league who wins the game. It’s not made the game any more intriguing and punishes a good team from a weaker league in the Series. I say, mix up the game even more. Play Red states vs. Blue states. Or US vs. the World, given all of the foreign-born players currently blessing the game. Or have each league WS manager draft their respective teams. Turn it into a big fantasy game.

I’m still hoping for a Cards – White Sox Classic. If nothing else, last night I got something I cherish greatly, thousands of miserable pathetic Texans. That alone was worth the price of admission.

The Fall Classic

Our long national nightmare is finally over.

We don’t have to hear any more about the Yankees or Red Sox.

It was fun last year, even for the overwhelming majority who don’t live in or who didn’t grow up in the Northeast. We heard about the Curse, and the Rivalry and the big dollars on each side. And the passion. And the tradition.

It was almost a fairytale ending. All that it lacked was World Series drama. The rematch of the 1967 “Incredible Dream” Series never materialized. (The modern Red Sox era came out of that year. Before that, attendance at Fenway was actually pretty poor for years.)

We even got Stephen King showing up ESPN. When the Sox were down a million to one in Game Three, they tracked down Stephen King for some woe in yet another apparent disappointment. Mr. King tripped ‘em up by being cheery and upbeat about the whole thing. “It was a good year,” he said. But you’ve gotta be feeling bad right now. “Well, the Sox had a good year, and it was exciting,” King said. But, you –must- be feeling bad right now, ESPN said. King kept merrily telling us how good the year was and so on. You could see Gary Miller, the ESPN reporter, getting irritated at fishing for a certain story and not landing it. Who would expect to get a –happy- horror writer at Fenway Park? Of course, King was co-writing a book on the season and would come out a winner regardless. It’s a pretty good book, too.

So this season came as bad sequel to a movie where the story seemed to end at the curtain call. You can’t keep replaying the same story. Yes, the Yankees and Red Sox have a rivalry. But so do other teams in other sports. It’s just that this one is a particular love of the northeastern media, so we get it over the national wires, in stereo, and up among the decibels. It was loud this year, and annoying. And fortunately, it’s done with.

Me, I’m rooting for a Midwestern Classic, the Cards and the White Sox. When I think of classic baseball, I think of corn, wheat and wide shouldered cities off in the distance. -That’s- red-blooded American baseball. Now that we’ve got the Curse out of our system, we can get back to our roots.

And the White Sox in six (they’ve got the pitching) when we get it.

Re: Columbus Day

Frank,

Just imagine how different history might be had Mrs. Columbus been along on the trip.

---

From: Frank Hay

Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 3:53 PM
Subject: [From the Mountaintop] 10/12/2005 03:49:51 PM

"The English brought wives."

And their wives made them ask for directions!

(Time to warm up the chow mein . . .)

Columbus Day

Today is Columbus Day (celebrated). Or Indigenous Peoples Day (in Berkeley).

The irony over the annual tussle over what Columbus Day means, whether it’s a celebration of a bold pioneer or genocidal imperialism, is that the holiday initially set out to show Americans that Italian-Americans weren’t all bad. Times were hard for a lot of Italian immigrants after Ellis Island. They were smelly, garlic-obsessed papists to a lot of “native” Americans. To show the country that not only were some quite bright, but that in fact, the country wouldn’t exist without them, “Columbus Day” was born around the turn of the century.

Columbus Day was a pretty big deal when I was growing up in San Francisco. At least a quarter of my elementary school was Italian American. Columbus Day was “Festa” time, when Old San Francisco celebrated its now mythical love affair with Italian heritage. As someone who has rarely found a pasta he didn’t like, this worked for me. For a lot of my schoolmates, it was “Kiss Me, I’m Italian” time. For one of my early girlfriends, I did just that.

“Indigenous Peoples Day” bugs me in part because it misses the historical mark, to be discussed below. But also because it makes no sense. If you’re born somewhere, you’re indigenous. “Native” makes little sense either, for the same reason. If you look at human migration patterns, we’re all “non-indigenous.” Even the Indians. They came from Asia, and there is some evidence that the Sioux and others we know from John Wayne movies may have displaced other migrants who reached here before them.

The importance of Columbus isn’t in why he came. It’s in the fact that others followed. There’s growing evidence that a number of folks, including East Asians, may have sailed to this hemisphere before he did. And everyone agrees that the Vikings settled the coast before the “natives” ran them off (silly Norsemen didn’t wait until the Europeans got gunpowder). But after Columbus came the wave.

The English brought wives. The French and Spanish didn’t. (The fact that the English settlements by far did the best is testament to the power of the girl you bring home to momma.) The result was the Western Hemisphere we know today. You don’t have to like Columbus, and he certainly wasn’t very likeable, to acknowledge the –effect- his misguided little trip had on history.

It’s also, if you’re a public worker, it's a good excuse for nice day off during Indian summer. I live in the state capital of California and it's tough at the mines when every third person you meet is living a long weekend.

Anyways, I’m off for now. I think there’s some leftover lasagna in the fridge …