When I told Leroy that there would be an Easter egg hunt on the grounds after church, he offered to stand outside and wait for the Easter bunny to show up.
Leroy turned six and a half just before Easter, yet he still has a very sweet belief in magical creatures which I do nothing to talk him out of. For me, it's cute. For him, it's serious business. The magical critters bring him things.
Last Christmas he wanted to wait for Santa in the living room, and kept "hearing" him outside whenever he heard a noise. In February he went through a true crisis of faith when a cartoon character told him there was no Tooth Fairy when he'd just lost a tooth. I had to whip up a fancy desktop published letter from the Tooth Fairy herself, with dollar bill, to restore his soul. Before Easter he wanted to hunt down a leprechaun and demand some of his gold when he found out that St. Patrick's Day doesn't come with a gift (not counting the adult license to drink yourself stupid one day of the year).
So when do I tell him that these creatures don't exist? I don't. He finds that out for himself. He's already got his suspicions. When he wanted to hunt for the Easter bunny at his grandma's house after Easter dinner, Mom offered to put some eggs out for a second go 'round. "Daddy, is Mommy an Easter bunny?", he asked. No, but she can pretend she's one. He knows that some Christmas presents come from the store, because he had to buy some, and there were some for him under my brother's tree in Utah the Thanksgiving before.
But the notion that there are magical creatures out to do him good seems to reassure him, and why mess with that? It's a beautiful world to live in. We all remember that, and miss it, which is why "Lord of the Rings" and other fantasy does so well among ticket-buying adults. We remember what it was like to actually believe that fairies and elves were real.
Our gradual realization that there is no Santa Claus is part of growing up. We accept that the world consists of what we can see, hear and feel. We realize that it offers magic in other ways, through love, ambition and a game winning homer in the bottom of the 9th. We realize that we really don't need play magic. The real world can offer mystery enough.
Now, it's back to watching "The Magic School Bus" with Leroy. He wants me to buy a car like that, you know. I think I'll wait for the sale.
Monday, March 28, 2005
18 Things We Learned from the Schiavo Case
[Sent to me from a friend]
1) Jeb Bush, George W. Bush, and Tom Delay are all world renowned neurologists.
2) 22 successive court battles that all ended in exactly the same way means there is something wrong with the courts, not the Schindler's case
3) Mike is after money which is why he turned down 1 million dollars and 10 million dollars to sign over guardianship.
4) Congress and the State Legislature of Florida has nothing better to do than pry into the private medical affairs of others.
5) Pulling life support is bad in Florida when authorized by the legal next-of-kin, but pulling life support is good in Texas when you run out of money and the mother pleads not to pull the plug on her baby.
6) Medical diagnoses are best performed by watching highly edited videotape made by Randall Terry rather than in person by trained physicians.
7) Minimum wage making nursing assistants are more qualified to diagnose a persistent vegetative state than experienced neurologists.
8) Cerebral spinal fluid is a magical potion that can mimic the entire functions of a missing cerebral cortex.
9) 15 years in the same persistent state is not really enough time to make an accurate diagnosis.
10) A feeding tube that infuses yellow nutritional goop is not really "life support".
11) Jesus was wrong when he said that a man and woman should leave their parents and cleave only to each other.
12) Marriage is the most sacred of all unions, except when it isn't.
13) Interfering in a family's private tragedy is a great reason to cut short a vacation, but
getting a memo that warns a known terrorist is determine to strike inside the US is cause to relax and finish up some R&R.
14) Pro-lifers are really compassionate people which is why they are hoping that Michael Schiavo dies a horrible painful death.
15) The Supreme Court of the United States and the State Supreme Court of Florida mean "Maybe" when they are saying "No!".
16) Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is a bleeding heart liberal.
17) 7 Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republican presidents, so it's Clinton's fault.
18) A judge who makes rulings based on the law is obviously an atheist, liberal, Democratic activist even though he is a conservative, Republican, Southern Baptist.
The saddest part of this whole thing? Every one of those things is based on reality. Sad, sad reality.
1) Jeb Bush, George W. Bush, and Tom Delay are all world renowned neurologists.
2) 22 successive court battles that all ended in exactly the same way means there is something wrong with the courts, not the Schindler's case
3) Mike is after money which is why he turned down 1 million dollars and 10 million dollars to sign over guardianship.
4) Congress and the State Legislature of Florida has nothing better to do than pry into the private medical affairs of others.
5) Pulling life support is bad in Florida when authorized by the legal next-of-kin, but pulling life support is good in Texas when you run out of money and the mother pleads not to pull the plug on her baby.
6) Medical diagnoses are best performed by watching highly edited videotape made by Randall Terry rather than in person by trained physicians.
7) Minimum wage making nursing assistants are more qualified to diagnose a persistent vegetative state than experienced neurologists.
8) Cerebral spinal fluid is a magical potion that can mimic the entire functions of a missing cerebral cortex.
9) 15 years in the same persistent state is not really enough time to make an accurate diagnosis.
10) A feeding tube that infuses yellow nutritional goop is not really "life support".
11) Jesus was wrong when he said that a man and woman should leave their parents and cleave only to each other.
12) Marriage is the most sacred of all unions, except when it isn't.
13) Interfering in a family's private tragedy is a great reason to cut short a vacation, but
getting a memo that warns a known terrorist is determine to strike inside the US is cause to relax and finish up some R&R.
14) Pro-lifers are really compassionate people which is why they are hoping that Michael Schiavo dies a horrible painful death.
15) The Supreme Court of the United States and the State Supreme Court of Florida mean "Maybe" when they are saying "No!".
16) Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is a bleeding heart liberal.
17) 7 Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republican presidents, so it's Clinton's fault.
18) A judge who makes rulings based on the law is obviously an atheist, liberal, Democratic activist even though he is a conservative, Republican, Southern Baptist.
The saddest part of this whole thing? Every one of those things is based on reality. Sad, sad reality.
Friday, March 25, 2005
Help Wanted: Angel of Death - Apply Within
I'll burn in liberal Hell for saying this, but I agree with Justice Scalia (oh, the -pain-!) that there are many things best left to legislatures. Defining the substance and process involved in these decisions are a great example.
For example, in a recent op-ed, Charles Krauthammer holds that says a court should be able to turn custody over to any first-degree relative willing to keep a vegged-out patient alive. Fine. But that means you have to have one.
Leroy, my only child, will have no siblings. Under the Krauthammer view, Leroy would be out of supposedly beneficial options if either we die before he marries or he dies and just one of us parents is left to decide. Given the increasing number of people who come from smaller families these days and who marry later or not at all, this policy would favor Mormons and Catholics over everybody else.
Also, who pays? If hubby says "pull" but son wants to take over, does the son then assume legal responsibility for the hospice care? What if there's a hefty settlement or judgment sitting in the bank as a result of the accident which left wife as a veg? Does son assume that money to pay the bills? Or does hubby keep it, for "loss of consortium" and all the other stuff he can recover over? If the state has to pay the bill, can it collect from hubby even though the circumstances creating the financial liability are over his clear objections?
These are the kind of things legislatures need to figure out and apply. Courts can't, and don't, which is why the parents aren't gettin' any love at the docket over this. As a matter of fact, the more controversial this becomes, the -less- likely any court will intervene, for fear of pre-empting what should be a political discussion among the law-making agencies of the state.
There really isn't much at issue here for a court to work with. Either the Florida law was properly applied, or there is a Constitutional bar to anyone making that kind of decision for anyone else. Or for themselves, perhaps, through a health care directive or other instrument. If the first, then it's clearly been reviewed inside and out. If the latter, it's too sweeping a consequence for a court to take it on, preferring to let the legislative process work it out all.
And yes, it's just too funny for words to see all these conservative activists screaming for a level of "judicial activism" they scream about when liberals supposedly do it.
For example, in a recent op-ed, Charles Krauthammer holds that says a court should be able to turn custody over to any first-degree relative willing to keep a vegged-out patient alive. Fine. But that means you have to have one.
Leroy, my only child, will have no siblings. Under the Krauthammer view, Leroy would be out of supposedly beneficial options if either we die before he marries or he dies and just one of us parents is left to decide. Given the increasing number of people who come from smaller families these days and who marry later or not at all, this policy would favor Mormons and Catholics over everybody else.
Also, who pays? If hubby says "pull" but son wants to take over, does the son then assume legal responsibility for the hospice care? What if there's a hefty settlement or judgment sitting in the bank as a result of the accident which left wife as a veg? Does son assume that money to pay the bills? Or does hubby keep it, for "loss of consortium" and all the other stuff he can recover over? If the state has to pay the bill, can it collect from hubby even though the circumstances creating the financial liability are over his clear objections?
These are the kind of things legislatures need to figure out and apply. Courts can't, and don't, which is why the parents aren't gettin' any love at the docket over this. As a matter of fact, the more controversial this becomes, the -less- likely any court will intervene, for fear of pre-empting what should be a political discussion among the law-making agencies of the state.
There really isn't much at issue here for a court to work with. Either the Florida law was properly applied, or there is a Constitutional bar to anyone making that kind of decision for anyone else. Or for themselves, perhaps, through a health care directive or other instrument. If the first, then it's clearly been reviewed inside and out. If the latter, it's too sweeping a consequence for a court to take it on, preferring to let the legislative process work it out all.
And yes, it's just too funny for words to see all these conservative activists screaming for a level of "judicial activism" they scream about when liberals supposedly do it.
Help from Odd Places
You know, I was just thinking. The Schiavo mess might actually help the pro-choice side regarding defending reproductive rights.
The pro-choice side has always argued that it's a private decision where the state shouldn't be be butting its nose in because of all the painful and personal issues involved. Given the seventy percent of the public who feel similarly about the Schaivo case, that there's a clear line between private and public decisions, the "pro-life" side out raising hell is making a pretty good case for the pro-choice position here.
Funny how things work out sometimes.
The pro-choice side has always argued that it's a private decision where the state shouldn't be be butting its nose in because of all the painful and personal issues involved. Given the seventy percent of the public who feel similarly about the Schaivo case, that there's a clear line between private and public decisions, the "pro-life" side out raising hell is making a pretty good case for the pro-choice position here.
Funny how things work out sometimes.
Monday, March 21, 2005
Rumsfeld's Ownership Society
[From today's AP]
Rumsfeld laments Iraq invasion restriction
By SIOBHAN McDONOUGH, Associated Press Writer
Last Updated 6:26 am PST Monday, March 21, 2005
WASHINGTON (AP) - The level of insurgency in postwar Iraq wouldn't be so high if the U.S.-led coalition had been able to invade from the north, through Turkey, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Sunday.
Rumsfeld told "Fox News Sunday" that if the United States had able to get its 4th Infantry Division into northern Iraq through Turkey, more of Saddam's Baathist regime would have been captured or killed, diminishing the insurgency.
U.S. forces had to enter Iraq from the south, so by the time Baghdad was taken, much of Saddam's military and intelligence services had dissipated into the northern cities, Rumsfeld said. "They're still, in a number of instances, still active," he said.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't it amazing that the people who want to bring us "the ownership society" because we need to take complete ersonal responsibility for ourselves until the day we die absolutely refuses to take any responsibility for their own rotten decisions in Iraq?
The insurgency isn't the fault of a Bush White House which didn't have the foresight to plan for it because that might undermine all the love the Iraqis were going to shower on us, from the po' Shiites in the south to the Sunni technocrats in Baghdad. No, there would be no insurgency, they knew, so why plan for it? Why plan for the looting of arsenals which would arm it, or equip enough troops to combat it when it first arose? And now, why not just admit you didn't plan for the right eventuality?
You know the Bush administration planned a different scenario. You know they would have loved to have had the transfer of power ceremony be a little more gaudy and elaborate than Bremer handing over the keys and hopping on a plane like a deadbeat tenant skipping out on a couple of months' rent. But the insurgency has served well in other areas. I think it was the single biggest factor in Bush' s re-election. No matter how Kerry spun it, a vote for Kerry was a vote against the war, and enough folks didn't want to change horses in mid-stream.
So I expect the Bush team to be internally grateful to the insurgency for the help it gave them in winning a second term. But for the rest of us, taking a little personal responsibility for a lot of bad decisions and poor judgment would be just a little consistent, don't you think?
Sunday, March 20, 2005
Raising Arizona
So, I'm the proud daddy of a six-year-old boy who sometimes won't sit down in class. Working with him, school and others has been an interesting experience in what it means to raise a kid in today's overdiagnosed kids' world.
One of my better acquaintances, a noted blabbermouth and fine criminal defense lawyer, says he rarely said a thing until he was almost four. Since then he can't shut up and makes good money as a consequence. Had he been raised today, he would have had a battalion of experts all over him by the time he was three. He didn't, and turned out fine. Years from now the grown up version of Leroy and I will look back at his six year old edition and laugh at it all.
Oh, I fuss and worry, but my general answer to "What's up with Leroy?" is "He's six." A lot of mommas and too many daddies today go nuts over not getting the "diagnosis" early enough. "Oh, if -only- I had known ... a week after he was born!" We've forgotten that kids don't all bloom the same way at the same pace and that most of us turn out just fine.
I don't have enough fingers and toes to count how many times "autistic" has been waved at me. With some reason. My wife has a severely autistic brother who's been under state care since he was a child. He's autistic to the point of being unable to learn anything. This means I've seen what autistic is, and my son ain't that. Another acquaintance has a son who's speech delayed. He's a bright kid, he just doesn't have much to say. He's quite happy sitting by himself and creating very detailed Lego and other put-togethery toys. So one of momma's friends fretted to us that this means he's probably 'obsessive-compulsive' and ooooh ... Or he's a budding engineer, I said.
God or Nature, take your pick, developed genetic diversity to create different outcomes. That's why some of us are artistic, some talkative, some quiet and contemplative, some outgoing, etc. That's how we're built. It's how collectively we come up with all the skills we need to survive as a group. But we've come up with a "cookie cutter" guideline about how kids develop. And it's according to plan. An evil plan.
The capitalist credo is "find a need and fill it." The marketer's corollary is "if a need doesn't exist, invent one and fill that." All this fretful parenting stuff is just another way to suck money out of our pockets.
Which leads us to meds, which came up during the discussions surrounding my son. It was someone saying, "well, it seems to help some kids, so maybe we need to try 'em out here ...". To which I said, still say and will continue saying, "NO!" And needless to say, one of the school folks said, "if money's an issue (which it isn't) I know where you can get 'em cheap." I'll bet you can, lady.
Part of this is just sheer laziness. By looking at a few cues, I recently saw that some of my son's recent wackiness was his way of calling for a change in afterschool routine. He didn't like the noisy yet regimented on-site program. But he's not good for his age expressing his wants (except for new toys and ice cream), so it took a little figuring. So we moved him back to the private aftercare program he enjoyed in kindergarten. Since we've done that, he's fine. Except on Mondays, and we're -all- a little short that day, aren't we? Pretty understandable.
This drug silliness is also the byproduct of money. Insurance and pharmaceutical companies pay money hand over fist to get kids on meds. This drives my sister, a VA psych nurse, nuts. She says she's already seeing grown men who've been on Ritalin or whatever all their lives and can't imagine being without it. But that's what the bill payers pay for because that "fixes" the problem. The whole idea behind meds, she says, was to bring people down to Earth long enough to work on a long term solution, not dope 'em up 'til the day they die. But if people are actually taught how to work things through, then they're no longer patients, and don't need the drugs.
Scary.
BTW, my son's grades are fine. This baffles his teacher, who swears he's not paying a lick of attention. I hate to tell her that his daddy was pretty much the same way.
One of my better acquaintances, a noted blabbermouth and fine criminal defense lawyer, says he rarely said a thing until he was almost four. Since then he can't shut up and makes good money as a consequence. Had he been raised today, he would have had a battalion of experts all over him by the time he was three. He didn't, and turned out fine. Years from now the grown up version of Leroy and I will look back at his six year old edition and laugh at it all.
Oh, I fuss and worry, but my general answer to "What's up with Leroy?" is "He's six." A lot of mommas and too many daddies today go nuts over not getting the "diagnosis" early enough. "Oh, if -only- I had known ... a week after he was born!" We've forgotten that kids don't all bloom the same way at the same pace and that most of us turn out just fine.
I don't have enough fingers and toes to count how many times "autistic" has been waved at me. With some reason. My wife has a severely autistic brother who's been under state care since he was a child. He's autistic to the point of being unable to learn anything. This means I've seen what autistic is, and my son ain't that. Another acquaintance has a son who's speech delayed. He's a bright kid, he just doesn't have much to say. He's quite happy sitting by himself and creating very detailed Lego and other put-togethery toys. So one of momma's friends fretted to us that this means he's probably 'obsessive-compulsive' and ooooh ... Or he's a budding engineer, I said.
God or Nature, take your pick, developed genetic diversity to create different outcomes. That's why some of us are artistic, some talkative, some quiet and contemplative, some outgoing, etc. That's how we're built. It's how collectively we come up with all the skills we need to survive as a group. But we've come up with a "cookie cutter" guideline about how kids develop. And it's according to plan. An evil plan.
The capitalist credo is "find a need and fill it." The marketer's corollary is "if a need doesn't exist, invent one and fill that." All this fretful parenting stuff is just another way to suck money out of our pockets.
Which leads us to meds, which came up during the discussions surrounding my son. It was someone saying, "well, it seems to help some kids, so maybe we need to try 'em out here ...". To which I said, still say and will continue saying, "NO!" And needless to say, one of the school folks said, "if money's an issue (which it isn't) I know where you can get 'em cheap." I'll bet you can, lady.
Part of this is just sheer laziness. By looking at a few cues, I recently saw that some of my son's recent wackiness was his way of calling for a change in afterschool routine. He didn't like the noisy yet regimented on-site program. But he's not good for his age expressing his wants (except for new toys and ice cream), so it took a little figuring. So we moved him back to the private aftercare program he enjoyed in kindergarten. Since we've done that, he's fine. Except on Mondays, and we're -all- a little short that day, aren't we? Pretty understandable.
This drug silliness is also the byproduct of money. Insurance and pharmaceutical companies pay money hand over fist to get kids on meds. This drives my sister, a VA psych nurse, nuts. She says she's already seeing grown men who've been on Ritalin or whatever all their lives and can't imagine being without it. But that's what the bill payers pay for because that "fixes" the problem. The whole idea behind meds, she says, was to bring people down to Earth long enough to work on a long term solution, not dope 'em up 'til the day they die. But if people are actually taught how to work things through, then they're no longer patients, and don't need the drugs.
Scary.
BTW, my son's grades are fine. This baffles his teacher, who swears he's not paying a lick of attention. I hate to tell her that his daddy was pretty much the same way.
Death and Dying - Schiavo case
Lord, I'm glad my relatives have more sense than Terri Schiavo's.
Lord, I wish Republicans in Congress had something better to do than get mixed up in all this. (On the other hand this, plus the steroids mess which they also shouldn't be involved in, keeps them from doing truly stupider stuff.)
For the Republicans it's a freebie. They get to pose on other people's suffering in a way which endears them even more to the loony religious right, and if and when the federal courts walk away from this one, they can say, "hey, it's those nutty courts again! But we did our best ... ".
One wonders what the proponents of this power play hopes to gain from all this in the specific case at hand. It's unlikely the courts are going to hold that pulling the plug is some constitutional violation. Dragging it out through the courts isn't like to make Terri's hubby drop it and go do something else. At the end of it all, we're just going to right back here anyway.
What amazes me about the supposed "right to life" here is that whatever life the poor lady has right now is artificially induced. Had she fell into her current state a hundred years ago this never would have been an issue because she'd have died years ago. If Nature takes its course, then it will clearly decide that the system She has set up, where the brain has to be around to tell the body what to do for life to continue, is a good one, and all of Terri dies. The "life" being preserved isn't a natural one. It's organs being kept functioning by the chance of technology. Is this truly what the "right to life" crowd is working for? Bleah ...
Another issue which comes to mind is the role of the nuclear family. Shouldn't a husband or wife make the call, under both our laws and the laws of any higher power? Heck, didn't Jesus hisownself say "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?" So isn't this decision to be made by the 'flesh' itself, the husband or wife forced to make such a hard choice? Where's "family values" here?
So I'm again glad that my family wouldn't do this to me. My wife would argue to pull the plug and love my memory and the rest of my family isn't silly enough to intervene. I should thank the Lord for that.
Lord, I wish Republicans in Congress had something better to do than get mixed up in all this. (On the other hand this, plus the steroids mess which they also shouldn't be involved in, keeps them from doing truly stupider stuff.)
For the Republicans it's a freebie. They get to pose on other people's suffering in a way which endears them even more to the loony religious right, and if and when the federal courts walk away from this one, they can say, "hey, it's those nutty courts again! But we did our best ... ".
One wonders what the proponents of this power play hopes to gain from all this in the specific case at hand. It's unlikely the courts are going to hold that pulling the plug is some constitutional violation. Dragging it out through the courts isn't like to make Terri's hubby drop it and go do something else. At the end of it all, we're just going to right back here anyway.
What amazes me about the supposed "right to life" here is that whatever life the poor lady has right now is artificially induced. Had she fell into her current state a hundred years ago this never would have been an issue because she'd have died years ago. If Nature takes its course, then it will clearly decide that the system She has set up, where the brain has to be around to tell the body what to do for life to continue, is a good one, and all of Terri dies. The "life" being preserved isn't a natural one. It's organs being kept functioning by the chance of technology. Is this truly what the "right to life" crowd is working for? Bleah ...
Another issue which comes to mind is the role of the nuclear family. Shouldn't a husband or wife make the call, under both our laws and the laws of any higher power? Heck, didn't Jesus hisownself say "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?" So isn't this decision to be made by the 'flesh' itself, the husband or wife forced to make such a hard choice? Where's "family values" here?
So I'm again glad that my family wouldn't do this to me. My wife would argue to pull the plug and love my memory and the rest of my family isn't silly enough to intervene. I should thank the Lord for that.
Friday, March 18, 2005
Motherhood and Apple Pie
So I have to admit, the whole Congressional inquiry farce into baseball and steroids is turning out a whole lot more interesting than I thought.
Oh, it's still silly. There's nothing more ridiculous than members of Congress dragging down baseball because they're so worried about it. It's a great photo op with a lot of highly recognizable guys, and guaranteed to play back home. (And what's the Government Reform Committee doing here? Aren't they supposed to be out reforming government or something?)
What's fun are the players. There's formerly-loved-now-hated-in-Chitown Sammy Sosa, of clearly illegal corked bat fame, trying to rebuild a shattered image. There's Rafael Palmeiro wondering why in the hell he was called. Honest, he said, the only drug I take is Viagra, which is amazingly less embarrassing than steroids.
Then there's Mark McGwire, who's set the whole thing spinning with a "yes, but, no, but then I'm not saying anything" which has some idiot from the Midwest hollering to have his name taken off Hayseed Highway. Mark is the man who brought back baseball from the depths of its own near self-destruction in 1994, when duel sets of millionaires amazingly couldn't decide how to divide their riches. He's not the Savior, but durn close to Moses in terms of leading the game into the current promised land.
What he says isn't all that important. Steroid use to pump up wasn't against the rules when he allegedly used them. No, it's that Americans love contrition. That's why Martha Stewart got a heroes welcome after a turn in the slammer. (That and many Americans feel she was a sacrificial lamb for far greater corporate crimes.) Now, if Mark had fallen down and tearfully confessed, and told li'l chillin' out in the heartland and cities to stay off the hard stuff, he'd be the toast of Broadway. No, he prevaricates, and we don't like prevaricators. So Mark will suffer. He might even lose his name on that highway.
Which is why Barry Bonds is my hero in all this. Barry doesn't prevaricate. Barry shoots back. Barry sneers at this foolishness. Barry knows that he's about to break the sport's most cherished record, they need him more than he needs them. He's safe at home. Giants fans never worried about whether he was lovable enough. They pay Bay Area prices to see him hit a baseball. You've never seen anything like what happens at Big Phone Company Park when Barry comes up. Everything stops. Even the sausage dogs and garlic fries are put on hold and everyone stands mesmerized. Also, it's Northern California, and who around here cares about performance enhancing drugs? We've all been to college. We've been there.
Yes, Barry shows disdain, which is why he got a pass from the performance. "He doesn't stay on point", the congresscritters' spokesperson says. Translation: he's bad teevee. We all learned from Ollie North what happens when the target knows how to take over the stage, and that ain't happening.
So it's back to the soaps, er, the hearings, to see what happens next? Will Mark confess? Will Sammy and he kiss and make up? Will Curt Schilling speak in tongues? Stay tuned ...
Or turn to the sports page and find out what's up with Barry's knee. But that's only if you want real news.
Oh, it's still silly. There's nothing more ridiculous than members of Congress dragging down baseball because they're so worried about it. It's a great photo op with a lot of highly recognizable guys, and guaranteed to play back home. (And what's the Government Reform Committee doing here? Aren't they supposed to be out reforming government or something?)
What's fun are the players. There's formerly-loved-now-hated-in-Chitown Sammy Sosa, of clearly illegal corked bat fame, trying to rebuild a shattered image. There's Rafael Palmeiro wondering why in the hell he was called. Honest, he said, the only drug I take is Viagra, which is amazingly less embarrassing than steroids.
Then there's Mark McGwire, who's set the whole thing spinning with a "yes, but, no, but then I'm not saying anything" which has some idiot from the Midwest hollering to have his name taken off Hayseed Highway. Mark is the man who brought back baseball from the depths of its own near self-destruction in 1994, when duel sets of millionaires amazingly couldn't decide how to divide their riches. He's not the Savior, but durn close to Moses in terms of leading the game into the current promised land.
What he says isn't all that important. Steroid use to pump up wasn't against the rules when he allegedly used them. No, it's that Americans love contrition. That's why Martha Stewart got a heroes welcome after a turn in the slammer. (That and many Americans feel she was a sacrificial lamb for far greater corporate crimes.) Now, if Mark had fallen down and tearfully confessed, and told li'l chillin' out in the heartland and cities to stay off the hard stuff, he'd be the toast of Broadway. No, he prevaricates, and we don't like prevaricators. So Mark will suffer. He might even lose his name on that highway.
Which is why Barry Bonds is my hero in all this. Barry doesn't prevaricate. Barry shoots back. Barry sneers at this foolishness. Barry knows that he's about to break the sport's most cherished record, they need him more than he needs them. He's safe at home. Giants fans never worried about whether he was lovable enough. They pay Bay Area prices to see him hit a baseball. You've never seen anything like what happens at Big Phone Company Park when Barry comes up. Everything stops. Even the sausage dogs and garlic fries are put on hold and everyone stands mesmerized. Also, it's Northern California, and who around here cares about performance enhancing drugs? We've all been to college. We've been there.
Yes, Barry shows disdain, which is why he got a pass from the performance. "He doesn't stay on point", the congresscritters' spokesperson says. Translation: he's bad teevee. We all learned from Ollie North what happens when the target knows how to take over the stage, and that ain't happening.
So it's back to the soaps, er, the hearings, to see what happens next? Will Mark confess? Will Sammy and he kiss and make up? Will Curt Schilling speak in tongues? Stay tuned ...
Or turn to the sports page and find out what's up with Barry's knee. But that's only if you want real news.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
The Old Folks
So, of course the whole point of Bush's Social Security "reform" is political. As long as enough old folks are pulling government checks they're likely to vote Democratic. As long as young folks feel they're pulling their own weight through managing their own retirement investment portfolios the GOP figures it can lock 'em up by separating them from supporting the old folks. It's political math, and I can respect that.
The system really isn't all that broken. Some estimates are that relatively modest increases in the payroll tax and relatively modest decreases in the rate of benefit growth would take care of it all. No one disagrees that the intake/outtake will hit the red at some point. It's just not that catastrophic a tilt. So the only real reason for all this "reform" is the political reasons given above.
Social Security was never intended to be the primary foundation of old age income security. It was designed to buttress other income, which is does marvelously. In my dad's day one got the gold watch and the company pension. Along with his SS, he and my mom were able to live a comfortable enough life. One or the other was tight, together the bills could be paid and a pleasant retirement had. Nowadays, folks will have various 401(k)'s and such, or other investments. Social Security is there to provide enough additional cash to ensure that it's all livable.
I have an older family member who serves as a model case. She cashed out the family home for a decent sum, then turned it over for a smaller place and lives off dividends generated by the rest. The investment income in and of itself isn't adequate for a livable wage, so to speak. With SS, it is. That's what it was designed for, that's what it does. So why "fix" it if it ain't broken? To dis' the AARP, of course. It's really the only reason.
Fortunately, even the GOP can't swallow a lot of this. Oh, there will be some modest proposal to maybe give perhaps some people some flexibility so the Bush team can claim victory, but that's about it. All the Dems have to do is drag this out until the end of the year when the 2006 campaign season starts and the GOP runs for cover.
But I'm not a complete naysayer here. There are a couple of tweaks we could tack on, perhaps linking benefits closer to overall income level, stuff like that. But even there I'm conservative. FDR's brilliance in setting this up so that workers kicked in, unlike many other industrial systems where the public sector and/or industry do the heavy lifting, is that it locks in the system. Start cutting off the rich folks and they'll turn against it, which screws the middle and lower classes in turn.
The Media Blab:
This debate has led to an interesting "What's in a name?" discussion among the media. By following the Bush team's lead in calling this "reform", they are in effect agreeing about the need for reform, which is part of the debate itself. So they say it's a "revision" or "reworking" or something similar. Which just opens them up for charges of anti-Bush bias.
But it's about time. In a time where the line between government propaganda and real news has become invisible to too many viewers, what with stage managed "town halls", plants in press pools and government payments to presumably impartial commentators, the rest who haven't been co-opted have a duty to report what actually is. It's fair to call it a "Social Security revision" because that's what it is. George Will outlined the goal in a recent column, to keep retirees from being so-called "wards of the government", the keystone of the (kaff!) "Ownership Society." It's a different way of doing business, with radically different goals than present. So call it that.
This debate hits home. In eight years I'll be AARP-eligible, so maybe I'm too close to relying on the current system to see it objectively. (Just like those Kerry-voting New Yorkers are too close to gays and terrorist attacks to see those objectively). I'll also be paying a mortgage into my '70s, at current rates. So I gotta plan.
Maybe this debate oughta be "grandfathered." If the next generation wants to toss dirt over their own retirement security, let 'em. Just let me die first.
The system really isn't all that broken. Some estimates are that relatively modest increases in the payroll tax and relatively modest decreases in the rate of benefit growth would take care of it all. No one disagrees that the intake/outtake will hit the red at some point. It's just not that catastrophic a tilt. So the only real reason for all this "reform" is the political reasons given above.
Social Security was never intended to be the primary foundation of old age income security. It was designed to buttress other income, which is does marvelously. In my dad's day one got the gold watch and the company pension. Along with his SS, he and my mom were able to live a comfortable enough life. One or the other was tight, together the bills could be paid and a pleasant retirement had. Nowadays, folks will have various 401(k)'s and such, or other investments. Social Security is there to provide enough additional cash to ensure that it's all livable.
I have an older family member who serves as a model case. She cashed out the family home for a decent sum, then turned it over for a smaller place and lives off dividends generated by the rest. The investment income in and of itself isn't adequate for a livable wage, so to speak. With SS, it is. That's what it was designed for, that's what it does. So why "fix" it if it ain't broken? To dis' the AARP, of course. It's really the only reason.
Fortunately, even the GOP can't swallow a lot of this. Oh, there will be some modest proposal to maybe give perhaps some people some flexibility so the Bush team can claim victory, but that's about it. All the Dems have to do is drag this out until the end of the year when the 2006 campaign season starts and the GOP runs for cover.
But I'm not a complete naysayer here. There are a couple of tweaks we could tack on, perhaps linking benefits closer to overall income level, stuff like that. But even there I'm conservative. FDR's brilliance in setting this up so that workers kicked in, unlike many other industrial systems where the public sector and/or industry do the heavy lifting, is that it locks in the system. Start cutting off the rich folks and they'll turn against it, which screws the middle and lower classes in turn.
The Media Blab:
This debate has led to an interesting "What's in a name?" discussion among the media. By following the Bush team's lead in calling this "reform", they are in effect agreeing about the need for reform, which is part of the debate itself. So they say it's a "revision" or "reworking" or something similar. Which just opens them up for charges of anti-Bush bias.
But it's about time. In a time where the line between government propaganda and real news has become invisible to too many viewers, what with stage managed "town halls", plants in press pools and government payments to presumably impartial commentators, the rest who haven't been co-opted have a duty to report what actually is. It's fair to call it a "Social Security revision" because that's what it is. George Will outlined the goal in a recent column, to keep retirees from being so-called "wards of the government", the keystone of the (kaff!) "Ownership Society." It's a different way of doing business, with radically different goals than present. So call it that.
This debate hits home. In eight years I'll be AARP-eligible, so maybe I'm too close to relying on the current system to see it objectively. (Just like those Kerry-voting New Yorkers are too close to gays and terrorist attacks to see those objectively). I'll also be paying a mortgage into my '70s, at current rates. So I gotta plan.
Maybe this debate oughta be "grandfathered." If the next generation wants to toss dirt over their own retirement security, let 'em. Just let me die first.
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Whine Country
[Letter to The Betting Fool, San Francisco Chronicle]
Fool,
Sure, the Giants will win the West, and possibly go up a postseason rungs. What will be annoying is that after the Giants finally get dimed short of a World Series ring, a lot of fans will have the nerve to claim that they're long suffering, cursed, yada yada.
It just don't work here. You can't live here near cable cars, the wine country and Lake Tahoe and claim you're doomed and oppressed. It just don't work. Red Sox and Cubs fans have to stare down into long, dark and miserable winters after their teams tank. Giant fans get to go to Point Reyes. The only curse here is the traffic.
But they'll whine anyways. Over living in God's Backyard. That's really irritating.
Fool,
Sure, the Giants will win the West, and possibly go up a postseason rungs. What will be annoying is that after the Giants finally get dimed short of a World Series ring, a lot of fans will have the nerve to claim that they're long suffering, cursed, yada yada.
It just don't work here. You can't live here near cable cars, the wine country and Lake Tahoe and claim you're doomed and oppressed. It just don't work. Red Sox and Cubs fans have to stare down into long, dark and miserable winters after their teams tank. Giant fans get to go to Point Reyes. The only curse here is the traffic.
But they'll whine anyways. Over living in God's Backyard. That's really irritating.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Seven (Latest) Signs of the Apocalypse
First horn – First Lady Laura Bush, who makes Donna Reed seem like Paris Hilton, is put in charge of “Biatch slappin’” ’ Boyz in the ‘Hood out of gangs.
Second horn – President Bush offers African Americans a favor by giving them more retirement money before dying their earlier. “Look, bro’, you wanna live now or die later?”
Third horn – Europeans see a German leader meeting an American president, and root for the German to talk peace.
Fourth horn – Screaming Arab mobs blame someone other than Israel and/or the U.S. for their woes.
Fifth horn – The Boston Red Sox not only win one World Series but might actually win a second.
Sixth horn – A Democratic national chairman not from the South actually goes there and organizes a crowd.
Seventh horn - Michael Jackson finally goes to court for preeversion … and no one cares.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Multitasking
I came out to work during the tail end of the “Go-Go ‘80s.” This was the decade where the nation rediscovered the joy of hard work and personal wealth. One of the products of this renewed focus on the workday was renewed commentary on what makes a productive worker. Not the assembly line kind, because those jobs were all heading offshore. No, it was how to be the most effective office grunt you could be. This was important. Prior generations counted how many widgets they made to know if they were going well. When your tools of the trade are the phone, fax and then computer (and now all kinds of gadgets) how could you tell when you’re having a good day?
So everyone and their mother decided they’d tell us. You couldn’t be seen on the subway without your current copy of “Secrets of Successful People” tucked under your arm. It wasn’t a bad idea. I found a lot of insight into some of these pages. Certain things held true for me, like combining similar activities, such as letter writing, and doing certain tasks at certain times of the day when you found yourself better focused for doing them.
For example, I prefer reading and reflective activities in the morning, social activities (meetings and the like) in late morning to mid-afternoon and production work, writing reports and the like, from early afternoon on. This uses my attention span in the best possible way. I’ve generally found it effective.
But I shouldn’t tell my bosses this any more. The big mantra now is “multitasking”, the purported ability to jump from one thing to another without batting an eye. Bosses all think they can do this. Science says otherwise. According to research, it takes time for the brain to shift to unfamiliar tasks. Go here for the link. This seems to be common sense. So why are we all so hip on multitasking now?
The answer, according to a New York Times piece, lies in our technology. Our computers and other doohickeys can move at near lightspeed, much faster than the human hand, eye and mind. While we’re moving from one task to the next, a machine has zipped through dozens, even more. Needless to say, our machines can multitask, and the technicians have got them doing it right before our eyes. Teevee news and sports shows are full of split screens and “crawls” across the bottom. Our word processor is interrupted when a new e-mail or Messenger request comes in. It’s no wonder that now we have headsets let us listen to music or NPR while we balance the checkbook or write that report. Heck, now one friend tells me his boss is offering iPods to workers. No problem listening to music and banging away at the keyboard. I remember when that was looked down on. You weren’t paying sole attention to your work. Now, it’s encouraged.
I wonder what kind of example I’m setting for my six year old son. I like the fact that he likes to play with blocks or cars or whatnot while he watches teevee. Any decent parent cringes at the mental image of their slackjawed young one staring mindlessly at the flickering tube. But I wonder if he’s the edge of a new generation which never takes doing just one thing as the basic rule of work and play. Maybe all those kids we’re diagnosing with ADD aren’t wounded. They’re just tomorrow’s multitaskers.
So everyone and their mother decided they’d tell us. You couldn’t be seen on the subway without your current copy of “Secrets of Successful People” tucked under your arm. It wasn’t a bad idea. I found a lot of insight into some of these pages. Certain things held true for me, like combining similar activities, such as letter writing, and doing certain tasks at certain times of the day when you found yourself better focused for doing them.
For example, I prefer reading and reflective activities in the morning, social activities (meetings and the like) in late morning to mid-afternoon and production work, writing reports and the like, from early afternoon on. This uses my attention span in the best possible way. I’ve generally found it effective.
But I shouldn’t tell my bosses this any more. The big mantra now is “multitasking”, the purported ability to jump from one thing to another without batting an eye. Bosses all think they can do this. Science says otherwise. According to research, it takes time for the brain to shift to unfamiliar tasks. Go here for the link. This seems to be common sense. So why are we all so hip on multitasking now?
The answer, according to a New York Times piece, lies in our technology. Our computers and other doohickeys can move at near lightspeed, much faster than the human hand, eye and mind. While we’re moving from one task to the next, a machine has zipped through dozens, even more. Needless to say, our machines can multitask, and the technicians have got them doing it right before our eyes. Teevee news and sports shows are full of split screens and “crawls” across the bottom. Our word processor is interrupted when a new e-mail or Messenger request comes in. It’s no wonder that now we have headsets let us listen to music or NPR while we balance the checkbook or write that report. Heck, now one friend tells me his boss is offering iPods to workers. No problem listening to music and banging away at the keyboard. I remember when that was looked down on. You weren’t paying sole attention to your work. Now, it’s encouraged.
I wonder what kind of example I’m setting for my six year old son. I like the fact that he likes to play with blocks or cars or whatnot while he watches teevee. Any decent parent cringes at the mental image of their slackjawed young one staring mindlessly at the flickering tube. But I wonder if he’s the edge of a new generation which never takes doing just one thing as the basic rule of work and play. Maybe all those kids we’re diagnosing with ADD aren’t wounded. They’re just tomorrow’s multitaskers.
Monday, February 21, 2005
Hunter S. Thompson, The Wonder Years
Hunter S. Thompson spoke to me because I was just too late for the '60s. Oh, I certainly knew about them. I watched the evening news with dad. Heck, I lived in freakin' San Francisco. But I didn't hit puberty until around 1970, after the heyday had gone. By the time high school rolled around and drugs and free love could actually be invited into my life, the Haight Ashbury was dead, Vietnam was pretty much over and disco was king. I and my friends felt cheated. If only we'd been born just a little bit sooner ...
So Thompson's first person style of reporting from the field caught the eye and heart of me and my friends. "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" was the lost weekend we all dreamed about but didn't have the nerve to pull off. "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail" explained all the fire over the McGovern campaign and loss we just missed. By the time I was ready to vote it had come down to Ford vs. Carter, dull and duller. There were no organized hippies, no antiwar demonstrators pounding the campaign pavement, just Jimmy Carter apologizing for having "lust in his heart." For adolescent boys, who have lust running all over their bodies, it was hard to understand this one.
Thompson also offered a warning. Part of his drug fueled mania seemed motivated by his taking life and politics just waaaay too seriously. I considered and still consider a life around politics a good life indeed, but I would never want to get to the point where it sent me into hallucinogenic depression. Hallucinogenic alone would do fine as an end point. I've always tried to keep this in mind, as I've swallowed life under Republican ascendancy over the last twenty years. The Republic keeps standing, gays are prevalent on teevee and black people anywhere in the media are never poor. Progress keeps up, regardless of how often people themselves seem to want to slow it down.
So I settle into my chair and watch the sunset over the Central Valley with a cold beer and memories of the Summer of Love I never lived. Which is even better, considering that this way I can make it all up.
Bye Hunter. See you in the afterlife, I'm sure.
Go here for the New York Times's retrospective on the life and times of Hunter S. Thompson. (Registration required)
So Thompson's first person style of reporting from the field caught the eye and heart of me and my friends. "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" was the lost weekend we all dreamed about but didn't have the nerve to pull off. "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail" explained all the fire over the McGovern campaign and loss we just missed. By the time I was ready to vote it had come down to Ford vs. Carter, dull and duller. There were no organized hippies, no antiwar demonstrators pounding the campaign pavement, just Jimmy Carter apologizing for having "lust in his heart." For adolescent boys, who have lust running all over their bodies, it was hard to understand this one.
Thompson also offered a warning. Part of his drug fueled mania seemed motivated by his taking life and politics just waaaay too seriously. I considered and still consider a life around politics a good life indeed, but I would never want to get to the point where it sent me into hallucinogenic depression. Hallucinogenic alone would do fine as an end point. I've always tried to keep this in mind, as I've swallowed life under Republican ascendancy over the last twenty years. The Republic keeps standing, gays are prevalent on teevee and black people anywhere in the media are never poor. Progress keeps up, regardless of how often people themselves seem to want to slow it down.
So I settle into my chair and watch the sunset over the Central Valley with a cold beer and memories of the Summer of Love I never lived. Which is even better, considering that this way I can make it all up.
Bye Hunter. See you in the afterlife, I'm sure.
Go here for the New York Times's retrospective on the life and times of Hunter S. Thompson. (Registration required)
Freaks with Bombs
From the New York Times:
To Europeans, the latest example of Washington's failure to recognize their diplomatic preferences is its stance on Iran. The European Union will press Mr. Bush to support the European initiative with Iran that envisions rewards if Iran gives up important nuclear activities, an approach the United States rejects.
In "On the Beach", the great story about life after the Day After (anyone else remember that incredibly unintentionally funny 1983 ABC TV movie about WW3?) the Big One is started when a Nasser-like Egyptian leader drops a big bomb on Washington, DC and New York City. The U.S. thinks the Soviets did it, and retaliates and off we went to Armageddon. The prescient lesson at a time when only the really big countries had the bomb is that we just can't trust the freaks with the future of humanity.
So it worries people when North Korea says it has the Bomb and Iran insists it's not trying but no one believes that at all.
When I was in college I had a poster of a hydrogen bomb explosion. A friend of mine thought this was terrifying and asked me if I weren't afraid of this sort of thing. Sure, I said, but if and when WW3 comes, it'll likely come from either a local US or Soviet commander acting a fool (like what might have happened in Cuba had we invaded) or from some nimrod country with nothing to lose. For the US and USSR the bombs were Sampson weapons, something you threaten with when all else seems lost. You don't burn down the town you're trying to take over unless you're going to lose it anyway, and if you can't have it, you'll be damned if the other guy does.
Maniacs don't have the luxury of this logic. The big bombs serve as equalizers, where rooty poots get to act big, and since they generally don't run anything too many people would miss if it got blasted off the face of the earth, they have little to lose. Except a seat in Heaven or legendary status in their own minds.
Bush's take is to:
a) refuse the obvious bribe,
b) loudly threaten isolation, and
c) quietly threaten force.
The likely response to this from today's Dear Leaders and mad mullahs is:
a) ask again,
b) laugh at being cut off when the US has no leverage to enforce that, and
c) consider this additional justification for building the bombs as deterrent.
The US has spent decades "isolating" Cuba to no effect. As long as Europe and Latin American continue relations, it hurts but it's not fatal. The Europeans are using their continued relationship with Iran to gain political leverage on this issue. They're not going to shut that off just because Bush asks them too. Iran offers then a unique place to forge a unique EU voice, they're not giving that up. And South Korea is attempting to do in the North what even many conservatives say is the best way to bring down Castro, flood the island with capitalism. They're not likely to stop doing that either, just 'cause Bush asks them too.
So we're left with bribe or bomb. Bribing worked under Clinton. North Korea built no bombs, threatened no one who lived outside of the country. Bombing Iran just weakens whatever political energy the democrat moderates might have, and overextends an already ridiculously overextended American military.
So the answer's simple. Cut 'em checks, on the grounds that we get real boots on the ground willing and able to effectively monitor nuclear facilities. Iran gets expanded economic ties. North Korea gets some cash to turn the lights back on. It's so simple.
But it gets in the way of Bush Co. pride. So it won't happen. At least soon.
BTW, if you've never read "On the Beach" or seen the movie, don't. It's pretty depressing.
To Europeans, the latest example of Washington's failure to recognize their diplomatic preferences is its stance on Iran. The European Union will press Mr. Bush to support the European initiative with Iran that envisions rewards if Iran gives up important nuclear activities, an approach the United States rejects.
In "On the Beach", the great story about life after the Day After (anyone else remember that incredibly unintentionally funny 1983 ABC TV movie about WW3?) the Big One is started when a Nasser-like Egyptian leader drops a big bomb on Washington, DC and New York City. The U.S. thinks the Soviets did it, and retaliates and off we went to Armageddon. The prescient lesson at a time when only the really big countries had the bomb is that we just can't trust the freaks with the future of humanity.
So it worries people when North Korea says it has the Bomb and Iran insists it's not trying but no one believes that at all.
When I was in college I had a poster of a hydrogen bomb explosion. A friend of mine thought this was terrifying and asked me if I weren't afraid of this sort of thing. Sure, I said, but if and when WW3 comes, it'll likely come from either a local US or Soviet commander acting a fool (like what might have happened in Cuba had we invaded) or from some nimrod country with nothing to lose. For the US and USSR the bombs were Sampson weapons, something you threaten with when all else seems lost. You don't burn down the town you're trying to take over unless you're going to lose it anyway, and if you can't have it, you'll be damned if the other guy does.
Maniacs don't have the luxury of this logic. The big bombs serve as equalizers, where rooty poots get to act big, and since they generally don't run anything too many people would miss if it got blasted off the face of the earth, they have little to lose. Except a seat in Heaven or legendary status in their own minds.
Bush's take is to:
a) refuse the obvious bribe,
b) loudly threaten isolation, and
c) quietly threaten force.
The likely response to this from today's Dear Leaders and mad mullahs is:
a) ask again,
b) laugh at being cut off when the US has no leverage to enforce that, and
c) consider this additional justification for building the bombs as deterrent.
The US has spent decades "isolating" Cuba to no effect. As long as Europe and Latin American continue relations, it hurts but it's not fatal. The Europeans are using their continued relationship with Iran to gain political leverage on this issue. They're not going to shut that off just because Bush asks them too. Iran offers then a unique place to forge a unique EU voice, they're not giving that up. And South Korea is attempting to do in the North what even many conservatives say is the best way to bring down Castro, flood the island with capitalism. They're not likely to stop doing that either, just 'cause Bush asks them too.
So we're left with bribe or bomb. Bribing worked under Clinton. North Korea built no bombs, threatened no one who lived outside of the country. Bombing Iran just weakens whatever political energy the democrat moderates might have, and overextends an already ridiculously overextended American military.
So the answer's simple. Cut 'em checks, on the grounds that we get real boots on the ground willing and able to effectively monitor nuclear facilities. Iran gets expanded economic ties. North Korea gets some cash to turn the lights back on. It's so simple.
But it gets in the way of Bush Co. pride. So it won't happen. At least soon.
BTW, if you've never read "On the Beach" or seen the movie, don't. It's pretty depressing.
Sunday, February 20, 2005
Trekking to Oblivion
"To boldly go where so many shows have gone, ... into the wastebasket."
I found out about the cancellation of ‘Enterprise’, the latest Star Trek series, in a weird way. I was scanning through my StarTrek.com e-newsletter. There was the usual list of stories. Interview with …, Appearance by …., Enterprise:Cancelled, Web Site revised ….
What? That’s it? A footnote in an e-zine? You’d think they’d make a lot more out of this. Not only is the show going off the air, but unlike the last three renditions, it isn’t to clear the way for something else. No mo’ Trek, at least for awhile.
Now, clearly I’m a Trekker (as distinguished from “Trekkie”, but I’ll explain the critical difference later). Not only that, I’m an original Trekker. I watched the original show during its original run in the ‘60s. This makes me an oddball at Star Trek Conventions (resist the temptation to say what you want to say). The Gospel is that no one watched the original show, that it revived through syndication during the ‘70s. I mentioned that I happened to watch the original show while talking to a friend at the 5th anniversary celebration for “ST:The Next Generation” back in ’92 and stopped conversation in the immediate vicinity. They all just stared at me like I’d just said I was there when Jesus raised the dead.
But a lot of us did watch the show in the ‘60s. We just weren’t counted. At the time, Nielsen only counted the set Dad watched in the living room. All those secondary black and white sets with kids in front of them down in the basement or den didn’t count. After all, who cares what kids watch? (Sounds funny now, don’t it?) I even wrote one of the famous letters to NBC which kept the show on for one more season.
Star Trek died of its own success. The franchise proved that science fiction, if done well enough, could build an audience. This happened just as the explosion of syndication and cable channels carved up the market. Instead of going for whatever would wash across the broadest spectrum, teevee had to create niches, and sci-fi provided that. A mid-‘60s teevee critic wrote that Kirk and Spock belonged on Saturday morning, not Thursday night. TNG earned Paramount money because it was, at one point, the most watched show for men between 19 and 35. Needless to say, now there are a good half dozen sci-fi shows on, and a good dozen since TNG aired. Some were crappy, some were silly, some were very good and died fast (Fox’s ‘Firefly’) but there’s no shortage and no coming shortage of shows. Star Trek, once unique, ended up just another blip on the sensors.
The backdrop since midway between the first season has been the United Federation of Planets, a U.N. in space led by United Earth, the American internationalists’ wet dream. Wouldn’t it be great, I thought, if somehow Paramount developed episodes, or even a show, on how all this came about? It did, in Enterprise. Unfortunately, it didn’t get around to actually telling this story until this season, apparently too late for the audience. Half that audience failed to return for the second season, and the show’s struggled in the ratings since. After the colossal disappointment of ‘Voyager’, too many base fans had left. (Even ‘Voyager’ was a symptom of success. Paramount wanted a Trek show to anchor its new network and fashioned an uninteresting crew it thought would attract younger viewers.)
Fortunately, there are always reruns and DVD’s. I had to stay home during the week recently to care for a sick Leroy and found that Spike Network carried two DS9 and then two TNG episodes every day. That’s four hours of Trek. I taped most of the second and third seasons of TNG thinking I’d keep them for posterity. What a fool. The reruns are on everywhere, and I can get whole seasons on one DVD. The franchise will live on, even if Captain Archer’s trip to found the Federation gets cut a little short.
As a matter of fact, I have to go watch my tape of last night’s ‘Enterprise’. It might be the one where they explain howcum the Klingons got the funny heads after the original series. I’ve been waiting since 1979, when the first Trek movie came out, to find out this one, even if Worf did say in ‘DS9’s’ Trials and Tribblations’ that it’s something they just don’t talk about.
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Winners and Losers
One of the great things about being a sports fan is that I can understand politics a lot better.
As Howard Dean ascends to the DNC chairmanship, a move I strongly support, I keep reading about how his campaign "imploded" in the early primaries. It did no such thing.
Dean struck a chord among "Tired of taking it" Democrats, who feel, righteously so, that the national leadership is so afraid of being tarred as "liberal" that they're afraid to take any strong stand on anything, allowed The Enemy to tar them anyway because we don't define ourselves first. But is that enough to choose a candidate on? No. When put to the test, Democratic voters made the rational choice that Kerry was the better candidate to stand against Bush. They were right too. Dean didn't "implode", which implies mass failure on his part. He was simply reviewed against other candidates when it mattered and came up short.
His campaign was revolutionary. Even conservative nutcase Richard Viguirie admired the way it used alternative media to connect with voters. It would be a waste to turn away from his clear ability to organize and galvanize voters. Glad to see the DNC made a sensible choice itself in choosing its leader.
But why do we say he "imploded"? The answer, as in so many things in life, lies in baseball.
The San Francisco Giants' Dustin Hermanson came into a late season game against the Houston Astros with his team leading 3-2. It was the top of the ninth inning, and a win would mean a Giants sweep of the three game series and a strong position to make the post-season wild card. It wasn't to be. Lance Berkman hit a three run homer off Hermanson and the Astros rallied to win.
The next day, a sports page noted that Hermanson threw a "mistake" to Berkman, which led to the Giants' loss. Yet, a replay of the game showed that it was a actually a pretty good pitch, low and to the inside. It was hard to hit, but Berkman did it anyway.
The moral of the story is that sometimes you don't lose, the other guy wins. But Americans don't like to hear this. Loss is generally viewed as something we bring upon ourselves, that winning is as much a matter of choice as circumstances and dynamics. Yet Hermanson has no control over whether or not Berkman could hit that pitch. Many, if not most, batters couldn't. It would probably get most batters out. But Berkman happened to be a good batter who happened to get good wood on the pitch. The Astros won because he won, not because Hermanson lost.
So now Dean gets to loose his fastball in another game where he has more control over the outcome. This more skills contest than competitive game. Personally, I think he'll do quite well.
As Howard Dean ascends to the DNC chairmanship, a move I strongly support, I keep reading about how his campaign "imploded" in the early primaries. It did no such thing.
Dean struck a chord among "Tired of taking it" Democrats, who feel, righteously so, that the national leadership is so afraid of being tarred as "liberal" that they're afraid to take any strong stand on anything, allowed The Enemy to tar them anyway because we don't define ourselves first. But is that enough to choose a candidate on? No. When put to the test, Democratic voters made the rational choice that Kerry was the better candidate to stand against Bush. They were right too. Dean didn't "implode", which implies mass failure on his part. He was simply reviewed against other candidates when it mattered and came up short.
His campaign was revolutionary. Even conservative nutcase Richard Viguirie admired the way it used alternative media to connect with voters. It would be a waste to turn away from his clear ability to organize and galvanize voters. Glad to see the DNC made a sensible choice itself in choosing its leader.
But why do we say he "imploded"? The answer, as in so many things in life, lies in baseball.
The San Francisco Giants' Dustin Hermanson came into a late season game against the Houston Astros with his team leading 3-2. It was the top of the ninth inning, and a win would mean a Giants sweep of the three game series and a strong position to make the post-season wild card. It wasn't to be. Lance Berkman hit a three run homer off Hermanson and the Astros rallied to win.
The next day, a sports page noted that Hermanson threw a "mistake" to Berkman, which led to the Giants' loss. Yet, a replay of the game showed that it was a actually a pretty good pitch, low and to the inside. It was hard to hit, but Berkman did it anyway.
The moral of the story is that sometimes you don't lose, the other guy wins. But Americans don't like to hear this. Loss is generally viewed as something we bring upon ourselves, that winning is as much a matter of choice as circumstances and dynamics. Yet Hermanson has no control over whether or not Berkman could hit that pitch. Many, if not most, batters couldn't. It would probably get most batters out. But Berkman happened to be a good batter who happened to get good wood on the pitch. The Astros won because he won, not because Hermanson lost.
So now Dean gets to loose his fastball in another game where he has more control over the outcome. This more skills contest than competitive game. Personally, I think he'll do quite well.
XXXIX
DHGulley said...
"My man McNabb didn't do so well..."
Yup. And he sucked in the Pro Bowl, too. Starting to see a pattern?
So he can't stand in The Big Game. Maybe he can go to Arizona, where they don't expect as much as Philly. Where they don't expect anything, actually.
I found myself spending some down time in Phoenix airport during a trip a couple of years ago. I got into a chat with a local about football, and the fact that the Arizona Cardinals are lucky to pull 25,000 some games.
"It's the heat", the guy said. "Anyone here knows they have to play at night. But the teevee contract requires afternoon games, and who wants to sit out there in 95 degree heat for three hours?"
Maybe they need to give out "Croix de Cardinal" buttons, similar to what the Giants gave out to hardy souls who sat through extra inning night games at the 'Stick some years ago.
All this talk of the ridiculously-named Arizona Cardinals leads me to this business of naming teams after whole states. It's silly and ought'n be allowed, except when the name is cool. Like the Colorado Rockies, or Texas Rangers. Even the Minnesota Twins works, and I'll allow "new England because it's a regional state of mind." But the "California" Angels was a joke. The whole "Angels" name was a play on L.A. and the former minor league team of the same name. To say nothing of the fact that four other teams happened to play in the state too. Don't get me started on "Los Angeles of Anaheim." How's that fit in a sports page standings box? What's next, "The New York Giants of New Jersey"?
And Florida Marlins, what, are they too embarrassed to be part of "Miami"? The Tennessee Titans are the silliest. They play in Nashville, where people have an image of country music, the Grand Ol' Opry and all that. Roll with it. It's a fine town, be proud of your roots. I also have to admire the NBA Suns, who are brave enough to stand up for the proud municipality of 'Phoenix', durn it, unlike the local baseball and football teams.
Maybe the answer to all this is to follow the Japanese model and name the team after the company which owns them. It's more honest. I mean, it really isn't the "San Francisco" Giants because none of the players come from there. When Toronto beat Philly in the '93 Series one Canadian paper wrote, "Our Dominicans beat their Dominicans." They're all really just mercenary hirelings battling out for the bosses.
So let's have a Series where the McDonalds Giants face off against the Ford Motor Tigers or some such. In the most capitalistic of major capitalistic nations, this is the way it should be. We could even get a guy to dress up like Calvin Coolidge every year to throw out the first ball.
Dirty Rotten Commies
Anonymous wrote:
"The fatal flaw in traditional Marxist theory and practice was the notion that the revolutionary dictatorship would allow itself to wither away."
By traditional, you mean Leninist. A seemingly minor quibble that may not be altogether minor. There are a plethora of socialist theories that lend themselves to very different practices. They all owe something to Marx. http://www.dsausa.org/pdf/widemsoc.pdf
Yes, I'll grant that "traditional" is the spin applied by the societies which adopted Marxist theory and put it into practice. There were other communistic theories in play, such as Anarchism, which generally held that the state had to be done away with first. One problem with that, as the Spanish Anarchists discovered trying to fight Franco's Fascists, is that it's hard to get anything done when just about everything is put to a vote. "All those in favor of charging the machine gun nest, raise their hand ...".
I think the biggest revelation is that when people become Communists, they don't somehow become "better" or more enlightened people than the rest of us. Traditional Western democratic theory is based on trying to keep any one or faction from accumulating too much power by creating offsetting power structures. This less trustworthy view of human nature appears to be the most practical over time.
"The fatal flaw in traditional Marxist theory and practice was the notion that the revolutionary dictatorship would allow itself to wither away."
By traditional, you mean Leninist. A seemingly minor quibble that may not be altogether minor. There are a plethora of socialist theories that lend themselves to very different practices. They all owe something to Marx. http://www.dsausa.org/pdf/widemsoc.pdf
Yes, I'll grant that "traditional" is the spin applied by the societies which adopted Marxist theory and put it into practice. There were other communistic theories in play, such as Anarchism, which generally held that the state had to be done away with first. One problem with that, as the Spanish Anarchists discovered trying to fight Franco's Fascists, is that it's hard to get anything done when just about everything is put to a vote. "All those in favor of charging the machine gun nest, raise their hand ...".
I think the biggest revelation is that when people become Communists, they don't somehow become "better" or more enlightened people than the rest of us. Traditional Western democratic theory is based on trying to keep any one or faction from accumulating too much power by creating offsetting power structures. This less trustworthy view of human nature appears to be the most practical over time.
All-American Sports
Anonymous commentator said:
"Yeah, but you guys (Blue States) get the 49ers."
Whoop-de-doo. Have you seen their record lately? Fortunately, there seems to be some hope on the horizon. The cheap-ass owner's backed up the truck on the whole staff and next season doesn't seem likely a bottomless stanky hole.
Like most new coaches, Nolan comes in with a ton of authority, because ownership is desperate and will give him whatever he wants. If the record elsewhere is any indication, this is a for a limited time. As the seasons go by, ownership in our "win or else" sports culture gets frustrated and gradually shaves all this authority off, as both punishment and so the coach "can focus on the field." Just watch. It'll happen.
The real test of how invested the 'Niners owner wants to be comes with the stadium. Simply put, he's gonna have to build it hisownself. The City's meager contribution was based on some kind of revenue-generating mall built where no one is ever going to go to shop. The only way any new football stadium is built is with York's own money. Maybe not in San Francisco, since only Candlestick's got the space to do it. Heck, maybe this is San Jose's chance to get a pro sports team, since the 'Niners are already HQ and summer camping it there.
I'll miss the 'Stick, though. A crappy baseball park, it actually serves football well. The weather's better during fall days than summer nights, and it'll always be home to those great moments from the '80s and '90s. Sigh ...
Which brings us to baseball. People keep bugging me about the steroids thang. I feel like Stephen King being interviewed in the stands at Fenway during Game Three of the ALCS, as the Yankees were whomping the Sox a zillion to two, and seemingly well on their way to the Series. King kept telling the guy that the Sox had a great year and he enjoyed it all, and the interviewer kept nagging him to break down and cry. He didn't.
Baseball, like all pro sports, makes money by giving us a welcome diversion after a tough day or week at the mines. It ain't real life to us. This ain't so for sportswriters. This is all they do and think about, because it's their living. They got nothing to apply it against to give them perspective. So they blow it all out of proportion. Add any writers dream to go Woodward and Bernstein on some issue, and it's not surprising the whole thing is treated like the Watergate break in. But it's not.
No one has ever said how many more home runs any player has hit because they goosed up their body strength. Putting on lbs. is generally accepted in baseball. Some teams encourage it among young players, so they can hit the ball harder. Did growth inducing steroids make it easier for some to bulk up? Certainly. But they woulda done it anyway. As I understand it, you take these things as part of an exercise regimen. They ain't comic book Power Pills, duck into a nearby phone booth, down one and fly out to save the day as SuperStud. If they're unhealthy, then regulate and/or ban them. But you can't punish someone after the fact.
All I know now about Barry Bonds is that this season, as always, the crowd at SBC will stop whatever it's doing, even buying hot dogs, when he steps to the plate, to watch. He's exciting to watch, and for $25 a seat in the upper deck, that's all that matters.
"Yeah, but you guys (Blue States) get the 49ers."
Whoop-de-doo. Have you seen their record lately? Fortunately, there seems to be some hope on the horizon. The cheap-ass owner's backed up the truck on the whole staff and next season doesn't seem likely a bottomless stanky hole.
Like most new coaches, Nolan comes in with a ton of authority, because ownership is desperate and will give him whatever he wants. If the record elsewhere is any indication, this is a for a limited time. As the seasons go by, ownership in our "win or else" sports culture gets frustrated and gradually shaves all this authority off, as both punishment and so the coach "can focus on the field." Just watch. It'll happen.
The real test of how invested the 'Niners owner wants to be comes with the stadium. Simply put, he's gonna have to build it hisownself. The City's meager contribution was based on some kind of revenue-generating mall built where no one is ever going to go to shop. The only way any new football stadium is built is with York's own money. Maybe not in San Francisco, since only Candlestick's got the space to do it. Heck, maybe this is San Jose's chance to get a pro sports team, since the 'Niners are already HQ and summer camping it there.
I'll miss the 'Stick, though. A crappy baseball park, it actually serves football well. The weather's better during fall days than summer nights, and it'll always be home to those great moments from the '80s and '90s. Sigh ...
Which brings us to baseball. People keep bugging me about the steroids thang. I feel like Stephen King being interviewed in the stands at Fenway during Game Three of the ALCS, as the Yankees were whomping the Sox a zillion to two, and seemingly well on their way to the Series. King kept telling the guy that the Sox had a great year and he enjoyed it all, and the interviewer kept nagging him to break down and cry. He didn't.
Baseball, like all pro sports, makes money by giving us a welcome diversion after a tough day or week at the mines. It ain't real life to us. This ain't so for sportswriters. This is all they do and think about, because it's their living. They got nothing to apply it against to give them perspective. So they blow it all out of proportion. Add any writers dream to go Woodward and Bernstein on some issue, and it's not surprising the whole thing is treated like the Watergate break in. But it's not.
No one has ever said how many more home runs any player has hit because they goosed up their body strength. Putting on lbs. is generally accepted in baseball. Some teams encourage it among young players, so they can hit the ball harder. Did growth inducing steroids make it easier for some to bulk up? Certainly. But they woulda done it anyway. As I understand it, you take these things as part of an exercise regimen. They ain't comic book Power Pills, duck into a nearby phone booth, down one and fly out to save the day as SuperStud. If they're unhealthy, then regulate and/or ban them. But you can't punish someone after the fact.
All I know now about Barry Bonds is that this season, as always, the crowd at SBC will stop whatever it's doing, even buying hot dogs, when he steps to the plate, to watch. He's exciting to watch, and for $25 a seat in the upper deck, that's all that matters.
Thursday, February 10, 2005
The Bear Flag Republic
Dear President Bush:
Congratulations on your victory over all us non-evangelicals.
Actually, we're a bit ticked offhere in California, so we're leaving. California will now be its own country. And we're taking all the Blue States with us. In case you are not aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, and all of the Northeast. We spoke to God, and She agrees that this split will be beneficial to almost everybody, and especially to us in the new country of California. In fact, God is so excited about it, she's going to shift the whole country at 4:30 pm EST this Friday. Therefore, please let everyone know they need to be back in their states by then. So you get Texas and all the former slave states. We get the Governator, stem cell research and the best beaches.
We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay. (Okay, we have to keep Martha Stewart, we can live with that.)
We get the Statue of Liberty. You get OpryLand.
We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.
We get Harvard. You get Old Miss.
We get 85% of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get all the technological innovation in Alabama.
We get about two-thirds of the tax revenue, and you get to make the red states pay their fair share.
Since our divorce rate is 22% lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms to support, and we know how much you like that.
Did I mention we produce about 70% of the nation's veggies? But heck the only greens the Bible-thumpers eat are the pickles on their Big Macs.Oh yeah, another thing, don't plan on serving California wine at your state dinners. From now on it's imported French wine for you. Ouch, bet that hurts. Just so we're clear, the country of California will be pro-choice and anti-war.
Speaking of war, we're going to want all Blue States citizens back from Iraq. If you need people to fight, just ask your evangelicals. They have tons of kids they're willing to send to their deaths for absolutely no purpose. And they don't care if you don't show pictures of theirkids' caskets coming home.Anyway, we wish you all the best in the next four years and we hope, really hope, you find those missing weapons of mass destruction.
Seriously. Soon.Sincerely, California
Congratulations on your victory over all us non-evangelicals.
Actually, we're a bit ticked offhere in California, so we're leaving. California will now be its own country. And we're taking all the Blue States with us. In case you are not aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, and all of the Northeast. We spoke to God, and She agrees that this split will be beneficial to almost everybody, and especially to us in the new country of California. In fact, God is so excited about it, she's going to shift the whole country at 4:30 pm EST this Friday. Therefore, please let everyone know they need to be back in their states by then. So you get Texas and all the former slave states. We get the Governator, stem cell research and the best beaches.
We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay. (Okay, we have to keep Martha Stewart, we can live with that.)
We get the Statue of Liberty. You get OpryLand.
We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.
We get Harvard. You get Old Miss.
We get 85% of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get all the technological innovation in Alabama.
We get about two-thirds of the tax revenue, and you get to make the red states pay their fair share.
Since our divorce rate is 22% lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms to support, and we know how much you like that.
Did I mention we produce about 70% of the nation's veggies? But heck the only greens the Bible-thumpers eat are the pickles on their Big Macs.Oh yeah, another thing, don't plan on serving California wine at your state dinners. From now on it's imported French wine for you. Ouch, bet that hurts. Just so we're clear, the country of California will be pro-choice and anti-war.
Speaking of war, we're going to want all Blue States citizens back from Iraq. If you need people to fight, just ask your evangelicals. They have tons of kids they're willing to send to their deaths for absolutely no purpose. And they don't care if you don't show pictures of theirkids' caskets coming home.Anyway, we wish you all the best in the next four years and we hope, really hope, you find those missing weapons of mass destruction.
Seriously. Soon.Sincerely, California
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
