i was planning to do my annual why i-hate-the-oscars rant sometime today (this time would be the first time i actually type it out. usually it's just a verbal tirade on some poor friend who is stuck in the room with me). but for some reason i am simply not in the mood. here's the short version:
the oscars suck
maybe next year i will do the longer one.
Sunday, February 29, 2004
turning it around
as others have noted, the FMA is dead on arrival. it simply does not have the support of 2/3 of the senate, the first step to passage (see this count which, as of this writing (it's a running tally), shows 44 senators who are on record against the measure). it only takes 34 senators to defeat an amendment, so the measure already has no hope of passage.
although i am sure the president's political advisors have done the same head-count, i doubt that they will stop talking about the amendment, simply because they believe that it's a winner issue for them politically. but the democrat nominee (kerry, in all likelihood) can easily turn this around.
here's my suggestion: whenever the issue comes up, the dem. should just point out that (1) 44 senators are already on record against the amendment, (2) bush knows that it cannot pass, and that (3) because bush continues to push the proposal only shows that he is using the issue of marriage as a cynical political ploy.
whenever i talk to bush supporters, they seem strangly convinced that the guy, for whatever his faults, at least does not "play politics." when i first heard bush supporters making such claims, i was really stunned. was i was hearing was so different from my perceptions of the president. but the more i talk to people on the other side, the more it's becoming clear to me that while many are unhappy with one or more of bush's policy, they at least see him as being a straight-up type of guy with the american people. the marriage amendment is an opportunity to unmask the proposal for what it is, not a serious policy initiative (for bush does not seem to be doing anything to try to win over the 44 senators who are against it) but rather a cynical wedge issue. it's time to start calling bush on these things.
although i am sure the president's political advisors have done the same head-count, i doubt that they will stop talking about the amendment, simply because they believe that it's a winner issue for them politically. but the democrat nominee (kerry, in all likelihood) can easily turn this around.
here's my suggestion: whenever the issue comes up, the dem. should just point out that (1) 44 senators are already on record against the amendment, (2) bush knows that it cannot pass, and that (3) because bush continues to push the proposal only shows that he is using the issue of marriage as a cynical political ploy.
whenever i talk to bush supporters, they seem strangly convinced that the guy, for whatever his faults, at least does not "play politics." when i first heard bush supporters making such claims, i was really stunned. was i was hearing was so different from my perceptions of the president. but the more i talk to people on the other side, the more it's becoming clear to me that while many are unhappy with one or more of bush's policy, they at least see him as being a straight-up type of guy with the american people. the marriage amendment is an opportunity to unmask the proposal for what it is, not a serious policy initiative (for bush does not seem to be doing anything to try to win over the 44 senators who are against it) but rather a cynical wedge issue. it's time to start calling bush on these things.
plugs
continuing my pattern as american amnesia shill, the latest interview of the interview series is up. this time he interviews errol morris, one of my favorite filmmakers whose recent film the fog of war i talked about here. anyway, after you read the AA interview with morris, make sure to check out the discussion in the comments. i find they are often the best part of this excellent interview series.
while i'l plugging other sites, i'd like to extend a warm welcome to new world blogger the latest addition to the liberal coalition with a focus on the developing world.
one final plug, because he asked go look at the republicons.
while i'l plugging other sites, i'd like to extend a warm welcome to new world blogger the latest addition to the liberal coalition with a focus on the developing world.
one final plug, because he asked go look at the republicons.
Saturday, February 28, 2004
naval gazing
i was in court yesterday in wildwood, new jersey, so i didn't have much time to post yesterday. thanks to all of the people who linked to the below marriage post, it's apparently very popular. in looking at all of the referring sites, i accidentally discovered that three and a half years ago one of my friends transcribed a postcard i sent her from africa onto her site. it's very odd to read something you wrote years later. oddly, i remember exactly where i was sitting when i did.
UPDATE3: by "three and a half years ago" i meant, of course, two and a half. also, the friend i referenced above graciously removed my real name from the postcard-post, which was really thoughtful of her. just for that i will let her in on one secret: the "bad handwriting" bit in my postcard said "bamako."
on a similarly frivolous and self-absorbed note, hydro emailed and directed me to the site that comes up when you forget the "s" and type www.upyernoz.blogpot.com.
UPDATE: it seems that you can take any blogspot site, substitute the word "blogpot" for "blogspot" and get the aaron bible site. they must have snatched up all of the blogpot.com domains in the hopes of converting some poor misdirected blog reader who is not good at spelling. insidious!
i'll get to something more substantive later.
UPDATE2: really. i mean it. i won't just continuously update this post.
UPDATE3: by "three and a half years ago" i meant, of course, two and a half. also, the friend i referenced above graciously removed my real name from the postcard-post, which was really thoughtful of her. just for that i will let her in on one secret: the "bad handwriting" bit in my postcard said "bamako."
on a similarly frivolous and self-absorbed note, hydro emailed and directed me to the site that comes up when you forget the "s" and type www.upyernoz.blogpot.com.
UPDATE: it seems that you can take any blogspot site, substitute the word "blogpot" for "blogspot" and get the aaron bible site. they must have snatched up all of the blogpot.com domains in the hopes of converting some poor misdirected blog reader who is not good at spelling. insidious!
i'll get to something more substantive later.
UPDATE2: really. i mean it. i won't just continuously update this post.
Thursday, February 26, 2004
another online "poll"
online polls are stupid if they are meant to mean anything other than fun. the people who respond to them are not a representative sample and many allow the same person to vote multiple times. in fact, i don't even think they should be called a "poll"--to do so just invites confusion with legitimate sampling of public opinion.
although i take no stock in them, i do enjoy freeping them. over the past few days, there have been a bunch of online "polls" about the same sex marriage issue (e.g. see trish's blog).
that being said, if you want to have some fun, here's one from u.s.a. today that needs a lot of work. freep away...
(poll via tripp, who is engaged to an entirely different trish than the one referenced above. let's not get all confused)
although i take no stock in them, i do enjoy freeping them. over the past few days, there have been a bunch of online "polls" about the same sex marriage issue (e.g. see trish's blog).
that being said, if you want to have some fun, here's one from u.s.a. today that needs a lot of work. freep away...
(poll via tripp, who is engaged to an entirely different trish than the one referenced above. let's not get all confused)
changing definitions
on the train to work this morning, i read this letter by someone named mary del rio which was published in the new york times:
when sir william blackstone wrote his definitive commentary on the laws of england in 1765 he noted that the act of marriage, legally speaking, means the eradication of the wife as a separate legal entity. as he explained:
it wasn’t until "activist legislatures" started messing with this traditional definition of "marriage" in the mid-19th century when they passed married women’s property acts which abrogated the traditional doctrine of coverture and granted married women the right to own property. within a few decades, every state in the union had passed one.
now obviously, this was a big change to the legal definition of marriage, upsetting hundreds of years of precedent. it reflecting both society’s "fluctuating views" concerning what marriage means and was made to conform to a "particular group’s agenda." could you really say that the married women’s property acts were not about women's rights, but about "tampering with established definitions in law?"
in fact, they were both. they both tampered with the common law definition of marriage and advanced the cause of women's rights. but how many people today would really like to argue that the 19th century reforms were a bad thing? i submit that lots of us would think that the abrogation of coverture was a good reform that justified tampering with traditional common law definitions.
likewise, allowing gays to marry is a change in the traditional definition of marriage. but that alone is not enough to reject gay marriage. contrary to ms. del rio, i see nothing wrong with changing our legal definitions if the cause justifies doing so. it's not enough to say that gay marriage diverges from tradition. we all know that. the real issue is whether such a change is worth doing. unless you address that second point, you're not really making much of an argument.
Regarding a proposed amendment to the Constitution to ban gay marriage, you write that "President Bush proposes to radically rewrite the Constitution" (editorial, Feb. 24). Since when is adding an amendment radically rewriting the Constitution?the letter got me thinking about the "established definition in law" of the word "marriage."
And what is "mean-spirited" about reaffirming the definition of "marriage," an institution that has formed an essential part of human society for centuries?
Once you tamper with the definition of "marriage," any combination of members can constitute a marriage, and who is to say it can't? How exactly will one argue against this?
Also, if the definition of marriage changes according to society's fluctuating views, what is to keep society from redefining other words, like "slavery" or "religion"?
Just because we all agree on what these words mean now doesn't mean that they cannot be redefined to conform to one particular group's agenda.
It's not about gay rights but about tampering with established definitions in law.
when sir william blackstone wrote his definitive commentary on the laws of england in 1765 he noted that the act of marriage, legally speaking, means the eradication of the wife as a separate legal entity. as he explained:
By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover she performs every thing; and is therefore called in our law-french a feme-covert; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord; and her condition during her marriage is called her covertureunder this doctrine of coverture, married women were no longer separate legal entities. they could no longer own property (unless special provisions were made prior to marriage), could not sue or be sued separately from their husbands, nor could they enter contracts on their own. thus, the legal definition of marriage was the eradication of the woman as a separate legal actor and the incorporation of her abilities as a legal actor into the husband. for hundreds of years this was what marriage meant in english common-law countries, including the u.s.
it wasn’t until "activist legislatures" started messing with this traditional definition of "marriage" in the mid-19th century when they passed married women’s property acts which abrogated the traditional doctrine of coverture and granted married women the right to own property. within a few decades, every state in the union had passed one.
now obviously, this was a big change to the legal definition of marriage, upsetting hundreds of years of precedent. it reflecting both society’s "fluctuating views" concerning what marriage means and was made to conform to a "particular group’s agenda." could you really say that the married women’s property acts were not about women's rights, but about "tampering with established definitions in law?"
in fact, they were both. they both tampered with the common law definition of marriage and advanced the cause of women's rights. but how many people today would really like to argue that the 19th century reforms were a bad thing? i submit that lots of us would think that the abrogation of coverture was a good reform that justified tampering with traditional common law definitions.
likewise, allowing gays to marry is a change in the traditional definition of marriage. but that alone is not enough to reject gay marriage. contrary to ms. del rio, i see nothing wrong with changing our legal definitions if the cause justifies doing so. it's not enough to say that gay marriage diverges from tradition. we all know that. the real issue is whether such a change is worth doing. unless you address that second point, you're not really making much of an argument.
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
the countdown begins
i just added a bush countdown thingy to the right side of the page. it's not exactly a substantive argument, but i must admit it is fun to watch the second tick by...
on the other hand, once he's out of office will i remember how to remove all the bits of code that's scattered now around my template? even if i can figure it out, how many weeks will i let it sit there before i finally get around to pulling it off? i wonder if it will start counting negative numbers after the next inauguration day? even if its not substantive, it is at least provoking these deep thoughts
a whole assortment of counters, with installation instructions is here (via tom tomorrow)
UPDATE: i'm at work and for some reason the entire right-hand column of links has been shoved down to the bottom when my computer at work loads my page. it wasn't like this at home. so, what about the rest of you? is the counter and links on the right or on the bottom of the page? let me know. and let me know if you have any idea how to fix it.
on the other hand, once he's out of office will i remember how to remove all the bits of code that's scattered now around my template? even if i can figure it out, how many weeks will i let it sit there before i finally get around to pulling it off? i wonder if it will start counting negative numbers after the next inauguration day? even if its not substantive, it is at least provoking these deep thoughts
a whole assortment of counters, with installation instructions is here (via tom tomorrow)
UPDATE: i'm at work and for some reason the entire right-hand column of links has been shoved down to the bottom when my computer at work loads my page. it wasn't like this at home. so, what about the rest of you? is the counter and links on the right or on the bottom of the page? let me know. and let me know if you have any idea how to fix it.
playing with analog and de mott on amnesia
i haven't been posting because i've been spending all my procrastination minutes at work playing with analog kid over in one of blogamy's comment threads.
meanwhile, i am a whole day late in pointing your attention to yet another interview at american amnesia. this time the interview is with benjamin de mott and, once again, i highly recommend not just the interview, but also the discussion that follows in the comments. de mott, for those who have not heard of him, is the author of junk politics, a collection of essays denouncing the push for "civility" in public life. de mott argues that this push has caused the media to focus on style not substance in its political coverage and has de-emphasized hard policy decisions that are really the key to any honest political discussion. an overview of de mott's article in harpers on the subject from the daily kos is here. (and kos link via american amnesia)
meanwhile, i am a whole day late in pointing your attention to yet another interview at american amnesia. this time the interview is with benjamin de mott and, once again, i highly recommend not just the interview, but also the discussion that follows in the comments. de mott, for those who have not heard of him, is the author of junk politics, a collection of essays denouncing the push for "civility" in public life. de mott argues that this push has caused the media to focus on style not substance in its political coverage and has de-emphasized hard policy decisions that are really the key to any honest political discussion. an overview of de mott's article in harpers on the subject from the daily kos is here. (and kos link via american amnesia)
Monday, February 23, 2004
where the hell did that come from?
according to the yankee/dixie quiz, i am 53% dixie, barely on the dixie side of the line
for context: i was born in new york of parents from the northeast (my parents grew up in new york city and northeastern pennsylvania). when i was several months old i moved to michigan. at age 2, i moved to delaware where i stayed until i finished high school. delaware was a slave state, but never joined the confederacy. my home town, wilmington, definitely considers itself to be part of the "north" (though technically speaking, the mason-dixon line practically goes right through the middle of town). at age 18 i went to college in new york state, then law school in st. louis (probably the closest place to "dixie" i have ever lived), then i moved to chicago for a few years before moving here to this philly suburb.
(yankee/dixie quiz via blogamy who got it from south knox bubba who got it from oliver willis. i dunno where oliver got it from)
for context: i was born in new york of parents from the northeast (my parents grew up in new york city and northeastern pennsylvania). when i was several months old i moved to michigan. at age 2, i moved to delaware where i stayed until i finished high school. delaware was a slave state, but never joined the confederacy. my home town, wilmington, definitely considers itself to be part of the "north" (though technically speaking, the mason-dixon line practically goes right through the middle of town). at age 18 i went to college in new york state, then law school in st. louis (probably the closest place to "dixie" i have ever lived), then i moved to chicago for a few years before moving here to this philly suburb.
(yankee/dixie quiz via blogamy who got it from south knox bubba who got it from oliver willis. i dunno where oliver got it from)
Sunday, February 22, 2004
another one bites the dust
jesse at the gotham city 13 seems to be the only one posting about how iraq's interim government may assert territorial claims in neighboring kuwait and jordan and the (understandable) demand for clarification over those statements by kuwait.
it appears that yet another justification for invading iraq is going down the toilet. so much for the "saddam had to go because he was a threat to his neighbors" argument. at least saddam renounced in writing any territorial claims over kuwait (he was forced to at the end of the gulf war). i guess this new government will not necessarily feel so constrained.
it appears that yet another justification for invading iraq is going down the toilet. so much for the "saddam had to go because he was a threat to his neighbors" argument. at least saddam renounced in writing any territorial claims over kuwait (he was forced to at the end of the gulf war). i guess this new government will not necessarily feel so constrained.
nader
it should come as no surprise to anyone that ralph nader has decided to run for president. i mean, the news broke a few days ago that he was appearing on meet the press to announce his intentions in the presidential race, did anyone seriously believe he would go on the air just to say he was giving it a pass?
at the same time, i have no hostility towards ralph or his supporters. first, on a practical level, i do not buy the underlying assumption that while nader is in the race he will attract votes from people who will otherwise vote democrat. i have no idea whether that was true in 2000 (can anyone cite a poll of nader voters about that issue?) i am fairly certain that the 2000 nader voters i personally know would not have voted at all if nader were not in the race. that anecdote may not count much as evidence, but it at least illustrates that the prevailing wisdom is not necessarily right.
as for this coming election, it seems even less likely that nader will "take" democratic votes than it did in 2000. rook argues that nader will attract disenchanted republicans, not democrats. i don't know if he's right, but it seems to me to be at least as plausible as the "stealing democrat votes" assumption everyone else is operating under. furthermore, (and this is not far from rook's point) i think that the majority of the kerry or edwards or whoever vote this time around will not be pro-kerry or edwards, but rather anti-bush. i know my vote will be. in other words "the democratic vote" this time around will be people united in their commitment to get rid of bush. those people will not be wooed by nader, even if they happen to agree with him on everything.
another difference with this election is that now nader is running as an independent. i know that some of his appeal last time around was from people who voted for nader largely because they wanted him to reach the 5% threshold and thus strengthen the green party. (a political party is only eligible for public financing if its candidate receives 5% of the popular vote in the prior election). thus, those voters were not voting to support nader as much as to support the green party. this time, nader is running as an independent so that's not an issue.
also, i am philosophically opposed to the whole concept that anyone can "steal democratic votes." the democratic party does not own any votes, only individual voters do. i can't understand how anyone who believes in democracy can hold it against someone for voting their conscience.
finally, i'm a little tired of the occasional attacks i hear about nader as a person. i think america is deeply in debt to him for his consumer-based political campaigns in the 1970s and his lobbying is part of the reason that we have various environmental legislation such as the clean air act. it will take a lot more than putting his name on a presidential ballot to erase those accomplishments from my mind.
the most common charge i hear against nader attacks his "big ego." while i'm sure that's absolutely true. so what? all presidential candidates have huge egos. it's really part of the job description. a humble person does not get up in front of the american people and say "i deserve to be president." you simply cannot even contemplate running for the job unless your ego is a little inflated. so when people say that ralph has a big ego, in one sense, all that says is that he has one of the prerequisites for the job.
so nader can run if he wants. he won't have my vote or my money, but i bear him no ill will for his choice, and i'm not convinced that it will hurt the democratic nominee's chances in the general election.
at the same time, i have no hostility towards ralph or his supporters. first, on a practical level, i do not buy the underlying assumption that while nader is in the race he will attract votes from people who will otherwise vote democrat. i have no idea whether that was true in 2000 (can anyone cite a poll of nader voters about that issue?) i am fairly certain that the 2000 nader voters i personally know would not have voted at all if nader were not in the race. that anecdote may not count much as evidence, but it at least illustrates that the prevailing wisdom is not necessarily right.
as for this coming election, it seems even less likely that nader will "take" democratic votes than it did in 2000. rook argues that nader will attract disenchanted republicans, not democrats. i don't know if he's right, but it seems to me to be at least as plausible as the "stealing democrat votes" assumption everyone else is operating under. furthermore, (and this is not far from rook's point) i think that the majority of the kerry or edwards or whoever vote this time around will not be pro-kerry or edwards, but rather anti-bush. i know my vote will be. in other words "the democratic vote" this time around will be people united in their commitment to get rid of bush. those people will not be wooed by nader, even if they happen to agree with him on everything.
another difference with this election is that now nader is running as an independent. i know that some of his appeal last time around was from people who voted for nader largely because they wanted him to reach the 5% threshold and thus strengthen the green party. (a political party is only eligible for public financing if its candidate receives 5% of the popular vote in the prior election). thus, those voters were not voting to support nader as much as to support the green party. this time, nader is running as an independent so that's not an issue.
also, i am philosophically opposed to the whole concept that anyone can "steal democratic votes." the democratic party does not own any votes, only individual voters do. i can't understand how anyone who believes in democracy can hold it against someone for voting their conscience.
finally, i'm a little tired of the occasional attacks i hear about nader as a person. i think america is deeply in debt to him for his consumer-based political campaigns in the 1970s and his lobbying is part of the reason that we have various environmental legislation such as the clean air act. it will take a lot more than putting his name on a presidential ballot to erase those accomplishments from my mind.
the most common charge i hear against nader attacks his "big ego." while i'm sure that's absolutely true. so what? all presidential candidates have huge egos. it's really part of the job description. a humble person does not get up in front of the american people and say "i deserve to be president." you simply cannot even contemplate running for the job unless your ego is a little inflated. so when people say that ralph has a big ego, in one sense, all that says is that he has one of the prerequisites for the job.
so nader can run if he wants. he won't have my vote or my money, but i bear him no ill will for his choice, and i'm not convinced that it will hurt the democratic nominee's chances in the general election.
ping ping ping!
i just tried to install trackback. to be honest, i'm not sure if i know what i'm doing. thanks to rook for answering my questions over in atrios' comments.
now let's see if i can figure out this ping thing...
UPDATE: woo-hoo! i have successfully pinged two other sites. now if only someone would ping me. always a bridesmaid, i guess...
now let's see if i can figure out this ping thing...
UPDATE: woo-hoo! i have successfully pinged two other sites. now if only someone would ping me. always a bridesmaid, i guess...
radio address
ntodd posted about bush's weekly radio address yesterday morning. i wrote the following in the comments and i just decided to put a copy here rather than retyping essentially the same point. here's what i wrote:
here's a question: are there any radio stations that actually play the president's radio address? each week there is a small summary in the news about this alleged radio broadcast, and a speech appears on the white house web site, but i have never been able to find a single station that carries it. the only people who ever seem to have heard it are the journalists who report on what it saidso... does anyone here know the answer?
not that i really want to listen to that tripe. but i've wondered about that since the clinton years.
Saturday, February 21, 2004
krugman
i just found out that paul krugman is going to be one of the commencement speakers at the college where my wife teaches. maybe i'll actually go this year.
a question
it's parliamentary election time in iran. because the hard-liners vetoed most of the pro-reform candidates (including several incumbent members of parliament) and refused to back down, the reformers have called for a boycott of the election. i don't know how many people will honor the boycott, but the result is pretty much a foregone conclusion; the hard-liners will regain control of the iranian parliament.
so here's the question: do election boycotts ever work? every once in a while i read about someone boycotting an election somewhere and then, quite predicably, the boycotting party loses. so why do people keep boycotting? i understand the general philosophy behind boycotts, if the whole proceeding is a sham, then you should not give it any sort of legitimacy by participating in it. but then as a practical matter, when one group boycotts an election, they always entirely end up shut out from power. so what exactly does the boycott accomplish? our own current president shows that a flawed election does not necessarily hamper your ability to act once you are in office. so what is the point? can anyone think of an example where an electoral boycott led to something favorable for the people doing the boycott?
so here's the question: do election boycotts ever work? every once in a while i read about someone boycotting an election somewhere and then, quite predicably, the boycotting party loses. so why do people keep boycotting? i understand the general philosophy behind boycotts, if the whole proceeding is a sham, then you should not give it any sort of legitimacy by participating in it. but then as a practical matter, when one group boycotts an election, they always entirely end up shut out from power. so what exactly does the boycott accomplish? our own current president shows that a flawed election does not necessarily hamper your ability to act once you are in office. so what is the point? can anyone think of an example where an electoral boycott led to something favorable for the people doing the boycott?
of mice and men
its saturday and i am in the office. this morning i decided that i just have too much to do to not go in. meanwhile, here i am and rather than working i am procrastinating.
in the frantic last few days i keep thinking about depressed mice. it first came up a few days ago, when my wife was telling me about something she was teaching in her psychology class. she mentioned studies of the effects of anti-depression drugs on mice. "wait a minute," i said, "how do you know if a mouse is depressed?"
it turned out, you really don't. people who worry about this sort of thing have come up with a variety of ways to declare a mouse depressed. one of which is to hang a mouse upside-down. most mice, when hung upside-down, will wave their feet around, struggling in the air. some mice, however, just hang there and don't do anything. so some scientists deemed these mice to be "despairing mice" and basically assumed that meant they were depressed. of course, it may be that this mouse minority is just into being hung upside-down, or that they are paralyzed with fear. clearly things would be easier if we had a mouse mind reader. it could also be the case that mice simply don't have the brain capacity to be depressed. maybe in order to be depressed you have to be intelligent enough to ponder the insignificance of one's life. perhaps only the smartest mice are depressed, for they are the ones who can wake up in the morning and say to themselves: "crap, i'm just a mouse."
but i digress. back to this hanging upside-down thing.
as evidence that the mice who don't struggle when suspended by their tails are depressed, apparently these mice start to struggle if you give them anti-depression drugs first. but it seems to me that the whole argument is circular. i mean, the reason we are looking for depressed mice in the first place is so that we can test anti-depression medication to see if they make people less depressed. but if successful reaction to anti-depression meds is our main proof that they were once depressed, then a "depressed mouse" essentially equals mice-who-react-to-drugs-we-think-might-be-anti-depressants. and that's not a good sample to test our drugs on.
i have a better solution. we can tell when people are depressed because they can tell us. why not just find some actual despairing people and hang them upside down to see what they do. if they don't struggle, then maybe the non-struggling mice really are in despair. (of course, we should also hang a few non-depressed people upside-down to make sure that people in general would flail around when this happens to them). my wife said this would never pass the IRB ("internal review board," the body that has to approve all experiments on human subjects). damn nazi doctors! they have to ruin all the good experiments for everyone else!!!
as you can see, this is turning into a productive saturday visit to the office
in the frantic last few days i keep thinking about depressed mice. it first came up a few days ago, when my wife was telling me about something she was teaching in her psychology class. she mentioned studies of the effects of anti-depression drugs on mice. "wait a minute," i said, "how do you know if a mouse is depressed?"
it turned out, you really don't. people who worry about this sort of thing have come up with a variety of ways to declare a mouse depressed. one of which is to hang a mouse upside-down. most mice, when hung upside-down, will wave their feet around, struggling in the air. some mice, however, just hang there and don't do anything. so some scientists deemed these mice to be "despairing mice" and basically assumed that meant they were depressed. of course, it may be that this mouse minority is just into being hung upside-down, or that they are paralyzed with fear. clearly things would be easier if we had a mouse mind reader. it could also be the case that mice simply don't have the brain capacity to be depressed. maybe in order to be depressed you have to be intelligent enough to ponder the insignificance of one's life. perhaps only the smartest mice are depressed, for they are the ones who can wake up in the morning and say to themselves: "crap, i'm just a mouse."
but i digress. back to this hanging upside-down thing.
as evidence that the mice who don't struggle when suspended by their tails are depressed, apparently these mice start to struggle if you give them anti-depression drugs first. but it seems to me that the whole argument is circular. i mean, the reason we are looking for depressed mice in the first place is so that we can test anti-depression medication to see if they make people less depressed. but if successful reaction to anti-depression meds is our main proof that they were once depressed, then a "depressed mouse" essentially equals mice-who-react-to-drugs-we-think-might-be-anti-depressants. and that's not a good sample to test our drugs on.
i have a better solution. we can tell when people are depressed because they can tell us. why not just find some actual despairing people and hang them upside down to see what they do. if they don't struggle, then maybe the non-struggling mice really are in despair. (of course, we should also hang a few non-depressed people upside-down to make sure that people in general would flail around when this happens to them). my wife said this would never pass the IRB ("internal review board," the body that has to approve all experiments on human subjects). damn nazi doctors! they have to ruin all the good experiments for everyone else!!!
as you can see, this is turning into a productive saturday visit to the office
Thursday, February 19, 2004
once again
i seem to do this about once a week now. here's the generic version:
[insert excuse about why i am busy, making sure to list a bunch of vague references to work without saying what exactly i am doing]
[pretend to apologize for my blog neglect]
[drop a bunch of links to get the readers something to do and to divert them from the fact that i am not actually writing anything myself]
LOOK!!! THE GAY AGENDA!
[insert excuse about why i am busy, making sure to list a bunch of vague references to work without saying what exactly i am doing]
[pretend to apologize for my blog neglect]
[drop a bunch of links to get the readers something to do and to divert them from the fact that i am not actually writing anything myself]
LOOK!!! THE GAY AGENDA!
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
chomsky with amnesia
american amnesia has just posted its interview with noam chomsky. the interviews on that site seem to generate a good comment thread so check that out too.
sign of the times
i’m not into new york times-bashing as much as some of the other liberal bloggers out there. while i acknowledge the paper’s faults, i still like it overall. it’s the only newspaper i read every day.
on the other hand josh marshall drew my attention to Who You Calling “Arab”? which really is quite funny and frankly, the nyt deserves this one.
on the other hand josh marshall drew my attention to Who You Calling “Arab”? which really is quite funny and frankly, the nyt deserves this one.
Monday, February 16, 2004
w.t.f?
hesiod has directed my attention to another instance where the feds are wasting their resources to spy on a liberal group. this time it’s progressive clothing web sites.
in a prior posts i mentioned how frightening things like these are to me. but aside from that, i’m just a little bit confused by what exactly the department of homeland security is trying to accomplish. how can they justify using resources supposedly allocated to finding terrorist cells to snoop around web sites who sell "another patriot against the patriot act" buttons. someone apparently thinks these buttons and other "sweatshop-free radical apparel" pose a clear and present danger to our society. this kind of spying on peaceful groups is more than a threat to our ability to speak freely in this country, it’s also wasteful and stupid. it’s almost like they’re trying to give ammunition to people who wear the anti-patriot act buttons.
in a prior posts i mentioned how frightening things like these are to me. but aside from that, i’m just a little bit confused by what exactly the department of homeland security is trying to accomplish. how can they justify using resources supposedly allocated to finding terrorist cells to snoop around web sites who sell "another patriot against the patriot act" buttons. someone apparently thinks these buttons and other "sweatshop-free radical apparel" pose a clear and present danger to our society. this kind of spying on peaceful groups is more than a threat to our ability to speak freely in this country, it’s also wasteful and stupid. it’s almost like they’re trying to give ammunition to people who wear the anti-patriot act buttons.
Sunday, February 15, 2004
lowell again
earlier this week, i was asked to link to various posts on trish wilson's blog about the jaks abduction case. to be honest, it was the first i had heard of the story. i read trish's posts, thought they were compelling and posted several link to trish's blog about the case. i didn't make any comment because it happened to be a crunch at work, but trish seemed to be fighting the good fight and i was happy to do my little part to help out.
what i didn't expect was the spike in my hits from that post. it seems there are a lot of people googling about the jaks case. as business at work eased up, i started reading more about the case and the murky world of the "father's rights" movement. it's really its own little weird world of frustrated men coming out of bad divorces railing at the "feminized court system" that they claim has conspired against them. i am lucky to have had little first hand experience with the divorce system in this country, although i am a lawyer and my mother is a lawyer who handles divorce cases. but when i read some of these sites, they ooze bitterness and hostility to women but seem to be utterly without any real argument or evidence that the system is biased against them other than their own anectdotes. it is hard to see how they can ever hope to win over anyone who isn't already predisposed to see their point of view.
as for lowell jaks. over the years, he has apparently claimed to be an advocate for the father's rights movement. but when someone is an advocate for a movement, that generally means that they are advocating for a cause, not just for themselves. when lowell kidnapped his son, he showed his true colors. kidnapping did nothing to aid his cause. if anything, it set the "father's rights" crowd back. the more fathers that kidnap their non-custodial children, the more scrutiny non-custodial parents will get from the courts. lowell has not helped non-custial fathers at all, he has helped to make their lives worse. mensnewsdaily's sympathetic coverage of lowell only confirms that lowell's group is not interested in advocating any constructive changes to family law, but are simply interested in making sure that father's are allowed to take their children from their mothers whenever they want.
what i didn't expect was the spike in my hits from that post. it seems there are a lot of people googling about the jaks case. as business at work eased up, i started reading more about the case and the murky world of the "father's rights" movement. it's really its own little weird world of frustrated men coming out of bad divorces railing at the "feminized court system" that they claim has conspired against them. i am lucky to have had little first hand experience with the divorce system in this country, although i am a lawyer and my mother is a lawyer who handles divorce cases. but when i read some of these sites, they ooze bitterness and hostility to women but seem to be utterly without any real argument or evidence that the system is biased against them other than their own anectdotes. it is hard to see how they can ever hope to win over anyone who isn't already predisposed to see their point of view.
as for lowell jaks. over the years, he has apparently claimed to be an advocate for the father's rights movement. but when someone is an advocate for a movement, that generally means that they are advocating for a cause, not just for themselves. when lowell kidnapped his son, he showed his true colors. kidnapping did nothing to aid his cause. if anything, it set the "father's rights" crowd back. the more fathers that kidnap their non-custodial children, the more scrutiny non-custodial parents will get from the courts. lowell has not helped non-custial fathers at all, he has helped to make their lives worse. mensnewsdaily's sympathetic coverage of lowell only confirms that lowell's group is not interested in advocating any constructive changes to family law, but are simply interested in making sure that father's are allowed to take their children from their mothers whenever they want.
Saturday, February 14, 2004
the fog of war
the fog of war finally reached philadelphia this weekend. i have been a big fan of errol morris for several years now, but this film is particularly well timed and so it has gotten more press than his prior films. (the oscar nomination didn't hurt either). the film is a profile of robert mcnamara, secretary of defense during the cuban missile crisis and the first half of the vietnam war. almost the entire movie consists of mcnamara talking. but this was not a boring monologue. morris' amazing technique glued me to the screen, even the narrative jumped backwards and forwards in time.
mcnamara made no comment on any current events, but occasionally things he said really resonated throughout the theater. at one point, he commented on why vietnam was such a disaster stating (and i am paraphrasing from memory): "when the u.s. goes to war without the support of our allies--the countries that share our values--we should rethink our policies to make sure we are not making a mistake."
mcnamara, of course, was vilified by the anti-war crowd during the vietnam war as an arrogant number-crunching secretary of defense. and the film certainly shows there was some truth to that. throughout the film, i was struck by how the older footage of mcnamara reminded me of donald rumsfeld. the clippings of contemporaneous news articles all contained descriptions of mcnamara that could easily apply to our current defense secretary. mcnamara even looks a little like rumsfeld.
but most of the movie was footage from morris' recent interview with mcnamara. and in those scenes, the 80-something former secretary seems to have been taken down a peg or two. by no means is he humble; he readily volunteers his academic and other achievements. and while he get's choked up with emotion when talking about kennedy's death, he talks casually about incinerating 100,000 japanese civilians in world war ii. perhaps some of the detached mcnamara survives. nevertheless, the modern mcnamara clearly is no longer the arrogant young cabinet member he once was. though he is not humble, he has been humbled to some extent. he knows his policies in vietnam did not turn out well and as a result a lot of people were killed and wounded. at the end when he is finally asked point blank whether he regrets how he presided over the vietnam war, he simply refuses to answer the question, giving the distinct impression that the answer is yes.
documentaries like this are not for everyone. it assumes that the viewer has some basic background knowledge about the cuban missile crisis and vietnam and does not try to balance what mcnamara says with any other voices (although at times the images on the screen are the counter-argument). but i loved it.
meanwhile, i look forward to kirk's upcoming interview with errol morris at american amnesia.
mcnamara made no comment on any current events, but occasionally things he said really resonated throughout the theater. at one point, he commented on why vietnam was such a disaster stating (and i am paraphrasing from memory): "when the u.s. goes to war without the support of our allies--the countries that share our values--we should rethink our policies to make sure we are not making a mistake."
mcnamara, of course, was vilified by the anti-war crowd during the vietnam war as an arrogant number-crunching secretary of defense. and the film certainly shows there was some truth to that. throughout the film, i was struck by how the older footage of mcnamara reminded me of donald rumsfeld. the clippings of contemporaneous news articles all contained descriptions of mcnamara that could easily apply to our current defense secretary. mcnamara even looks a little like rumsfeld.
but most of the movie was footage from morris' recent interview with mcnamara. and in those scenes, the 80-something former secretary seems to have been taken down a peg or two. by no means is he humble; he readily volunteers his academic and other achievements. and while he get's choked up with emotion when talking about kennedy's death, he talks casually about incinerating 100,000 japanese civilians in world war ii. perhaps some of the detached mcnamara survives. nevertheless, the modern mcnamara clearly is no longer the arrogant young cabinet member he once was. though he is not humble, he has been humbled to some extent. he knows his policies in vietnam did not turn out well and as a result a lot of people were killed and wounded. at the end when he is finally asked point blank whether he regrets how he presided over the vietnam war, he simply refuses to answer the question, giving the distinct impression that the answer is yes.
documentaries like this are not for everyone. it assumes that the viewer has some basic background knowledge about the cuban missile crisis and vietnam and does not try to balance what mcnamara says with any other voices (although at times the images on the screen are the counter-argument). but i loved it.
meanwhile, i look forward to kirk's upcoming interview with errol morris at american amnesia.
turks and greeks, valentines at last
the turkish and greek cypriot leaders have reached a peace deal. this really looks promising, and oddly appropriate for valentines day (plus my wife and i went to turkey for our honeymoon). the breakthrough only really happened because turkey pressured the turkish cypriot leader to compromise. cyprus is scheduled to join the EU in its next round of expansion. if unification did not happen in time, only the greek side would become part of the EU. with a united turkish-greek cyprus in the EU, turkey hopes it will increase its chances of being admitted in future rounds.
i am not a european, and thus to some extent i don't think i should really have a say in who is a member of the EU. but being an opinionated person, i can't resist mentioning that admitting turkey would be a really good idea. like it or not, the turks have been part of europe for almost a millenia--they certainly have influenced european politics just like any other nation on the continent. there have been turks in europe almost as long as there have been hungarians (who are distant cousins of turks, in fact, and invaded from central asia just before the year 1000). the only reason turks face more resistance to membership is because, unlike hungarians, turks never converted to christianity.
but admitting turkey to the EU would demonstrate that the EU is not just a club of christian nations, and placing turkey under the ambit of the european human rights courts would do a lot to improve the situation in the country. each turkish government, even the present islamists-leaning one, seems committed to do whatever it takes to get into the EU. they have lifted restrictions on kurds, unbanned the use of the kurdish language, and eliminated the death penalty. these were all hard choices for a turkish leader to make, but they did in anyway, demonstrating their commitment to win europe over. european leaders, however, keep giving mixed signals about whether they will ever let turkey in, and adding new pre-conditions for turkish membership. resolving the cyprus issue was just such a condition. hopefully, with the cyprus problem resolved and with a half-muslim country admitted to europe, europe will finally get serious and give turkey a chance to join.
i am not a european, and thus to some extent i don't think i should really have a say in who is a member of the EU. but being an opinionated person, i can't resist mentioning that admitting turkey would be a really good idea. like it or not, the turks have been part of europe for almost a millenia--they certainly have influenced european politics just like any other nation on the continent. there have been turks in europe almost as long as there have been hungarians (who are distant cousins of turks, in fact, and invaded from central asia just before the year 1000). the only reason turks face more resistance to membership is because, unlike hungarians, turks never converted to christianity.
but admitting turkey to the EU would demonstrate that the EU is not just a club of christian nations, and placing turkey under the ambit of the european human rights courts would do a lot to improve the situation in the country. each turkish government, even the present islamists-leaning one, seems committed to do whatever it takes to get into the EU. they have lifted restrictions on kurds, unbanned the use of the kurdish language, and eliminated the death penalty. these were all hard choices for a turkish leader to make, but they did in anyway, demonstrating their commitment to win europe over. european leaders, however, keep giving mixed signals about whether they will ever let turkey in, and adding new pre-conditions for turkish membership. resolving the cyprus issue was just such a condition. hopefully, with the cyprus problem resolved and with a half-muslim country admitted to europe, europe will finally get serious and give turkey a chance to join.
Friday, February 13, 2004
apprentice
alex over at sooner thought is watching "the apprentice" so that i don't have to. i first learned of the apprentice from a commercial that played before a movie (must... restrain... commercial... before... movie... rant... okay. i'm fine. i'll continue).
anyway, seeing a 20 foot high donald trump head give his smug smile on the big screen was enough to assure that i would go out of my way to avoid even accidentally watching "the apprentice." hostility to "the donald" aside, another strike against the show is my irrational hatred of reality t.v. shows. not that they don't deserve my derision, but sometimes i think my dislike of them is truly out of proportion for what they are. of course after reading alex's concluding paragraphs, i feel perfectly justified:
anyway, seeing a 20 foot high donald trump head give his smug smile on the big screen was enough to assure that i would go out of my way to avoid even accidentally watching "the apprentice." hostility to "the donald" aside, another strike against the show is my irrational hatred of reality t.v. shows. not that they don't deserve my derision, but sometimes i think my dislike of them is truly out of proportion for what they are. of course after reading alex's concluding paragraphs, i feel perfectly justified:
The contestants on this gross game show do demonstrate one thing I saw during my years in the private sector: a distinct lack of education about culture, history, how commerce works, communication and interpersonal relations. What do they teach in business school these, days, anyway? From what I see, it is all about too much eye makeup, fake fingernails, tight pants, washboard abs, junk "Who Moved My Cheese?" motivational tactics and weepy-eyed, predictable brinkmanship in the boardroom.
Ah, yes, the "boardroom." This halfway-elegant setting (not too much gold leaf in there, for once) where The Donald (That is the last time I allow myself to call him "THE") evaluates the losers of each exercise--which is usually something challenging like selling shitty t-shirts at a flea market or wiggling their asses at guys for cash.
Then, like Croesus on Auric Goldfinger's toilet, Trump waves a fey hand at the biggest loser and says "You're fired!" as incidental music apparently stolen from "Days of Our Lives" flourishes in the background and Trump's two judges (two of his top employees--one old guy who looks like an ad for Metamucil and one hot chick biznez woman who looks like she would love to be anywhere else but on TV) cringe in embarrassment.
What a relief for the contestants, to be flushed from the presence of the golden throne and the swoop-haired vulgarian with his hand on the handle.
This show takes pleasure in and promotes the schadenfreud entertainment value of watching morons connive to destroy one another and "ascend" to the top of Trump's tacky gold-plated tower.
Only in America--a place that "elected" the dense, tasteless Mr. Bush to the presidency would find this mess entertaining. God help us all...I really wish the gasping, grasping, snack-food addled, spoiled-rotten American public would "fire" "The Donald" and this type of entertainment.
you'd think...
...with all the brew-ha-ha about the tamper potential with electronic touch-screen voting, election officials would not be able to make idiotic announcements like this:
i suppose one way for florida to avoid another embarrassing recount fiasco this november is to simply prevent any recounts from happening.
nothing to see here, move along...
(link via suburban guerrilla)
The Department of State has notified elections supervisors that touchscreen ballots don't have to be included during manual recounts because there is no question about how voters intended to vote.
While touchscreen ballot images can be printed, there is no need and elections supervisors aren't authorized to do so, Division of Elections Director Ed Kast wrote in a letter to Pasco County Supervisor of Elections Kurt Browning.
i suppose one way for florida to avoid another embarrassing recount fiasco this november is to simply prevent any recounts from happening.
nothing to see here, move along...
(link via suburban guerrilla)
Thursday, February 12, 2004
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
quick post
when i visited my brother in kenya in 1995 it was just like this (make sure the sound is on. and yes, the song never ever ends)
(via pen-elayne who got it from scott mccloud)
(via pen-elayne who got it from scott mccloud)
Monday, February 09, 2004
no time for anything but blog maintenance
work is getting crazier and crazier. i am finished with new york, but now occupied with courts in upper darby, philadelphia and trenton.
all i can really do today is upkeep.
the liberal coalition grows again, and thus so does my blogroll. welcome to iddybud, rick's cafe american, and make me a commentator. go check them out in the coming days when my posts get more sporadic.
meanwhile, trish wilson has been doing a series of posts about "father's rights" activitist lowell jaks who kidnapped his son alec. other posts include info on identifying lowell and alec jaks, monkey mail trish received after posting about lowell and alec jaks, and how "father's rights" publication "mensnewsdaily" has portrayed lowell jaks to be the victim after kidnapping alec.
all i can really do today is upkeep.
the liberal coalition grows again, and thus so does my blogroll. welcome to iddybud, rick's cafe american, and make me a commentator. go check them out in the coming days when my posts get more sporadic.
meanwhile, trish wilson has been doing a series of posts about "father's rights" activitist lowell jaks who kidnapped his son alec. other posts include info on identifying lowell and alec jaks, monkey mail trish received after posting about lowell and alec jaks, and how "father's rights" publication "mensnewsdaily" has portrayed lowell jaks to be the victim after kidnapping alec.
Sunday, February 08, 2004
catholic peace ministry
atrios just linked to this post from the daily kos. kos posted a letter from the executive director of the catholic peace ministry that is apparently being targetted by a federal prosecutor in iowa for its non-violent political activities. this kind of thing is really frightening to me. the justice department's actions are a direct assault on what this country is supposed to stand for.
preaching to the choir
i just read another article which mentioned how evangelical christians are hoping to use the passion of christ as a conversion tool. i have a hard time taking their excitement seriously.
the film is shot entirely in latin and aramaic and has no subtitles. i wonder if anyone who is not already familiar with the story will be able to follow it. when i lived in chicago there was this channel that, for at least a few hours each day, was the channel for the indian community in the city. everything was in hindi and probably 75% of their programming was hindu religious epics. i liked to try to watch them. all of them were musicals and were filled with weird dance numbers and random-seeming events. like a guy with his face painted blue who would appear out of thin air and then dance across the screen interrupting a sword fight by two confused looking warriors. as much as i liked watching them, i had no idea what was actually going on. i got zero hindu education from the whole thing, and i never once considered converting to hinduism. i just liked it because it seemed so silly to my non-hindu eyes. if people who are really unfamiliar with the story of the new testament see "the passion of christ," they will probably have a similar experience
evangelicals apparently don't agree. but they are so committed to their religion and so familiar with the story, can they really imagine what it will look like to a total stranger? because the film is supposed to be authentic--even down to the language (it's not actually. at the time of jesus, that half of the roman empire was officially greek speaking, not latin)--i think the evangelicals feel that a non-believer can't help but to see the truth of what they consider to be an incredibly moving story. but it's only potentially moving if you know what it is you are watching. even though i've never seen the film, it's hard to imagine that it will convert any real strangers to christianity.
UPDATE: as CaTHY pointed out in the comments, the passion of christ will have subtitles, thus undermining pretty much the entire point of this post. oh well...
the film is shot entirely in latin and aramaic and has no subtitles. i wonder if anyone who is not already familiar with the story will be able to follow it. when i lived in chicago there was this channel that, for at least a few hours each day, was the channel for the indian community in the city. everything was in hindi and probably 75% of their programming was hindu religious epics. i liked to try to watch them. all of them were musicals and were filled with weird dance numbers and random-seeming events. like a guy with his face painted blue who would appear out of thin air and then dance across the screen interrupting a sword fight by two confused looking warriors. as much as i liked watching them, i had no idea what was actually going on. i got zero hindu education from the whole thing, and i never once considered converting to hinduism. i just liked it because it seemed so silly to my non-hindu eyes. if people who are really unfamiliar with the story of the new testament see "the passion of christ," they will probably have a similar experience
evangelicals apparently don't agree. but they are so committed to their religion and so familiar with the story, can they really imagine what it will look like to a total stranger? because the film is supposed to be authentic--even down to the language (it's not actually. at the time of jesus, that half of the roman empire was officially greek speaking, not latin)--i think the evangelicals feel that a non-believer can't help but to see the truth of what they consider to be an incredibly moving story. but it's only potentially moving if you know what it is you are watching. even though i've never seen the film, it's hard to imagine that it will convert any real strangers to christianity.
UPDATE: as CaTHY pointed out in the comments, the passion of christ will have subtitles, thus undermining pretty much the entire point of this post. oh well...
sandless house with some fog
we saw house of sand and fog last night. amazing acting (with one notable exception, he wasn't bad, but compared with his co-stars it was just obvious that mr. eldard was out of his league), the plot was just okay; it was a little hard to believe things could spiral that badly out of control. the whole time, i just kept wishing the people would just call one another and try to work out their differences. they didn't, but if they had the movie would have been only be 20 minutes long
it was also a little odd how although ben kingsley's wife in the film did not speak english very well and she would oftens speak to him in farsi, he would reply in english. i'm guessing that ben (the actor) doesn't speak farsi and the director decided not to have him speak bad farsi (which would trigger an uproar of snide remarks and derision from the iranian expat community). it just didn't make sense when you thought about it.
while i'm bitching about minor things, though the house had plenty of fog, there was no sand on the property itself (though there was a beach down the street). but i guess "house of fog and some sand within a short walk" wasn't catchy enough
but aside from these minor gripes, it was worth seeing.
it was also a little odd how although ben kingsley's wife in the film did not speak english very well and she would oftens speak to him in farsi, he would reply in english. i'm guessing that ben (the actor) doesn't speak farsi and the director decided not to have him speak bad farsi (which would trigger an uproar of snide remarks and derision from the iranian expat community). it just didn't make sense when you thought about it.
while i'm bitching about minor things, though the house had plenty of fog, there was no sand on the property itself (though there was a beach down the street). but i guess "house of fog and some sand within a short walk" wasn't catchy enough
but aside from these minor gripes, it was worth seeing.
Saturday, February 07, 2004
finally useful information about the candidates
the defective yeti posted d and d statistics for the democratic presidential candidates. i guess we'll have to wait until the general election to get W's stats.
p.s. only 52% geek my ass!
p.s. only 52% geek my ass!
moore for president?
this seems almost too good to be true. it's hard to imagine that bush would have a third party challenger on his right wing, but stranger things have happened. archy has good analysis of the whole deal (and his story was via andante)
brooks
i can't resist david brooks' column again. this time, brooks bashes kerry for being tied to "special interests" and calls him a hypocrate for criticizing the bush administration for the same thing. in other words, the entire column is basically an argument that kerry has special interests of his own. fair enough. while accusing a candidate of hypocracy is a legitimate argument, he at least should try to address kerry's actual point. no where in the column does brooks address whether bush or his administration is tied to special interests. as i finished the column it was striking how the last line could easily be referring to bush:
so fine. let's say brooks is right and kerry has favored certain "special interests" during his time in the senate. but all that means is both kerry and bush are tied to special interests. and kerry, at least, has not been tied to out and out war profiteering (like the halliburton examples above) which in my mind at least, is far worse.
(postscript: the whole "special interest" buzzword is another aspect of this that i don't want to get into right now. in short, i think it's a term that is devoid of any actual objective meaning. but let's put that aside for the sake of old brooksy)
Oh, he sometimes pretends that he doesn't care about our special interests. He puts on that callous populist facade. But deep down he cares. Maybe he cares too much. When he's out on the stump saying otherwise, he's just being a big old phony.i mean, how many times can halliburton steal our tax dollars by billing for meals that don't exist and overcharge the military for fuel before the bushies stop giving them contracts? they have now been caught overcharging the u.s. for more money than the company paid in taxes last year. there has practically been new evidence of improper financial dealings every other week. each time it is caught, the company apologizes and repays the government, but how many times can we be ripped off by a company before we say we won't do business with them anymore? in my opinion, a single one of these allegations against halliburton should exclude the company from federal contracts. the bush administration is not even considering that. oh, and meanwhile the company continues to pay cheney a six-figure salary as "deferred compensation" even as he sits in his vice presidential office. that is but one example of this administrations open embrace of "special interests." i won't even mention the energy industry.
so fine. let's say brooks is right and kerry has favored certain "special interests" during his time in the senate. but all that means is both kerry and bush are tied to special interests. and kerry, at least, has not been tied to out and out war profiteering (like the halliburton examples above) which in my mind at least, is far worse.
(postscript: the whole "special interest" buzzword is another aspect of this that i don't want to get into right now. in short, i think it's a term that is devoid of any actual objective meaning. but let's put that aside for the sake of old brooksy)
city of god
we saw city of god last night. quite good, it was complex and filled with powerful images. the film was also technically amazing. there are very few movies where you notice good editing (as one friend has remarked to me "how can you say the editing was good when you don't see what was cut out"). it was pretty brutal, however, especially when you consider that it is based on a true story. i guess this finally shatters my dream of moving to a third world slum.
and speaking of frist
yesterday, he made the following comment:
"It is impossible to get everybody covered, it's impossible to get to 100 percent."
this is patently ridiculous. every other industrialized country provides some form of universal health coverage. one might argue that it's too expensive, or inefficient to have public financed health-care, but to say its impossible is really laughable, and, in many ways typically american. there are 50 counter-examples staring us in the face, yet frist can't see that because he won't look over the border. his conclusion came after looking at how states have tried to achieve universal coverage. the health care insurance system in this country is a national system. federal law even recognizes that fact as expressed in national healthcare insurance-related legislation like COBRA and HIPAA. states cannot effectively provide universal coverage because to do so would require controling costs which are the product of a national market. as the only doctor in the senate, frist is always pulling the medical expert card to trump anyone who challenges him on any healthcare related problem. this is but one example of how little credibility he really holds in that area. (besides, he's not just a doctor, but an owner of a medical facility that is dependant on the continuation of our for-profit healthcare system. his conflict-of-interest undermines any potential expertise he might have)
personally, i think universal healthcare is inevitable in this country. we're in a classic cost spiral right now. as health coverage gets more expensive, more and more people lose their healthcare as employers cut back. this reduces the pool of insured people and that further drives up costs as insurers are unable to spread the risk amount as large a group of the insured. as costs go up, more people are cut. etc. there is really no end in sight to the increasing costs. as the ranks of the uninsured swells, its members climb higher and higher up the socio-economic scale. when it was just poor people, the class with the lowest voter turnout, the problem could be shoved aside. but more and more voters are uninsured or have family members who are uninsured. eventually it will get to a point where there are just too many voters without insurance to not act.
"It is impossible to get everybody covered, it's impossible to get to 100 percent."
this is patently ridiculous. every other industrialized country provides some form of universal health coverage. one might argue that it's too expensive, or inefficient to have public financed health-care, but to say its impossible is really laughable, and, in many ways typically american. there are 50 counter-examples staring us in the face, yet frist can't see that because he won't look over the border. his conclusion came after looking at how states have tried to achieve universal coverage. the health care insurance system in this country is a national system. federal law even recognizes that fact as expressed in national healthcare insurance-related legislation like COBRA and HIPAA. states cannot effectively provide universal coverage because to do so would require controling costs which are the product of a national market. as the only doctor in the senate, frist is always pulling the medical expert card to trump anyone who challenges him on any healthcare related problem. this is but one example of how little credibility he really holds in that area. (besides, he's not just a doctor, but an owner of a medical facility that is dependant on the continuation of our for-profit healthcare system. his conflict-of-interest undermines any potential expertise he might have)
personally, i think universal healthcare is inevitable in this country. we're in a classic cost spiral right now. as health coverage gets more expensive, more and more people lose their healthcare as employers cut back. this reduces the pool of insured people and that further drives up costs as insurers are unable to spread the risk amount as large a group of the insured. as costs go up, more people are cut. etc. there is really no end in sight to the increasing costs. as the ranks of the uninsured swells, its members climb higher and higher up the socio-economic scale. when it was just poor people, the class with the lowest voter turnout, the problem could be shoved aside. but more and more voters are uninsured or have family members who are uninsured. eventually it will get to a point where there are just too many voters without insurance to not act.
not for kitty lovers
i just was reading the amazon reviews for senate majority leader bill frist's book. really an entertaining read. there's only a single non-sarcastic positive review, and i suspect it was written by frist himself (it was posted right at the publication date by an anonomous reader in nashville, tn, frist's home town).
(via atrios)
(via atrios)
Thursday, February 05, 2004
excuses excuses
just got back from a meeting in south jersey, it's 13 hours after i left this morning. tomorrow i gotta wake up extra early to go to new york city for another long day preparing witnesses for a deposition. then i go back on monday to do the depositions. then on tuesday i got a hearing in the morning, but at least that's near where i live. i got a summary judgment brief due at the end of next week with a trip to trenton for a settlement conference on the same day the brief is due.
i'm not complaining, just noting that my immediate future looks to be remarkably free of lazy time in front of the computer, at least if we only consider work days. maybe i can fit a post or two in over the weekend.
i'm not complaining, just noting that my immediate future looks to be remarkably free of lazy time in front of the computer, at least if we only consider work days. maybe i can fit a post or two in over the weekend.
Wednesday, February 04, 2004
ricin
i haven't read what the blogs have written about this yet, i'm sure others have posted on this, but how does it make sense to send a poison through the mail that is only harmful if injected or swallowed? does tom delay shoot up the contents of all incoming mail?
i'm not trying to say that they are overreaction, obviously anytime a poison is sent to members of congress it is a big deal; they are right to close down the building, etc. but it seems to me that the sender either does not understand how ricin works or is simply sending it to get people to freak out. it doesn't look like a serious attempt to hurt or kill people.
i'm not trying to say that they are overreaction, obviously anytime a poison is sent to members of congress it is a big deal; they are right to close down the building, etc. but it seems to me that the sender either does not understand how ricin works or is simply sending it to get people to freak out. it doesn't look like a serious attempt to hurt or kill people.
Tuesday, February 03, 2004
geek
| You are 52% geek | You are a geek. Good for you! Considering the endless complexity of the universe, as well as whatever discipline you happen to be most interested in, you'll never be bored as long as you have a good book store, a net connection, and thousands of dollars worth of expensive equipment. Assuming you're a technical geek, you'll be able to afford it, too. If you're not a technical geek, you're geek enough to mate with a technical geek and thereby get the needed dough. Dating tip: Don't date a geek of the same persuasion as you. You'll constantly try to out-geek the other. |
Take the Polygeek Quiz at Thudfactor.com
(via sarah, who somehow outgeeked me by double digits! how could that happen? even tripp got more geekpoints than me?!?!? what a crock)
...
so instead of writing the post that has been rattling around in my head, i took the geek test.
in any case, no more time to blog now. more later. really, i mean it this time. i promise...
Monday, February 02, 2004
busy
late last week i got hit by another perfect storm of work busy-ness plus non-work busy-ness. i'm still in the middle of it, but i got the urge to blog. i can't now. more later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)