more or less inspired by david's friday question (a weekly feature over at blogAmY), i'm launching a new feature here at rubber hose: upyernoz's st. patrick's day question. for the rest of 2004 on every st. patrick's day i will ask a compelling question that will shock and amaze you. or maybe not. it will, at the very least, be something that has been bugging me for a while. so here is the very first st. paddy's day question:
how did "weapons of mass destruction" ever get related to 9-11? i'm not trying to ask about bush's justification for the war in iraq. i think the link in the public's mind pre-dates that. within days of 9-11 i remember people talking about the dangers of terrorists with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. (like this nrp show about bioterrorism threat that aired on 9/14/01 or the last letter printed here (also on 9/14/01) citing the threat of terrorists with nuclear or chemical weapons). i don't think the president made up the link to justify iraq. it was already in the air. he just took advantage of it later.
but why was it in the air? if anything, the 9/11 attacks proved that terrorists do not need sophisticated weapons to produce mass destruction. when knives and commericial airplanes can be so destructive, why bother with the expense and danger of nukes? why did it seem to be such an easy jump from planes going into the world trade center and a mushroom cloud?
discuss
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
st. patrick's day
at least for people around here, it's not much more than an excuse to drink. i'm not criticizing that or anything, but here's my problem with st. patrick's day:
i'm not a fan of st. patrick.
patrick got his sainthood by "converted thousands of irish people to christianity from paganism." indeed, he's basically credited (rightly or wrongly) with converting the whole damn island. the thing is, europe's already got plenty of christian countries. did they really need yet another one? europe used to be mostly pagan; the monotheistic religions were centered more in the middle-east. i understand how christians worked hard to turn that around, but couldn't they have left one or two pagan bits? it just would have been an a lot more interesting world if they left some pagans around.
i'm not a fan of st. patrick.
patrick got his sainthood by "converted thousands of irish people to christianity from paganism." indeed, he's basically credited (rightly or wrongly) with converting the whole damn island. the thing is, europe's already got plenty of christian countries. did they really need yet another one? europe used to be mostly pagan; the monotheistic religions were centered more in the middle-east. i understand how christians worked hard to turn that around, but couldn't they have left one or two pagan bits? it just would have been an a lot more interesting world if they left some pagans around.
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
a question
Bush Prods Kerry to Name Leaders Who Want Him Out
wouldn’t it be easier for kerry to just name the leaders who want to keep bush in office?
wouldn’t it be easier for kerry to just name the leaders who want to keep bush in office?
Monday, March 15, 2004
iraq constitution redux
nathan newman noticed something i didn't when i read through the iraqi interim constutition last week:
Bush wants to claim that with the new Constitution passed, power will be turned over to Iraqis after June of this year.i agree. and this provision also explains how the u.s. can be so certain that u.s. troops will remain after "sovereignty" is handed over on june 30th. all they have to do is get the puppets in power today to pass a law requiring iraq to accept u.s. troops and presto, the u.s will be guaranteed a place in iraq for at least another year and a half, if not longer.
It's a lie.
The new government under the new constitution will be barred from overturning any laws that the US has imposed on the country since the Occupation.
Why can't they change them?
Because of this provision in the Constitution, Article 26:A) Except as otherwise provided in this Law, the laws in force in Iraq on 30 June 2004 shall remain in effect unless and until rescinded or amended by the Iraqi Transitional Government in accordance with this Law.Note that the "Iraqi Transitional Government" doesn't come into existence until new elections occur, which can be as late as December 2005-- a long period to be governed by Paul Bremer's recently enacted pro-corporate laws.
[snip]
Don't believe the hype-- with Article 26, the Occupation continues after June. A government that cannot change US-imposed laws is nothing more than a remote controlled puppet regime.
one year later
tom tomorrow reminded me that right around now is the one year anniversary of the american invasion of iraq (have we come up with an official name for the conflict yet? most people seem to be using "the iraq war" or "the war in iraq," but occasionally i hear someone say "gulf war two." i'm still a big fan of "the blair-bush project," but somehow it hasn't seem to caught on).
there's been remarkably little "one year after" hype. maybe because the situation in iraq right now is so inconclusive and the usual people who would otherwise be hyping the anniversary (i.e. the bush administration) don't want to bring it up for fear of reminding people of the reasons we went there in the first place.
a few days before the war began last year, my wife and i had a party. after everyone left, it was probably around 2 in the morning, mrs. noz and i were cleaning up and, i guess, talking about the coming war. my wife remarked--partly as a joke: " i wonder if we will remember this party as the last hurrah of the pre-war days. you know, like in a movie, where people are dancing and partying right before hitler rolls into town and the world changes." it was a strange idea. i hadn't really thought of life at that moment in that way. were we, at that moment, antebellum?
a year later its pretty clear that the onset of the war in iraq did not cause any major changes in our day-to-day life. in some ways it's not that surprising. after all, unlike the characters in the movies my wife was alluding to, the fighting was not coming to our town. the iraq war was never about fighting were we lived (if it were i'm sure it would have been a lot less popular). but in other ways, it's very odd to reflect on how little is different. the war was a major undertaking for this country and still is today. a significant portion of our tax dollars are flowing into the country now, mostly via the pentagon or halliburton. thousands of americans are in iraq now, and a few are killed and wounded each week. but aside from my outrage over what i read in the newspaper each morning (or online), it barely causes a ripple in our daily lives. it's actually a little frightening just how easy and cost-free this war would seem if i weren't obsessively following what is going on there.
i don't really have a point to this post. i'm just reflecting on how the past year has been fairly good to me, my wife, my friends and family. but it's been a bad year for plenty of other people in the world. and they didn't even get to go to our party.
there's been remarkably little "one year after" hype. maybe because the situation in iraq right now is so inconclusive and the usual people who would otherwise be hyping the anniversary (i.e. the bush administration) don't want to bring it up for fear of reminding people of the reasons we went there in the first place.
a few days before the war began last year, my wife and i had a party. after everyone left, it was probably around 2 in the morning, mrs. noz and i were cleaning up and, i guess, talking about the coming war. my wife remarked--partly as a joke: " i wonder if we will remember this party as the last hurrah of the pre-war days. you know, like in a movie, where people are dancing and partying right before hitler rolls into town and the world changes." it was a strange idea. i hadn't really thought of life at that moment in that way. were we, at that moment, antebellum?
a year later its pretty clear that the onset of the war in iraq did not cause any major changes in our day-to-day life. in some ways it's not that surprising. after all, unlike the characters in the movies my wife was alluding to, the fighting was not coming to our town. the iraq war was never about fighting were we lived (if it were i'm sure it would have been a lot less popular). but in other ways, it's very odd to reflect on how little is different. the war was a major undertaking for this country and still is today. a significant portion of our tax dollars are flowing into the country now, mostly via the pentagon or halliburton. thousands of americans are in iraq now, and a few are killed and wounded each week. but aside from my outrage over what i read in the newspaper each morning (or online), it barely causes a ripple in our daily lives. it's actually a little frightening just how easy and cost-free this war would seem if i weren't obsessively following what is going on there.
i don't really have a point to this post. i'm just reflecting on how the past year has been fairly good to me, my wife, my friends and family. but it's been a bad year for plenty of other people in the world. and they didn't even get to go to our party.
Sunday, March 14, 2004
idiots
since 9-11 many people have noted that the u.s. government is woefully short on people with language skills from the middle east and central asia. how do you get more people to study arabic, persian or pashto? certainly not by making them subject to a draft when no one else is.
another bright idea coming out of the defense department.
(via the agonist)
another bright idea coming out of the defense department.
(via the agonist)
Saturday, March 13, 2004
spanish october surprise
for the past few months bush's approval ratings have finally dipped below 50%. whenever i talk about the president's reelection prospects to any of my friends, one of us always adds the caveat: this all goes out the window if there is another terrorist attack before the election
but this is exactly what has happened in spain. spain's national elections are this weekend, only days after the horrific madrid blast. which is why prime minister aznar's government is trying hard to blame the ETA and not al-qaeda for the attack. aznar's party was favored to win in polls taken earlier this week, now no one knows what will happen.
this morning it struck me that this is playing out in spain exactly the opposite way that me and my friends have assumed it would in the u.s. when we said "this goes out the window if there is another terrorist attack" what we meant was that if there was an attack--specifically an al-qaeda attack, bush would probably win, regardless how low his polls sink prior to the attack. in spain, it seems, a confirmed al-qaeda attack may be fatal to the governing party.
what accounts for the difference? in spain, the strongly pro-u.s. aznar went out on a limb and against the overwhelming will of the spanish public when he supported the u.s. led invasion of iraq. the theory is, with 90% of spaniards against the iraq war, if it is al-qaeda they will blame aznar and his party for making them a target. in the u.s. on the other hand, both our ego and geopolitical reality indicate that we already were a target.
oddly, also i think if the u.s. were attacked before the election, many americans would feel like that somehow justified the war. they would feel that it proves that the "war on terror" lives on, and want to rally behind bush as a leader just as the american people did after 9-11. never mind that such an attack could also be seen as evidence that removing hussein from power may not have made us any safer.
on the other hand, this is all speculation. i've certainly been wrong before, probably more often than not. i just hope that i never find out if i am right on this one.
but this is exactly what has happened in spain. spain's national elections are this weekend, only days after the horrific madrid blast. which is why prime minister aznar's government is trying hard to blame the ETA and not al-qaeda for the attack. aznar's party was favored to win in polls taken earlier this week, now no one knows what will happen.
this morning it struck me that this is playing out in spain exactly the opposite way that me and my friends have assumed it would in the u.s. when we said "this goes out the window if there is another terrorist attack" what we meant was that if there was an attack--specifically an al-qaeda attack, bush would probably win, regardless how low his polls sink prior to the attack. in spain, it seems, a confirmed al-qaeda attack may be fatal to the governing party.
what accounts for the difference? in spain, the strongly pro-u.s. aznar went out on a limb and against the overwhelming will of the spanish public when he supported the u.s. led invasion of iraq. the theory is, with 90% of spaniards against the iraq war, if it is al-qaeda they will blame aznar and his party for making them a target. in the u.s. on the other hand, both our ego and geopolitical reality indicate that we already were a target.
oddly, also i think if the u.s. were attacked before the election, many americans would feel like that somehow justified the war. they would feel that it proves that the "war on terror" lives on, and want to rally behind bush as a leader just as the american people did after 9-11. never mind that such an attack could also be seen as evidence that removing hussein from power may not have made us any safer.
on the other hand, this is all speculation. i've certainly been wrong before, probably more often than not. i just hope that i never find out if i am right on this one.
Friday, March 12, 2004
the politics of the lonely crowd.
i just wrote a long comment over at tripp's site as an argument against the thoughts expressed in this article. go check it out and argue with me there if you're so inclined.
not dead
hey, sorry i disappeared like that, i had to go to new york yesterday on short notice. a few days before that it was newark, new jersey (ah, beautiful newark). even my after work time has been pretty packed. there's no arabic class this week because of spring break, so this time last week i thought i'd have some extra free time. in fact, it's the opposite. the college where my wife teaches is on spring break too. and so many of my friends and neighbors in faculty housing are in goof off mode right now and i've been goofing right along with them
meanwhile, things should pick up here again. i've edited the below post, adding in the senator contact information that kirk posted in the comments. (thanks kirk!) i guess i should have done that originally.
meanwhile, things should pick up here again. i've edited the below post, adding in the senator contact information that kirk posted in the comments. (thanks kirk!) i guess i should have done that originally.
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
HR 3077
juan cole posted a few days ago about HR 3077. section 6 of the bill (page 17 of the pdf i just linked to) would require the establishment of an "advisory board" to monitor international studies centers on american campuses. the advisory boards are designed to "make recommendations that will assist the Secretary [of Education] and Congress to improve [programs funded by Title VI grants] to better reflect the national needs in relation to the homeland security, international education, and international affairs..." (p. 21 of the pdf version) and then make recommendations that will effect which programs get federal funding (see p. 22 at (F)). what is particularly striking about these boards is that they will have investigatory powers, and will be able to use resources of federal, state, and local governments to investigate these academic programs. (see p. 26 of the pdf beginning with the (4)).
while it may take a while to wade through the cross references in the bill itself, the bottom line is rather simple. the bill would create a board designed to monitor the scholarship and curricula of university programs and to assess them in light of whether they provide sufficient airtime to champions of american foreign policy. the board will be able to use governmental resources to evaluate and investigate both academic scholarship and courses to assure that they have acceptable content, and, if not, can threaten to cut off their funding. the members of the board will be appointed by the secretary of education, speaker of the house and president pro tem of the senate (p. 19 of the pdf)--all three of which are currently held by republicans. notably, the bill further specifies that some of the first appointees to the board will have longer terms than subsequent appointees (p. 23), guaranteeing that apologists for this administration will dominate the board and thus influence federal funding of middle eastern programs through the next presidential term, regardless of who wins presidential election or ends up with control of congress.
juan cole's post (juan is a professor of middle eastern history at the university of michigan) has a well-thought out analysis of the flaws of this legislation and includes the following plea:
UPDATE:SENATE COMMITTEE (Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions) CONTACT
INFO:
** If your senators are not on this list, it is still important to
contact them, especially in the event that the legislation is
confirmed by the HELP committee and goes to the entire Senate.
Contact information for senators is available at: www.senate.gov
SENATE COMMITTEE (Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions) CONTACT INFO:
** If your senators are not on this list, it is still important to contact them, especially in the event that the legislation is confirmed by the HELP committee and goes to the entire Senate. Contact information for senators is available at: www.senate.gov
Committee Chairman:
Judd Gregg (R-NH) -- (202) 224-3324 or (603) 225-7115
Democrat Members:
Senator Edward Kennedy (MA) -- (202) 224-4543 or (617) 565-3170
Senator Christopher Dodd (CT) -- (202) 224-2823 or (860) 258-6940
Senator Tom Harkin (IA) -- (202) 224-3254 or (515) 284-4574
Senator Barbara Mikulski (MD) -- (202) 224-4654 or (410) 962-4510
Senator James Jeffords (I) (VT) -- (202) 224-5141 or (802) 223-5273
Senator Jeff Bingaman (NM) -- (202) 224-5521 or (505) 988-6647
Senator Patty Murray (WA) -- (202) 224-2621 or (206) 553-5545
Senator Jack Reed (RI) -- (202) 224-4642 or (401) 943-3100
Senator John Edwards (NC) -- (202) 224-3154 or (919) 856-4245
Senator Hillary Clinton (NY) -- (202) 224-4451 or (212) 688-6262
Republican Members:
Senator Bill Frist (TN) -- (202) 224-3344 or (615) 352-9411
Senator Mike Enzi (WY) -- (202) 224-3424 or (307) 682-6268
Senator Mike DeWine (OH) -- (202) 224-2315 or (614) 469-5186
Senator Christopher Bond (MO) -- (202) 224-5721 or (573) 634-2488
Senator Lamar Alexander (TN) -- (202) 224-4944 or (615) 736-5129
Senator John Ensign (NV) -- (202) 224-6244 or (702) 388-6605
Senator Jeff Sessions (AL) -- (202) 224-4124 or (334) 244-7017
Senator Pat Roberts (KS) -- (202) 224-4774 or (913) 451-9343
Senator Lindsey Graham (SC) -- (202) 224-5972 or (864) 250-1417
Senator John Warner (VA) -- (202) 224-2023 or (804) 771-2579
(thanks to leah for taking up and passing on juan's call to arms).
while it may take a while to wade through the cross references in the bill itself, the bottom line is rather simple. the bill would create a board designed to monitor the scholarship and curricula of university programs and to assess them in light of whether they provide sufficient airtime to champions of american foreign policy. the board will be able to use governmental resources to evaluate and investigate both academic scholarship and courses to assure that they have acceptable content, and, if not, can threaten to cut off their funding. the members of the board will be appointed by the secretary of education, speaker of the house and president pro tem of the senate (p. 19 of the pdf)--all three of which are currently held by republicans. notably, the bill further specifies that some of the first appointees to the board will have longer terms than subsequent appointees (p. 23), guaranteeing that apologists for this administration will dominate the board and thus influence federal funding of middle eastern programs through the next presidential term, regardless of who wins presidential election or ends up with control of congress.
juan cole's post (juan is a professor of middle eastern history at the university of michigan) has a well-thought out analysis of the flaws of this legislation and includes the following plea:
I plead with all the thousands of you who have expressed interest in this site and read it frequently, to FAX your senator, or the senate generally, expressing your conviction that this advisory committee be excised from the final bill. Repeat: The message should be that HR 3077 is OK in general, but the "Advisory Board" stinks. The contact information is below. An email is better than nothing, but the FAX is what would get the job done.at the end of juan's post is contact information for each member of the senate health, education, labor and pension committee, who will be considering HR 3077. remember, polite messages are must more effective than rude sarcastic ones. it can be hard to restrain one's self sometimes. but if you want your message to have an impact and not be summarily tossed in the "wacko" pile, you need to avoid inflamatory words and stick to substantive polite argument. sometimes you gotta pretend to be respectable to be heard.
UPDATE:SENATE COMMITTEE (Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions) CONTACT
INFO:
** If your senators are not on this list, it is still important to
contact them, especially in the event that the legislation is
confirmed by the HELP committee and goes to the entire Senate.
Contact information for senators is available at: www.senate.gov
SENATE COMMITTEE (Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions) CONTACT INFO:
** If your senators are not on this list, it is still important to contact them, especially in the event that the legislation is confirmed by the HELP committee and goes to the entire Senate. Contact information for senators is available at: www.senate.gov
Committee Chairman:
Judd Gregg (R-NH) -- (202) 224-3324 or (603) 225-7115
Democrat Members:
Senator Edward Kennedy (MA) -- (202) 224-4543 or (617) 565-3170
Senator Christopher Dodd (CT) -- (202) 224-2823 or (860) 258-6940
Senator Tom Harkin (IA) -- (202) 224-3254 or (515) 284-4574
Senator Barbara Mikulski (MD) -- (202) 224-4654 or (410) 962-4510
Senator James Jeffords (I) (VT) -- (202) 224-5141 or (802) 223-5273
Senator Jeff Bingaman (NM) -- (202) 224-5521 or (505) 988-6647
Senator Patty Murray (WA) -- (202) 224-2621 or (206) 553-5545
Senator Jack Reed (RI) -- (202) 224-4642 or (401) 943-3100
Senator John Edwards (NC) -- (202) 224-3154 or (919) 856-4245
Senator Hillary Clinton (NY) -- (202) 224-4451 or (212) 688-6262
Republican Members:
Senator Bill Frist (TN) -- (202) 224-3344 or (615) 352-9411
Senator Mike Enzi (WY) -- (202) 224-3424 or (307) 682-6268
Senator Mike DeWine (OH) -- (202) 224-2315 or (614) 469-5186
Senator Christopher Bond (MO) -- (202) 224-5721 or (573) 634-2488
Senator Lamar Alexander (TN) -- (202) 224-4944 or (615) 736-5129
Senator John Ensign (NV) -- (202) 224-6244 or (702) 388-6605
Senator Jeff Sessions (AL) -- (202) 224-4124 or (334) 244-7017
Senator Pat Roberts (KS) -- (202) 224-4774 or (913) 451-9343
Senator Lindsey Graham (SC) -- (202) 224-5972 or (864) 250-1417
Senator John Warner (VA) -- (202) 224-2023 or (804) 771-2579
(thanks to leah for taking up and passing on juan's call to arms).
Monday, March 08, 2004
go figure
via kirk i read this copy of the iraqi interim constitution that was signed today. it's pretty interesting. what jumped out at me are these provisions:
article 13(H): an express constitutional right to privacy
article 14: a constitutional right to "education" and "health care"
article 15(G): "Every person deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall have the right of recourse to a court to determine the legality of his arrest or detention without delay and to order his release if this occurred in an illegal manner."
article 15(I): "Civilians may not be tried before a military tribunal. Special or exceptional courts may not be established."
article 17: no constitutional right to bear arms.
article 23(E): "The Iraqi Armed Forces may not be dispatched outside Iraq even for the purpose of defending against foreign aggression except with the approval of the National Assembly and upon the request of the Presidency Council."
what do the above provisions i cited have in common?
all of the them are things president bush opposes having right here in the u.s.
(one more thing: as quoted above, article 15(I) forbids the establishment of "special or exceptional courts." but then this is directly contradicted by article 48, which endorses the establishment of a "special tribunal" beyond the jurisdiction of the regular judiciary. did anyone bother to proofread this thing?)
article 13(H): an express constitutional right to privacy
article 14: a constitutional right to "education" and "health care"
article 15(G): "Every person deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall have the right of recourse to a court to determine the legality of his arrest or detention without delay and to order his release if this occurred in an illegal manner."
article 15(I): "Civilians may not be tried before a military tribunal. Special or exceptional courts may not be established."
article 17: no constitutional right to bear arms.
article 23(E): "The Iraqi Armed Forces may not be dispatched outside Iraq even for the purpose of defending against foreign aggression except with the approval of the National Assembly and upon the request of the Presidency Council."
what do the above provisions i cited have in common?
all of the them are things president bush opposes having right here in the u.s.
(one more thing: as quoted above, article 15(I) forbids the establishment of "special or exceptional courts." but then this is directly contradicted by article 48, which endorses the establishment of a "special tribunal" beyond the jurisdiction of the regular judiciary. did anyone bother to proofread this thing?)
Sunday, March 07, 2004
my small part
rivka just noted how "hardly anyone reads Respectful of Otters on the weekends." i've noticed the same thing. my hits go way down every saturday and sunday, even though i tend to post more over the weekend than during the week. it only goes to show just how much blog reading is about goofing off at work as it is about reading our insightful commentary on the critical issues of the day. at least i am glad to be doing my small part in keeping productivity down in the workplace. if you believe what economic experts say this should help improve the prospects for the unemployed. i'm happy to be of service.
2 more members
we picked up two more TLC members this week. i'd like to welcome musing's musings and bloggg to the list on the right (or "at the bottom" depending on the size of your screen. i've still got to get around to fixing that bushcounter code). welcome to both of you!
Saturday, March 06, 2004
more passion and some sunshine
i just got back from talk cinema. i think i've mentioned it before here. it's a film series that i subscribe to and that shows art house-type movies before the films are released. after they show us the film, there is some kind of discussion, usually led by a film critic or film professor (or both). the films run every few weeks, but i never know what the film is until i show up at the theater. two weeks ago the film was kitchen stories (a norwegian comedy), but during the discussion harlan (the guy who hosts the series) let it slip that he was originally planning to show mel's latest instead. the deal fell through at the last minute and harlan had to scramble to get the norwegian film which we saw instead.
today, before they started the film, harlan brought up "the passion" again and asked if anyone in the audience had seen it yet. only one or two hands went up, so harlan made a pitch to convince us all to see it. his point was that whether good or bad the film is now part of the zeit geist and so to be informed filmgoers we all really should see it. he also noted that the opinions of those who have seen it have not been unanimous but rather divide roughtly down the middle between those who love it and hate it. given that, there really is no telling which side any of us will fall on until we go and see it for ourselves. i don't totally buy the zeit geist argument (after all, i do not think my life would be less complete had i never seen titantic) . but the argument that i should go and make up my own mind about the film was kinda compelling. he didn't totally get me with that argument, but i am wondering if i should again. i guess i'm back to waivering. it doesn't mean i will see it, but i might.
in other news, today's talk cinema film was eternal sunshine of the spotless mind which i loved. i don't think i've ever liked a jim carrey movie this much. he wasn't overacting and didn't have his usual shit-eating smirk. in fact was able to completely forget it was jim carrey on the screen and just enjoy the film. the plot was creative and convoluted, and, not surprisingly, written by charlie kaufman, the guy who wrote being john malkovich and adaptation (two other movies i really liked)
on the other hand, most people in the theater with me hated it. as the closing credits rolled the old guy behind me said "that was the worst film i have ever seen." i dunno how many films he's seen. probably not nudist colony of the dead or curse of the queerwolf. but still, maybe eternal sunshine is not for everyone. but i liked it. so there.
today, before they started the film, harlan brought up "the passion" again and asked if anyone in the audience had seen it yet. only one or two hands went up, so harlan made a pitch to convince us all to see it. his point was that whether good or bad the film is now part of the zeit geist and so to be informed filmgoers we all really should see it. he also noted that the opinions of those who have seen it have not been unanimous but rather divide roughtly down the middle between those who love it and hate it. given that, there really is no telling which side any of us will fall on until we go and see it for ourselves. i don't totally buy the zeit geist argument (after all, i do not think my life would be less complete had i never seen titantic) . but the argument that i should go and make up my own mind about the film was kinda compelling. he didn't totally get me with that argument, but i am wondering if i should again. i guess i'm back to waivering. it doesn't mean i will see it, but i might.
in other news, today's talk cinema film was eternal sunshine of the spotless mind which i loved. i don't think i've ever liked a jim carrey movie this much. he wasn't overacting and didn't have his usual shit-eating smirk. in fact was able to completely forget it was jim carrey on the screen and just enjoy the film. the plot was creative and convoluted, and, not surprisingly, written by charlie kaufman, the guy who wrote being john malkovich and adaptation (two other movies i really liked)
on the other hand, most people in the theater with me hated it. as the closing credits rolled the old guy behind me said "that was the worst film i have ever seen." i dunno how many films he's seen. probably not nudist colony of the dead or curse of the queerwolf. but still, maybe eternal sunshine is not for everyone. but i liked it. so there.
not on the list
i just found this list of blogs by vassar alums like me and i wasn't on the list!!! how did that happen? CaTHY's blog is on the list for christ sake!!!
i feel like i've been bounced from some trendy club
UPDATE: i sent the administrator a message and somehow i made the cut. i'm now on the list. i knew that degree would come in handy eventually.
i feel like i've been bounced from some trendy club
UPDATE: i sent the administrator a message and somehow i made the cut. i'm now on the list. i knew that degree would come in handy eventually.
free trade and jobs
i'm at work again and just like last time i came in to my office to "work" on a saturday. but here i am posting instead.
i actually drove here. while i posted earlier about how i don't have a real spring break, my wife the professor does. so she's flying to florida this morning. i drove her to the airport and then decided to just take the car to center city rather than hauling it back to the burbs to take the train back in.
anyway (and there is a point to this pointlessness), i was listening to n.p.r. on the radio as i was circling and looking for a space to park. some economic expert was talking about why job creation has been so bad even though other economic signs say we are in a "recovery."* he explained that economists had two theories about why economic growth has not produced more jobs:
(1) increased productivity--employers have "gotten more productivity out of their existing workforce rather than hiring new people" [i.e. making people work longer hours]
(2) business leaders are still skittish about the economy and are reluctant to commit to hiring new people
what surprised me is that there was no mention of a third reason, which seems to my amateur eyes to be a major factor in why the nation's unemployment figures are not improving:
jobs, in fact, are being created, just not in this country. unlike the recovery period from prior recessions, the countries biggest companies are no longer really "american" companies, but rather multinationals in a largely global system. when a company's fortunes improve, it tends to hire where it had offices, factories, etc. this is still probably true today. the difference is, in the past the offices and factories of american companies were largely located in the u.s. and now, since the explosion of free trade and falling tariffs in the 1990s, "american" companies' facilities are located all over the world--aside from the nationality of their c.e.o., they are no longer really american. high speed internet only compounds the problem as it allows even white collar jobs for the first time to be outsourced abroad.
the thing that i find so odd is that, while there is a lot of talk about outsourcing of jobs overseas, and lots of talk about the economy's dismal employment figures, the two are rarely spoken about at the same time. i would imagine someone else is talking about this, but i haven't seen it (though admittedly i have not looked very hard. i'm just reacting to the economic news that i encounter by accident as i did this morning. in those reports, i have yet to hear one which discusses this possible connection). admittedly, i do not totally know what i am talking about on economic issues. but this theory has a common sense appeal to it that at least deserves a rebuttal by qualified economists.
one other thing bothers me about this. i have this sneaking suspicion that one of the reasons it's not talked about is because no one wants to open the pandora's box of protectionism. there seems to be a fear that if the downside of free trade were discussed openly (and it does have a downside--although laissez-faire types will try to argue that, in fact, everything is win-win. but nothing is really win-win. it's only win-win when you disregard the losing side), the public would clamor for trade barriers.
almost no one is protectionist anymore. as far as i am aware and aside from gephart, all of the presidential candidates were free traders to one extent or another. at best, politicians propose tinkering with nafta. no one seems to be for repealing it. even the liberal bloggers occasionally note that they are "free traders" (see e.g. atrios). "protectionism" seems to be universally considered to be a bad word in political discourse, while "free trade" as a term has a positive connotation that seems to cross most of the political spectrum. indeed, i have my own prejudices against protectionism, though i have a hard time articulating them in a coherent way. i guess i just picked up the general spirit of our modern age and its distaste for trade barriers. also, at least on an abstract level, it's hard to see why trading with people in other parts of the world, by itself would be bad. if a person in uzbekistan has a hat that i want and i have some money that he wants, there is nothing wrong with us making an exchange. at its most basic level, that is what free trade is.
but it also seems to me that the offhand dismissal of any attempt to address some of the problems that come along with trade is counterproductive. we need an open policy debate about job loss in the u.s. where economists at least knowledge the costs as well as the benefits of free trade and to see if there is a way to get some of the benefits while minimizing the cost.** i have no idea whether there is such a solution, but maybe if this were talked about more directly we could figure one out.
*-my question: how long can you continue to call this a "recovery," with its implication that things are getting better. officially we're some 2 years post-recession. by now we have either recovered or we haven't. is it a "recovery" right up to the day we enter the next recession?
**-there has been some discussion of "minimizing the costs" of free trade. but again, as far as i have heard, only in a general abstract kind of way. i want to hear a discussion of actual proposals. has anyone out there seen any?
i actually drove here. while i posted earlier about how i don't have a real spring break, my wife the professor does. so she's flying to florida this morning. i drove her to the airport and then decided to just take the car to center city rather than hauling it back to the burbs to take the train back in.
anyway (and there is a point to this pointlessness), i was listening to n.p.r. on the radio as i was circling and looking for a space to park. some economic expert was talking about why job creation has been so bad even though other economic signs say we are in a "recovery."* he explained that economists had two theories about why economic growth has not produced more jobs:
(1) increased productivity--employers have "gotten more productivity out of their existing workforce rather than hiring new people" [i.e. making people work longer hours]
(2) business leaders are still skittish about the economy and are reluctant to commit to hiring new people
what surprised me is that there was no mention of a third reason, which seems to my amateur eyes to be a major factor in why the nation's unemployment figures are not improving:
jobs, in fact, are being created, just not in this country. unlike the recovery period from prior recessions, the countries biggest companies are no longer really "american" companies, but rather multinationals in a largely global system. when a company's fortunes improve, it tends to hire where it had offices, factories, etc. this is still probably true today. the difference is, in the past the offices and factories of american companies were largely located in the u.s. and now, since the explosion of free trade and falling tariffs in the 1990s, "american" companies' facilities are located all over the world--aside from the nationality of their c.e.o., they are no longer really american. high speed internet only compounds the problem as it allows even white collar jobs for the first time to be outsourced abroad.
the thing that i find so odd is that, while there is a lot of talk about outsourcing of jobs overseas, and lots of talk about the economy's dismal employment figures, the two are rarely spoken about at the same time. i would imagine someone else is talking about this, but i haven't seen it (though admittedly i have not looked very hard. i'm just reacting to the economic news that i encounter by accident as i did this morning. in those reports, i have yet to hear one which discusses this possible connection). admittedly, i do not totally know what i am talking about on economic issues. but this theory has a common sense appeal to it that at least deserves a rebuttal by qualified economists.
one other thing bothers me about this. i have this sneaking suspicion that one of the reasons it's not talked about is because no one wants to open the pandora's box of protectionism. there seems to be a fear that if the downside of free trade were discussed openly (and it does have a downside--although laissez-faire types will try to argue that, in fact, everything is win-win. but nothing is really win-win. it's only win-win when you disregard the losing side), the public would clamor for trade barriers.
almost no one is protectionist anymore. as far as i am aware and aside from gephart, all of the presidential candidates were free traders to one extent or another. at best, politicians propose tinkering with nafta. no one seems to be for repealing it. even the liberal bloggers occasionally note that they are "free traders" (see e.g. atrios). "protectionism" seems to be universally considered to be a bad word in political discourse, while "free trade" as a term has a positive connotation that seems to cross most of the political spectrum. indeed, i have my own prejudices against protectionism, though i have a hard time articulating them in a coherent way. i guess i just picked up the general spirit of our modern age and its distaste for trade barriers. also, at least on an abstract level, it's hard to see why trading with people in other parts of the world, by itself would be bad. if a person in uzbekistan has a hat that i want and i have some money that he wants, there is nothing wrong with us making an exchange. at its most basic level, that is what free trade is.
but it also seems to me that the offhand dismissal of any attempt to address some of the problems that come along with trade is counterproductive. we need an open policy debate about job loss in the u.s. where economists at least knowledge the costs as well as the benefits of free trade and to see if there is a way to get some of the benefits while minimizing the cost.** i have no idea whether there is such a solution, but maybe if this were talked about more directly we could figure one out.
*-my question: how long can you continue to call this a "recovery," with its implication that things are getting better. officially we're some 2 years post-recession. by now we have either recovered or we haven't. is it a "recovery" right up to the day we enter the next recession?
**-there has been some discussion of "minimizing the costs" of free trade. but again, as far as i have heard, only in a general abstract kind of way. i want to hear a discussion of actual proposals. has anyone out there seen any?
Friday, March 05, 2004
cat killing for jesus
curiosity has a big effect on me. i've gone halfway around the world just because i was curious about a place. so for the past week or so i've had this ongoing debate with myself about whether i will see this passion flick. most of what i've read is negative. on the other hand, one friend of mine apparently loved it (he sent me an email review raving about how moving he found it to be).
also one of my classmates in my arabic class keeps trying to talk me into seeing it. she is an evangelical christian. we generally avoid talking about religion with each other, so her pitch was less theological than linguistic. she said she understood about 30% of the aramaic dialogue because of its similarity to arabic. in other words, she thinks i should see the film because it would be good practice. i replied that it would probably be even better practice if we just rented a film in arabic, but she didn't think so: "they talk to fast in arab films, and it's all 'amiyya [regional dialects of arabic and not the modern standard that we are learning]. in "the passion" the aramaic dialogue is very slow and enunciated. the aramaic was easier to understand than arabic in the arabic films i have tried to watch."
she may have a point. after all, the actors in "the passion" don't speak aramaic. i can imagine that as they filmed each scene there was probably a frustrated scholar of aramaic sitting behind the camera yelling "no no no! it's a 'Haa' not a 'haa!' and we need more phlem when you do that 'kh' sound! mel, make them do it again!" the actors were probably speaking slowly just to make sure they hit every syllable correctly. take it from someone who once was bar mitzvahed, it is very difficult to recite something correctly from memory when you do not understand the language. so i guess there is some logic to what my classmate was saying.
but then again, most of the film is not aramaic conversation. all of the reviews i have read, pro and con, seem to agree on that point. but i am still curious. the the over-the-top hype surrounding the film normally would turn me off. but the sharply divided opinions i am hearing from different people can make it hard to resist. then there's the conflicting stories i hear about whether the film is anti-semitic lots of people seem utterly convinced that it is, but others insist it is not. that alone makes me want to see it. when something is this controversial and produces such different opinions in different people, i usually want to take a look to make up my own mind.
so just when i think maybe i should go... i read sean paul kelley's review. now i think i'm leaning towards not going again. controversy aside, it sounds like just the just the act of sitting through the film would be unpleasant. there are limits to my curiosity.
also one of my classmates in my arabic class keeps trying to talk me into seeing it. she is an evangelical christian. we generally avoid talking about religion with each other, so her pitch was less theological than linguistic. she said she understood about 30% of the aramaic dialogue because of its similarity to arabic. in other words, she thinks i should see the film because it would be good practice. i replied that it would probably be even better practice if we just rented a film in arabic, but she didn't think so: "they talk to fast in arab films, and it's all 'amiyya [regional dialects of arabic and not the modern standard that we are learning]. in "the passion" the aramaic dialogue is very slow and enunciated. the aramaic was easier to understand than arabic in the arabic films i have tried to watch."
she may have a point. after all, the actors in "the passion" don't speak aramaic. i can imagine that as they filmed each scene there was probably a frustrated scholar of aramaic sitting behind the camera yelling "no no no! it's a 'Haa' not a 'haa!' and we need more phlem when you do that 'kh' sound! mel, make them do it again!" the actors were probably speaking slowly just to make sure they hit every syllable correctly. take it from someone who once was bar mitzvahed, it is very difficult to recite something correctly from memory when you do not understand the language. so i guess there is some logic to what my classmate was saying.
but then again, most of the film is not aramaic conversation. all of the reviews i have read, pro and con, seem to agree on that point. but i am still curious. the the over-the-top hype surrounding the film normally would turn me off. but the sharply divided opinions i am hearing from different people can make it hard to resist. then there's the conflicting stories i hear about whether the film is anti-semitic lots of people seem utterly convinced that it is, but others insist it is not. that alone makes me want to see it. when something is this controversial and produces such different opinions in different people, i usually want to take a look to make up my own mind.
so just when i think maybe i should go... i read sean paul kelley's review. now i think i'm leaning towards not going again. controversy aside, it sounds like just the just the act of sitting through the film would be unpleasant. there are limits to my curiosity.
Thursday, March 04, 2004
wa-hoo!!! spring break!!!!
no arabic class next week because penn's on spring break. of course, i still have to work next week, as do all of my classmates. we all work full-time, even the one undergrad in the class. it makes the whole week off deal seem a little silly. i mean, in a way it's kinda a rip off. all it means is i will have more of an opportunity to sluff off in my daily review of vocab and grammer.
i've been a light blogger so far this week, but that will probably change soon. don't give up on me yet!
in the meantime, i recommend reading tom tomorrow's takedown of today's thomas friedman column. when tommy goes on and on about the wonders of free markets it's always like he's in another universe (just like when he goes on and on about the "new middle-east"). not that i'm necessarily anti-free market. but i think it's a complex issue that deserves more attention than mindlessly touting the benefits of open markets without even acknowledging that there is a cost. i have no idea what to do about the job outsourcing issue, but to pretend that the spiking unemployment rate is good for everyone is simply ignoring that open markets (like all policy decisions) has its losers as well as winners.
see? i almost kinda did some real commentary there.
the above will probably percolate in my head and eventually erupt into a full-blown rant sometime soon, but in the meantime i need food.
i've been a light blogger so far this week, but that will probably change soon. don't give up on me yet!
in the meantime, i recommend reading tom tomorrow's takedown of today's thomas friedman column. when tommy goes on and on about the wonders of free markets it's always like he's in another universe (just like when he goes on and on about the "new middle-east"). not that i'm necessarily anti-free market. but i think it's a complex issue that deserves more attention than mindlessly touting the benefits of open markets without even acknowledging that there is a cost. i have no idea what to do about the job outsourcing issue, but to pretend that the spiking unemployment rate is good for everyone is simply ignoring that open markets (like all policy decisions) has its losers as well as winners.
see? i almost kinda did some real commentary there.
the above will probably percolate in my head and eventually erupt into a full-blown rant sometime soon, but in the meantime i need food.
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
yaa salam?
i just read salam pax. the link the the right has been broken for the past few weeks so i hadn't been keeping up with him lately. today, i finally fixed the link and read this:
february 25, 2004 entry by salam:
march 3, 2004 entry by raed:
i hope he's okay... the death toll from the baghdad and karbala explosions is now between 117 or 271 with at least another 233 wounded.
UPDATE: billmon already noticed the same thing here and here. as he wrote in that first of the two posts i just linked to:
february 25, 2004 entry by salam:
... I, my mother and cousin will be going to Karbala for a week. I hope I will be able to take pictures and blog from there...
march 3, 2004 entry by raed:
salam i was trying to call your phones all the day long, i hope u didnt die in the karbala explosions
i hope he's okay... the death toll from the baghdad and karbala explosions is now between 117 or 271 with at least another 233 wounded.
UPDATE: billmon already noticed the same thing here and here. as he wrote in that first of the two posts i just linked to:
I know it's selfish to worry about one when so many have died, but Salam Pax has become such a familiar voice -- if not a friend than at least an acquaintance. He's a constant reminder to me that the Iraqis are not props in an American made-for-TV movie, but human beings with hopes and fears and opinions and demands of their own, whose fates are now bound to our own by the insane logic of empire. I pray for his safety.he said it better than i could.
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
haiti
i haven't really posted about haiti here, largely because so far i have had little to say. haiti is one of those complex situations which is it difficult for even a monday morning quarterback like myself to comment on. i just haven't been able to think of any options that will lead to a good result. the likely result of virtually any decision is either the rise of a brutal oppressive regime or a period of sustained chaos on the island. i am disappointed with aristide, but not sure if any of the alternatives are anything but worse.
in the early 1990s i was an aristide supporter. he really did have a moving story, a poor priest, thrown out of his catholic order because he bucked the conservative ideology coming out of rome, and surprising everyone by being elected to the presidency in haiti’s first free and fair election. when he was overthrown 8 months later. the first bush administration tried to portray him as “mentally unbalanced” as the junta leaders (who for some reason bush the first saw as the paragon of sanity) embarked upon a brutal reign of terror on the island. the day aristide was forced out of power i was a college student. i remember seeing the newpaper headline on the kitchen table that morning while one of my housemates pointed at the headline and said "this should come as no surprise, the guys name is 'arresteed'" (sounds like "arrested"). but aristide was not arrested, he managed to get out of the country and spent 2 years in exile in the u.s.
during his exile, i saw him speak in chicago. he was a good speaker. he spoke compellingly about the need for democracy in haiti and how he had hoped to be one of the first (the first?) haitian leader to leave office peacefully. there was no question in my mind this man was not at all "mentally unbalanced."
nevertheless, i had serious misgivings about the u.s. invasion in 1994 to restore him to power. the previous time the u.s. invaded the island to restore order, we occupied the country for 40 years, and only then when the first of a series of pro-american dictators was firmly installed there. but i was pleasantly surprised. aristide even stepped down peacefully when his term ended in 1995. if he had stopped there, i probably would still be a fan of aristide today.
but in the late 1990s he decided to run for the presidency a second time. he won again. in 2000 however, aristide got into a standoff with his political opponents over the fraud-ridden parliamentary elections of 2000. both sides refused to compromise and haiti ended up without a functioning legislature and it has not had a parliament with any sense of legitimacy since then, leaving aristide to rule virtually by decree. aristide began to lose his support among the democrats and poor in haitian society. his support was further eroded as he replaced the u.s. trained national police force with his cronies and, when civil society started to break down on the island, supported (or at least did not try to stop) armed gangs who would attack his opponents.
given aristide’s recent turn, it is really no surprise that the situation on the island has crumbled so rapidly. on the other hand, it’s not like the u.s has not played its own part in encouraging the chaos there. see haiti: malign neglect. furthermore, while i am no longer a fan of aristide, he was the elected leader of the country. that at least gives him a step-up legitimacy wise over any of the alternatives. furthermore, as many others have noted, the people who are now assuming power in haiti are the same thugs who overthrew aristide the first time and brutally suppressed the population in his absence. aristide, for all his flaws, has nothing like the record of human rights violations of these guys.
so if you’re looking for the lessor of two evils, aristide is clearly it. but given the bush administration's almost knee-jerk distaste for aristide, american leaders’ tendency to see problems in haiti primarily as a refugee question and the undeniable fact that a hardline repressive government in haiti, at least in the short term, is the best bet to stem the tide of refugees (though the mid-1990s proved that in the long term it does just the opposite), i have no trouble believing that aristide did not voluntarily resign the other day. maybe he did. but in this context it’s easy to believe that the reason he was escorted off the island secretly with a bunch of heavily armed marines was not for his own protection.
in the early 1990s i was an aristide supporter. he really did have a moving story, a poor priest, thrown out of his catholic order because he bucked the conservative ideology coming out of rome, and surprising everyone by being elected to the presidency in haiti’s first free and fair election. when he was overthrown 8 months later. the first bush administration tried to portray him as “mentally unbalanced” as the junta leaders (who for some reason bush the first saw as the paragon of sanity) embarked upon a brutal reign of terror on the island. the day aristide was forced out of power i was a college student. i remember seeing the newpaper headline on the kitchen table that morning while one of my housemates pointed at the headline and said "this should come as no surprise, the guys name is 'arresteed'" (sounds like "arrested"). but aristide was not arrested, he managed to get out of the country and spent 2 years in exile in the u.s.
during his exile, i saw him speak in chicago. he was a good speaker. he spoke compellingly about the need for democracy in haiti and how he had hoped to be one of the first (the first?) haitian leader to leave office peacefully. there was no question in my mind this man was not at all "mentally unbalanced."
nevertheless, i had serious misgivings about the u.s. invasion in 1994 to restore him to power. the previous time the u.s. invaded the island to restore order, we occupied the country for 40 years, and only then when the first of a series of pro-american dictators was firmly installed there. but i was pleasantly surprised. aristide even stepped down peacefully when his term ended in 1995. if he had stopped there, i probably would still be a fan of aristide today.
but in the late 1990s he decided to run for the presidency a second time. he won again. in 2000 however, aristide got into a standoff with his political opponents over the fraud-ridden parliamentary elections of 2000. both sides refused to compromise and haiti ended up without a functioning legislature and it has not had a parliament with any sense of legitimacy since then, leaving aristide to rule virtually by decree. aristide began to lose his support among the democrats and poor in haitian society. his support was further eroded as he replaced the u.s. trained national police force with his cronies and, when civil society started to break down on the island, supported (or at least did not try to stop) armed gangs who would attack his opponents.
given aristide’s recent turn, it is really no surprise that the situation on the island has crumbled so rapidly. on the other hand, it’s not like the u.s has not played its own part in encouraging the chaos there. see haiti: malign neglect. furthermore, while i am no longer a fan of aristide, he was the elected leader of the country. that at least gives him a step-up legitimacy wise over any of the alternatives. furthermore, as many others have noted, the people who are now assuming power in haiti are the same thugs who overthrew aristide the first time and brutally suppressed the population in his absence. aristide, for all his flaws, has nothing like the record of human rights violations of these guys.
so if you’re looking for the lessor of two evils, aristide is clearly it. but given the bush administration's almost knee-jerk distaste for aristide, american leaders’ tendency to see problems in haiti primarily as a refugee question and the undeniable fact that a hardline repressive government in haiti, at least in the short term, is the best bet to stem the tide of refugees (though the mid-1990s proved that in the long term it does just the opposite), i have no trouble believing that aristide did not voluntarily resign the other day. maybe he did. but in this context it’s easy to believe that the reason he was escorted off the island secretly with a bunch of heavily armed marines was not for his own protection.
Monday, March 01, 2004
Sunday, February 29, 2004
shorter oscar rant
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.
the oscars suck
maybe next year i will do the longer one.
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)