House of Eratosthenes

Today we are expanding our horizons with the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler blog. This is the place from which I shamelessly borrowed the touching Memorial Day tribute, or rather, pointed to it. This was deliberate. I didn’t want to write something original when so many other blogs were doing a better job of paying tribute to our vets, and this guy’s post filled the bill.

There is a healthy overlap of common interests here, in fact enough to pose a marginal danger of redundancy. Over there, as is the case with over here, what the opinion is, is a secondary consideration, with how the opinion is reached being the primary concern.

Foolishness ticks me off. But it has a worse effect over there. Makes the guy who runs the site act like a…well, an angry Rottweiler. Have a look around, you’ll be glad you did.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

You Report It Or You Are It
Wednesday, May 31st, 2006

You Report It Or You Are It

This post is unusual since it draws on, as a source, television. I don’t have television. My better half has the TV on, and it’s all Katie Couric all the time. Katie has been saying “goodbye” for nearly two months now, and gets a three-hour send-off tonight. Matt Lauer just said “our top story is Katie.”

An issue? Yeah, I think so. A conflict. You report the news or you are the news. Can’t do both.

Next time some woman starts whining about “men hogging the remote,” if I don’t bite my tongue hard enough this might come up. If this is, indeed, a man’s world — and I highly doubt that — television is a shelter from that, not a manifestation of it.

Here’s a question. If Iran blew up Tel Aviv with a 20-megaton nuke, during the Long Goodbye of Ms. Couric, would we even hear about it?

Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

My Leanings
Wednesday, May 31st, 2006

My Leanings

Someday soon I will have to write one of these myself (click on image to take the quiz and find your own leanings).

If memory serves, there are six-to-eight questions about regulating sex, pornography, abortions, smoking pot, and other things that people on the “left” don’t like to see regulated…and only a couple of questions about regulating the evil corporations, stealing money from productive people to give to lazy people, things people on the “right” bristle at seeing regulated.

This always emerges as a pet peeve of mine whenever I take such a quiz, especially with social issues, since my feelings about things are especially weak. If California were to consider an anti-sodomy law for example, or an anti-abortion law, or a new anti-pot-smoking law, I might be persuaded to vote “Yes” on those. I don’t really care that much about them. If you can make the case to me that they’re bad ideas, it would be pretty easy to persuade me to vote “No.”

If you were to try to convince me it was a bad idea to even have them on the ballot, it would be easy to do that, too. I’d even be open to some arguments that they’re unconstitutional, if you make ‘em good arguments. The only thing I’m going to stick to, like super-glue, is that assuming you can’t define some sort of constitutional indigestion with regard to such laws, the citizens of a state have a God-given right to vote on these things. The authority to strike down laws, popularly enacted laws, comes from nowhere else. Either a law encroaches on the Constitution, or it doesn’t. And if there is doubt on such a question, the popularly-enacted law enjoys the benefit of the doubt, and the notion of unconstitutionality labors under the burden of proof.

Is that an “Authoritarian” mindset? Some would say that is the very definition of same. I don’t share that viewpoint. I think you can achieve tyranny, easily, by making it easier to declare things unconstitutional — since that wrests power from the people who would otherwise be voting on those laws. To me, that seems to be just common sense. But with most social issues, as far as how I would vote on them when the time comes to potentially outlaw them, I have very few opinions and most of those opinions are pretty weak. I’m much more concerned with who is making the choice, than how the choice is made.

And when an authority says it is unconstitutional to outlaw certain sexual positions, or abortions, or whatever…I don’t think power has been restored to The People, I think it’s been taken away.

But it’s pretty hard to find one of these tests that actually reflects that.

If you did find such a test, it would reveal something that has until now been shrouded in obscurity: We live in a time when being on the “left” is melding with being “authoritarian,” and being “libertarian” is quickly becoming synonymous with being on the “right.”

I know of many “conservative” people who think it’s wrong to penalize those who make money. I know of none among them, however, who would address that by lifting the issue away from the public vote. Can’t think of a single one. Friend, acquaintance, peer on the “innernets,” politician, or pundit. How many issues are there that liberals would like to decide their way, and then chisel into the marble slab of unconstitutionality, lifting the question away from the public vote? I think the answer to that is up into the double-digits by now, and going higher.

Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

Vote To Impeach President Bush Passes Two-to-One
Wednesday, May 31st, 2006

Vote To Impeach President Bush Passes Two-to-One

Aw, isn’t this cute…

Brookline Town Meeting last night voted to impeach the president of the United States in a 104 to 52 vote that was greeted with an eruption of applause and cheers.

Jonathan Margolis, who sponsored the article, repeated the embittered claims of the left that Bush lied to the nation and picked and chose which laws his administration would obey.

Margolis was forced to defend his proposal against detractors who suggested he was pushing beyond the bounds of Town Meeting authority.

“While I understand your sincerity and patriotism,” Margolis told one opponent, “I respectfully suggest you go back and read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.”

Margolis then went on to specify exactly what it was he was parodying. Well, no he didn’t, or if he did it was left out of the story.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

My Wine Club II
Tuesday, May 30th, 2006

My Wine Club II

I do not usually like to spend lots of money on red wine. My palette is much more sensitive with white wines, and I’ve had some rewarding experiences from letting go of the purse strings and splurging for the sake of expanding horizons with dessert wines, table wines, Pinot Grigio, Muscat, etc. With red wine, I’ve noticed the cheap stuff works just as good. The entree has much more to do with making a good meal than the beverage.

Every rule has an exception, however, and this stuff is more than worthy of a sampling. Villa Mt. Eden Cabernet Savignon, last bottle I got I think was a 2000 vintage. You will notice the quality right away even if you’re not a red-wine-snob…looking at about $14 to $18 a bottle.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Ouch IV
Tuesday, May 30th, 2006

Ouch IV

Anything for the public safety, especially during the hazardous Memorial Day weekend…

Public Advocate USA set up a “Kennedy Sobriety Checkpoint” right in the ol’ beltway. Of course, we go about our daily lives under threat of life and limb from impaired drivers, no matter what the driver’s surname happens to be. But we have things like laws to protect us from the ones who aren’t named “Kennedy.”

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Couldn’t Have Said It Better Myself… VIII
Monday, May 29th, 2006

Couldn’t Have Said It Better Myself… VIII

The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler says let us all take a break from politics and do what only makes sense…

Let�s turn to those truly worthy of our attention, the men and women at the sharp end of the spear to whom we owe the privilege of having a Memorial Day to celebrate in the first place.

While we�re all here safe at home enjoying the official start of summer with our families, we owe it to those fine men and women out there to recognize their sacrifice and to honor them for it, because without them, we�d be celebrating whatever our new masters would tell us to celebrate.

We are what we are and we enjoy the status that we, as a nation, enjoy because of those brave crusaders for freedom.

The author of this post, “Darth Misha,” has worded it in such a way that it lacks the tightrope-walking finesse necessary to comport with the “Support The Troops Not The Mission” template. You know the one I’m talking about, where you support the troops in this all-volunteer military, because they got duped by a lying recruiter, and then sent by a power-hungry lying President over to a “war for oil” and don’t know when they’re coming home again…blah blah blah.

No, Misha says we owe these servicemen and women our freedom, which implies that the mission is worthwhile after all. And that, perhaps, the members of this all-volunteer military aren’t a bunch of dolts, and maybe know what they’re doing. How politically incorrect.

That’s why I like it.

No effort to marginalize the left-wing anti-war peaceniks who hold the service-members in intellectual contempt, just a determination to do what’s right, and honor those who have made a choice out of love of country. Let the message marginalize whoever it must, no more and no less. Perfect.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Bush Signs Bill; Confusion Reigns
Monday, May 29th, 2006

Bush Signs Bill; Confusion Reigns

Thus sayeth Associate Press, by way of Yahoo News:

President Bush, marking Memorial Day with a speech paying tribute to fighting men and women lost in war, signed into law Monday a bill that keeps demonstrators from disrupting military funerals.

In advance of his speech and a wreath-laying at America’s most hallowed burial ground for military heroes, Bush signed the “Respect for America’s Fallen Heroes Act.” This was largely in response to the activities of a Kansas church group that has staged protests at military funerals around the country, claiming the deaths symbolized God’s anger at U.S. tolerance of homosexuals.

Obviously it is time, once again, to deliberate whether with our right to speak out, is entangled inextricably a right to be heard. Few are willing to assert the existence of such an inseperable package, yet many are willing to act as if there is such a thing.

Among those many, are the Bush-bashing liberals and the Westboro Baptist Church. The former bristles at being mentioned in the same breath as the latter — but mentioned side-by-side they shall be, everlastingly, as long as the issue comes up. Fred Phelps wants to protest anywhere he wants to, and so do the Bush-bashers. They are strange bedfellows, on this issue if on none other.

Should a lot of noise be made over this?

I hope there is. I hope people talk about it day and night…that among the reasons we have such a terrible president, is that he signed a law against protests at military funerals, by peacenik liberal loudmouths and, uh, and the “God Hates Fags” Westboro Baptist Church. Those two. Which, of course, have nothing in common with each other.

Except that each of those two, by asserting their freedom-of-speech is incomplete if the rest of us aren’t compelled to listen to them anywhere and everywhere, is essentially advocating the position of the other. Unless they want to take a position of “I have a first amendment right to make sure you hear me wherever you go…but that other guy doesn’t have the same right.” Everyone upset about this new bill, does have that option.

And I can’t wait to see what they do with it. Let the hair-splitting commence.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Otherwise Good Typing Paper
Saturday, May 27th, 2006

Otherwise Good Typing Paper

Quothe an unnamed professor, ostensibly from Ohio University, at what most certainly must have been a long time ago:

I am returning this otherwise good typing paper to you because someone has printed gibberish all over it and put your name at the top.

Scathing as it is, a comment like this wouldn’t be handed out by a college professor to just anyone. There is a not-so-subtle implication a great deal better work is expected from the intended recipient of the critique, compared with what passed under the teacher’s scrutiny. For that reason, I find it to be a more-than-a-fitting comment in response to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert’s editorial in USA Today Thursday:

There’s a right way

If the information we have read about the behavior of Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., seems as obvious to a jury as it does to me, he deserves to be vigorously prosecuted. I do not want to do anything that will interfere with that prosecution.

The issue that has concerned me, as Speaker, since Saturday night is not if the FBI should be able to search a member of Congress’ office, but rather how to do it within the boundaries of the Constitution.

On Thursday, President Bush recognized that serious constitutional issues needed to be resolved. He wisely directed the Department of Justice to send the documents (taken from Jefferson’s office last weekend) to the Solicitor General’s office for safekeeping for 45 days. This was a meaningful step. The president also encouraged the Justice Department to meet with us.

Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and I directed the lawyers for the House to develop reasonable protocols and procedures that will make it possible for the FBI to go into congressional offices to constitutionally-execute a search warrant.

In more than 219 years, the Justice Department has never found it necessary to use a search warrant to obtain documents from a congressional office. These issues have always been resolved without the necessity of a search warrant, and prosecutions have gone forward.

Justice Department officials now insist that this specific case required them, for the first time, to conduct a search. I regret that when they reached this conclusion, they did not work with us to figure out a way to do it consistently with the Constitution. But that is behind us now. I am confident that in the next 45 days, the lawyers will figure out how to do it right.

Someone return this otherwise-good typing paper to the Hon. Speaker Hastert, for someone has covered it with gibberish and put his good name at the top. Where it most assuredly doesn’t belong.

Speaker Hastert is known to me, albeit with a good deal less certainty than to someone who might be personally acquainted with him, as a man of integrity. I come to that conclusion after observing the events that resulted in his elevation to House Speaker in the first place. The transition between the 105th and 106th Congresses, rocked as it was by the then-recent impeachment of President Clinton, was a crisis of leadership. It seemed to be an endless game of hot-potato, and endless progression of “Speaker, Speaker, Who Is The Speaker,” until the baton finally came to rest in the steady hand of Congressman Hastert. Since then, over seven years I’ve heard nary a peep. I don’t know too much more about how things work under that strange old space under the dome compared to the next fellow, but I know when credit is due. And our current House Speaker deserves credit. Institutional credibility, I’ve observed over time, is a far easier thing to sabotage than to restore.

But I’m sorry, I don’t intend any disrespect. The stuff that somehow found its way under his by-line, above, is sheer nonsense.

“Boundaries of the Constitution?” What constitutional conundrum is it that challenges us here? William F. Buckley has taken a wild stab at figuring out what the confounding passage might be, which is a question I would rather prefer be subjected to unambiguous resolution by the Speaker himself. Lacking that, Buckley postulates we are talking about Article I Section 6, and I’m inclined to agree with him:

If the Constitution’s rule separating church and state can be held to mean that a replica of the scene at Bethlehem cannot be constitutionally displayed on state property, then maybe Mr. Jefferson is indeed protected, giving credibility to the new Hastert-Pelosi exegesis of the Constitution.

But stare down hard at the language. The Constitution holds that lawmakers are “privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same.”

That provision was intended to protect legislators from arrest for statements made in the course of their legislative duties. This has nothing to do with Mr. Jefferson’s case. Which means that those who say that the FBI should not have had access to the congressman’s home or office are extending that constitutional provision to the point of immunity from search.

House Majority Leader John Boehner said something about the issue having to do with independence of the legislative branch and separation of powers. This seems to be a contradiction with Hastert’s editorial, since Hastert appears to be acknowledging that a search of congressional offices with a warrant may be necessary, and now that it’s being done for the first time, that it be done “right.” Is a warrant not sanction from the judicial branch, and by design, protection against the executive branch going off half-cocked, gathering dirt on hitherto-independent legislators for nefarious ends?

I once had a position in computer network security. It was my job to enforce rules, to figure out where rules were inadequate, recommend new ones, and bring infractions to the attention of those who could do something about them. I had a boss whom I respected a lot, whose mantra was “if ya know something, ya gotta do something.” Put another way, if skullduggery is going on under your nose and you get nailed on it later on, whatever hopes you have of successfully pleading ignorance vanish with your plausible deniability. You know something, and do nothing — trouble awaits. The issue is one of trust.

Our House Speaker, whatever impeccable moral credentials he had before and that he might still have, has created an issue of trust where one didn’t exist before. Well perhaps that’s unfair…he further cemeted a lingering issue of trust, that otherwise might have eventually dried out, shriveled up, and fallen away. No, I wouldn’t bet money on that but hope springs eternal.

To put it simply, I don’t trust a government that finds out about malfeasance and then draws on legal precedent, however enshrined that precedent may be by the legal experts, to find creative new ways to “not know” things they do in fact know. It seems a congressman has accepted kickbacks. Let us cease and desist in the pointless debate about whether we ought to know what we know about it, and instead deliberate what to do now that it is indeed known.

Yeah, separation of powers is important. But the case has not been made, to my satisfaction anyway, that it’s an issue here. Meanwhile, the issue of equal protection under the law cries out for more attention, as does the issue of trust in our public officials.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Rude Pundit
Saturday, May 27th, 2006

Rude Pundit

In the FAQ (questions 7, 8 and 10) if you read between the lines you’ll pick up on my assertion that the way one goes about doing one’s thinking is important, because it affects the conclusions one reaches by doing that thinking. This is just common sense, a point that is so innocuous as to be useless, but we seem to have a lot of people who just don’t get it.

Or don’t want to get it, because it would be injurious to what they’re trying to compel themselves and those around them to believe.

Here’s just a golden textbook example of what I’m talking about. All who disagree with the assertions made by Al Gore’s new movie about global warming, are wrong, and we know this because Al Gore says they are wrong. So says the Rude Pundit (warning, the bold-type headline of the review is probably NSFW, it has the “F” word that rhymes with “truck”). This is a persuasive argument because, and only because, the critical barrier between fact & opinion has been erased. That which is intoned, so long as it is intoned by the right people, and intoned with a demeanor of sufficient certainty, is equivalent to that which is.

Essentially, Gore’s mission on global warming is rhetorically similar to George Bush’s mission in Iraq: revolution now so that the future can be secure. The difference, of course, is that Gore isn’t a liar, and he doesn’t have to hype the evidence. Gore approaches his subject the way every politician ought to lead: he knows he’s right, and he’s so right that others are wrong. When Gore was asked about scientists who say that climatic change is just part of ongoing natural cycles, Gore didn’t pander, didn’t offer that idiotic “well, good people can have differences of opinion” bullshit the Bush administration uses to paper over their lies. No, Gore just said that the questioner was wrong. That the vast scientific consensus says global warming is real and happening. And to believe otherwise is to believe liars. He said scientists who say otherwise are industrial “prostitutes” and “camp followers.”

Convincing stuff. Trouble is, as I indicated above, once the fissure is re-established between stuff that’s known and stuff that’s conjectured based on other stuff that’s known — everything changes.

“Gore didn’t pander…Gore just said that the questioner is wrong.” Is that a fact or an opinion? Does the reviewer know? Does Al Gore know? If I round up a hundred people who sign on to the notion that “the questioner is wrong” and take a poll from amongst them, am I going to get a single answer back on whether that’s a fact vs. an opinion?

Here’s another problem, and this one is a doozy. “He knows he’s right, and he’s so right that others are wrong” comes off more like grave criticism, than flattery, and there is a reason for this. There is a prevailing school of thought, well-represented amongst the souls sympathetic to Gore’s global-warming ideas, I infer, which lends enthusiastic support to the Barbeque Problem especially when criticizing, with varying degrees of etiquette, the forementioned President George Bush. This “Barbeque Problem” essentially says that correctness is manifested through doubt and contrition: It’s better to burn your whole house down during a barbeque so long as regret is expressed over the mistake, than it is to cause a slight delay in cooking the food by providing the wrong brand of charcoal, if the charcoal-error is not admitted. Correcting a mistake means nothing, and articulating the mistake means everything.

How come doubt-makes-right with our current President, and the rule doesn’t hold for the guy who lost the election and is reduced to making movies? It’s a fair question to ask, since the reviewer isn’t simply saying Gore’s right — what he’s saying, is we know Gore’s right because Gore knows he’s right.

Come to think of it, I wouldn’t mind hearing some regrets and doubts from some of the officials responsible for leaving Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq, and relatively carefree in his tenure, all the way through the 1990’s. But I guess that’s a different topic.

Good post, though. Coriolanus, I’ll have to look that guy up.

Thing I Know #67. Some among us seem to think an election is the only time public opinion is important; others seem to think that’s the only time it isn’t.

Sphere: Related Content

2 Comments »

Flesh! Oh, No! III
Friday, May 26th, 2006

There is a substantial amount of interest in the story of Sheri Doub, the former Vice President for Citizen’s Tri-County Bank of Chattanooga, TN, who was fired after she modeled a bathing suit in some local charity newspaper or something. She’s suing the bank for half a million dollars plus back pay.

Curiously, at this point I do not have a copy of the actual picture, nor do I have the vaguest conception of what the picture looks like, nor do I have any picture of Ms. Doub in any swimsuit or in any pose, nor do I know of anyone who can get any such thing.

I know you people clicking on my site from a Google search are here to locate exactly that thing, and I’m sorry you have to navigate away from here empty-handed. By the way, welcome. And here is a follow-up news story with a little more detail, so it won’t be a completely wasted trip for you. You’re welcome.

Sheri Doub modeled this swimsuit for an article that appeared in the Times Free Press last May. The two piece suit came from Proffitt’s, but the department store says it did NOT pay her to model it. Doub says she agreed to the spread for the paper as a favor, and thought nothing of it. But on the day the fashion piece came out in the paper, she lost her job as bank manager at the Tri-County bank on Signal Mountain.

Sheri Doub I WAS ASKED TO COLLECT MY BELONGINGS AND I WAS ESCORTED OUT THE FRONT DOOR AND ASKED TO RETURN THE KEYS. I WAS VERY EMOTIONAL, CRYING WHEN I LEFT.

Bank president Ann Smith wrote in this letter she wanted Doub’s resignation immediately. Smith wrote “The clothing or lack that you were modeling has caused great embarrassment to our organization. Doub says bank CEO Glenn Barker told her maybe she should pursue a career in modeling.

Sheri Doub I WAS DEVASTATED, I WAS IN SHOCK. DISBELIEF. I COULD NOT BELIEVE IT BECAUSE I HAD WORKED FOR THEM FOR FIVE AND A HALF YEARS AND HAD DONE A GREAT JOB.

She filed this suit seeking 500 thousand dollars in damages. The bank responded this afternoon, reading from a prepared statement but answering no questions.

Ann Smith Citizen’s Tri Counties Bank IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT MS. DOUB’S CLAIMS ARE MORE SENSATIONAL THAN FACTUAL, THE BANK STRONGLY BELIEVES WHEN ALL IS SAID AND DONE, WE WILL BE VINDICATED.

In its termination letter, the bank cites outside employment as a violation, but Doub says she received no compensation for this piece in any way.

Sheri Doub I WANT IT TO BE MADE KNOWN THAT IT IS NOT RIGHT TO DO THAT TO SOMEONE AND TAKE AWAY WHAT THEY HOPE WOULD BE THEIR CAREER FOR A VERY LONG TIME.

Ann Smith THAT DECISION WAS A CULMINATING EVENT THAT CAME IN THE CONTEXT OF THE BANK HAVING PRIOR ISSUES WITH HER JUDGMENT AND PERFORMANCE AS A BRANCH MANAGER.

Sheri Doub tells John, if a man did the same thing she did, she does not think he would’ve been fired.

That last line is very important, according to those more familiar with the law than me. An at-will employee may be dismissed for any reason, but discrimination is a big no-no. Ms. Doub is unlikely to win out in this thing because until a male employee of the bank poses in a thong, and is untouched by any termination or warning or reprimand, this is speculation.

You know what I’m thinking, though? Watch this one. Because she happens to be right; Women in skimpy clothing, bring out all kinds of irrationality in people, which men can’t bring out regardless of what they wear even if they want to. And I’m sorry Ms. Bank President Ann Smith, but there’s a challenge involved in giving this a luster of rationality. It doesn’t make sense when all’s said and done. Sheri Doub poses in a bikini for no money; Sheri Doub does her gardening in a bikini; Sheri Doub spends the afternoon at the lake in a bikini. What’s the difference amongst those three?

I mean yes there are some differences, but it’s difficult to argue that any of them are meaningful. Or that a man would be treated the same way for doing the same thing. Er…in swim trunks, that is, not a bikini.

Sphere: Related Content

2 Comments »

But Then Again, Too Few To Mention?
Friday, May 26th, 2006

But Then Again, Too Few To Mention?

On Monday, I defined what we could call the “barbeque problem” which was my way of capturing the essence of concern of an insightful former colleague of mine:

Two years ago when the election was in full swing, a co-worker made an interesting observation in the form of a rhetorical question. His inquiry was, what is up with all this concern, lately, over admitting mistakes? What is the point? If you make a mistake and it results in a lot of damage you can’t fix, and you admit it, is that any better than making a mistake, correcting whatever damage resulted, and then keeping quiet on any regrets you might have about the mistake? In other words, when did admitting the mistake become any more important than actually fixing the problem that resulted?

Two neighbors have a barbeque. One buys the wrong brand of charcoal and has to make a quick run down to the store to get a better brand — thus correcting his mistake — but won’t admit he made a mistake! The other neighbor burns down his whole house but says “oops I made a mistake.” It’s better to burn down the house? The charcoal-mistake was a worse mistake because it was never outwardly confessed?

A neighbor presides over a household where hamburgers are eaten 45 minutes late, and another neighbor presides over no household at all. Nevermind that; to millions and millions of loud and angry people, eventual results decide nothing and contrition decides everything.

Well, at long last our current President has given you folks what you’ve been wanting. He admitted some of his regrets.

Bush uncharacteristically did not hesitate when asked about mistakes he had made since the March 2003 invasion.

“Saying ‘bring it on,’” he said, in reference to an ill-advised taunt to Iraqi insurgents in the summer of 2003.

“The kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong signal to people. You know, I learned some lessons about expressing myself in maybe a little more sophisticated manner…’wanted dead or alive,’ that kind of talk.”

He also said the U.S. has been paying for the 2004 Abu Ghraib prison scandal “for a long period of time.”

Now you can start liking him! Let the healing begin!

Yeah, right. Pfffft.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Scary Peace-People
Friday, May 26th, 2006

Scary Peace-People

If I’m afraid of any one class of people, it’s those scary peace-at-any-price, anti-war people.

Item!

Malcolm’s mom from “Malcolm in the Middle” gets in a little bit of a tiff with another female shopper during the holiday season. Video clip is safe for work, but your boss might decide to can your ass because you’re laughing so hard. Being a dude, I’m handicapped from understanding a social issue or two that I know is going on here, which has to do with that enigmatic wrinkle in the human condition, the female-on-female conflict. Boy howdee, when women don’t get along with other women, they really don’t get along. I am past the point where I’m even going to pretend I understand what’s happening here, or have a shot at someday understanding it. I don’t and I won’t.

A guy pisses me off, or else we get along great, or else we ignore each other. One of the three. In all three cases, I’ve forgotten all about him two minutes later, and he’s forgotten about me. In an extreme situation where I’ve had a verbal exchange with a complete stranger, or let’s say, flicked each other off on the freeway, the unpleasantness is purged from my memory with the audible announcement of: “What a dick!” The instant the plosive sound of “K” has clicked out of my mouth, I’ve forgotten about the asshole and I’m on to the next thing. And it’s mutual.

Ladies just aren’t wired this way. Smart women, dumb women, all women in-between. Two women having a conflict, within a heartbeat will become two Xena Warrior Princesses goin’ at it, in mind if not in body. I’ve never been able to understand it, and through the years I’ve joined the ranks of wiser men who see what’s about to unfold, stop in mid-sentence, take a step back, try to look inconspicuous, grab a beer if one is available, and watch quietly.

But getting back to the subject at hand: Check out the bumper sticker at 1:48. What makes this so funny? Because there’s a dark truth-of-life being subtly commented-upon, one which usually passes under the radar uncommented-upon. A policy of pacificism for those facing conflict, is very much like the principle of “giving back to the community” for those who are solvent. An appealing cause to champion, a principle ripe for activism, perhaps a lot of fun to promote, but always intended for somebody else.

Item!

Anti-war looney Brit sensationalist politician George Galloway wouldn’t object too terribly much if PM Tony Blair got blown up by a suicide bomber. You remember George Galloway don’t you? He’s the British anti-war MP who was shown by captured Iraqi documents, to have been paid-off by Saddam’s dirty Oil For Food money. A word on how that controversy turned out: He won a libel case against the Daily Telegraph for having reported on the documents, after huffing-and-puffing that the documents were fake. At this date, to the best of my knowledge and Wikipedia’s, nothing has emerged to even call the veracity of the documents into question, save for the Respect Member of Parliament’s theatrical outrage. The Telegraph had to fork over �150,000, essentially, for writing up something about Mr. Galloway that Mr. Galloway didn’t like, because Mr. Galloway has become exceptionally skilled at supressing genuine apprehension and guilt — to the extent he has any — and displaying instead a veneer of phony anger.

I do not understand Galloway’s sterling reputation for “debate.” He has a lot of performance skill, but when you’re in a debate, sooner or later you have to let the other guy talk. No matter how poorly his opponent would deliver the line, “excuse me Mr. Galloway, but with all due respect you didn’t answer my question,” that one riposte by itself would peel the Galloway I’ve been reading about, like a banana. I have not read one thing — not one — where this distinguished public servant allows someone else to establish the issue under consideration, and then turns in a satisfactory job of actually addressing it. Everything out of his mouth, that has been brought to my attention, has been smoke-and-mirrors.

But like most other anti-war people, he’s scary too. Mr. Galloway says that for a dynamite-belt-guy to blow PM Blair to smithereens, would be “entirely logical and explicable.” Such an event would be ” morally justified.” But don’t worry, he’s “not calling for it.”

For the past three years and eight months, anti-war people have displayed so much anger compared to the pro-war people. I’m frequently instructed I should have the opinion that pro-war people, like me, are lusting for war because we’re projecting some kind of unresolved emotional issue on world events. More and more as time goes on, it looks to me like it’s the other camp doing that. Perhaps the time has come to have a worldwide discussion about what, exactly, peace is. If it’s an absence of fighting, there is an unresolved conundrum because that doesn’t appear to be what the peace-people want. Not the ones who’ve taken the trouble to make their opinions known to me.

Sphere: Related Content

2 Comments »

That’s About Right
Thursday, May 25th, 2006

That’s About Right

Let me start by saying Rex Babin has horrible taste. I don’t say that because I generally disagree with the tenor of the Sacramento Bee cartoonist’s work, although I do. I say that because I quite honestly fail to see what there is to recommend him. He draws far better than I do, but that says very little since I’m not a cartoonist. The illustrations are sub-par at best. Cartoonists can disagree with me, and still be counted on to produce illustrations that are pleasing to the eye. Babin’s drawings make me dizzy. As for content, his cartoons rarely adhere to reality, and where they depart from said reality, the disengagement seems to be a premeditated and deliberate attempt to deceive the people who will be consuming his product. Throughout the years, I’ve been forced to reject the possibility that Babin is simply ignorant of what he draws. I’ve come to the conclusion he’s a Democrat-party shill, knowing full well what he’s doing when he leads people astray. I decided that after looking at things like this and this and this and this.

He is to cartoonists what Howard Stern is to radio. Dancing on the edge, just asking to be fined or fired or both…except in Babin’s case it never quite seems to happen. This would be a compliment to him for his amazing finesse, his pinpoint precision in figuring out where the line is, but if Babin has style and grace here he manages to show it nowhere else. Everything about his work reminds one of the metaphorical bull in a china shop. When he goes over the line, he goes way over it. One gets the impression that his continued employment is not an indication of his discretion or his skill or his market value, but instead of some enormous favor someone owes him.

Having said all that, even a stopped clock is right every twelve hours. And in the cartoon at left he has managed to capture the situation perfectly. It’s still ugly to look at, but the reader is left to ponder on what exactly is wrong with this situation, and in so doing will unerringly echo my own thoughts if the reader has an ounce or more of working brain in his head. The comportation with the truth is perfect, or near-perfect.

I suspect Babin’s preference for what is to be done about this, is different from my own. But that’s okay. He’s built a picture around my thousand words: It is bull squat that two different standards of privacy should exist for two different classes of people, with some cock-and-bull excuse of “separation of powers” being used to legitimize such a stratification.

The Founding Fathers were pretty worried about the existence of an aristocracy before they got caught up in how our government was to be designed. Jefferson, alone, spent a lifetime crusading against aristocracy and in particular, primogeniture. We don’t have primogeniture in the Congress, but the folks under the dome seem to be working under a wholly different set of rules from us “real” folks, and the difference between those two sets of rules appears to have escaped everybody’s ability to measure.

President Bush, seeking to somewhat extinguish this escalating firestorm, has ordered a 45-day freeze on the documents in question. Any sixth-grader ought to be able to tell you that if you buy into the arguments about “independence of the legislative branch” — and that’s a huge “if” — a 45-day-freeze does nothing to address the issue raised. How stupid do they think we are? Like I said in the post linked above, to solve the problem Pelosi and Hastert are saying demands the attention, in fact to even begin to address it, you have to exempt members of Congress from the law. All laws. Any law. Anything that can be enforced, because they don’t like the enforcement. Nothing else will do.

Congrats, Babin. You got it right this day. I’ll mark the calendar; credit where credit is due, and all that. I’m sure you’ll tick me off pretty good tomorrow.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

He’s Just Askin’
Thursday, May 25th, 2006

He’s Just Askin’

Neal Boortz, commenting on the William Jefferson thingamajig, has a great question. William Jefferson is a congressman who took bribes. The FBI raided his offices, and his house, and found the evidence they need which includes $90,000 in cash. Now a whole bunch of Congresspersons are protesting over how the evidence was collected, citing something about separation of powers. The theory is that this is injurious to the independence of the legislative branch.

I’m wholly unexcited about this argument. Story after story, as they are brought to my attention, inform me of the agitation felt by members of Congress about the loss of independence or their fear of loss of independence. As I understand it, when the executive branch gathers its dirt, we have nothing in place to force the executive branch to use that dirt for legal purposes — it could engage in blackmail. Very plausible, especially when you consider that probably 99% of the dirt would be unsuitable for prosecution anyway, but ripe for arm-twisting and dirty tricks.

The problem comes up when we consider remedies. Rules for gathering evidence, special warrants, 24-hour advance notice when the FBI is about to raid a congressman’s office — none of this would address the concern. The President knows something about Congressman Flibbertigibbit, and Congressman Flibbertigibbit’s vote is needed on a bill the President wants, evidence is gathered against Congressman Flibbertigibbit, and there ya go. Hasta la vista, Independence-Of-Legislative-Branch. I suppose the Congressman or his aid, would have to have lunch in a nice restaurant with a member of the FBI, and they’d reach an “understanding.” The bill would pass, and the incriminating nugget would pass through a paper shredder. No way could we ever allow such a thing to happen in America, could we.

I call shenanigans. Such a thing has always surrounded power, since Roman times. No of course I can’t prove that. That’s the nature of the thing under discussion, isn’t it? Vote my way, and nobody ever has to know? Can’t prove what I don’t know.

No, evidence-gathering rules will

House of Eratosthenes

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Community Members

Site Admin

Sidebar Update IIWednesday, May 31st, 2006

You Report It Or You Are ItWednesday, May 31st, 2006

My LeaningsWednesday, May 31st, 2006

Vote To Impeach President Bush Passes Two-to-OneWednesday, May 31st, 2006

My Wine Club IITuesday, May 30th, 2006

Ouch IVTuesday, May 30th, 2006

Couldn’t Have Said It Better Myself… VIIIMonday, May 29th, 2006

Bush Signs Bill; Confusion ReignsMonday, May 29th, 2006

Otherwise Good Typing PaperSaturday, May 27th, 2006

Rude PunditSaturday, May 27th, 2006

Flesh! Oh, No! IIIFriday, May 26th, 2006

But Then Again, Too Few To Mention?Friday, May 26th, 2006

Scary Peace-PeopleFriday, May 26th, 2006

That’s About RightThursday, May 25th, 2006

He’s Just Askin’Thursday, May 25th, 2006

Sidebar Update II
Wednesday, May 31st, 2006

You Report It Or You Are It
Wednesday, May 31st, 2006

My Leanings
Wednesday, May 31st, 2006

Vote To Impeach President Bush Passes Two-to-One
Wednesday, May 31st, 2006

My Wine Club II
Tuesday, May 30th, 2006

Ouch IV
Tuesday, May 30th, 2006

Couldn’t Have Said It Better Myself… VIII
Monday, May 29th, 2006

Bush Signs Bill; Confusion Reigns
Monday, May 29th, 2006

Otherwise Good Typing Paper
Saturday, May 27th, 2006

Rude Pundit
Saturday, May 27th, 2006

Flesh! Oh, No! III
Friday, May 26th, 2006

But Then Again, Too Few To Mention?
Friday, May 26th, 2006

Scary Peace-People
Friday, May 26th, 2006

That’s About Right
Thursday, May 25th, 2006

He’s Just Askin’
Thursday, May 25th, 2006