My mother, in addition to her many other talents, is a fabulous baker and confectioner. She has a booming side business making cakes for weddings and other occasions and is contemplating giving up her day job to open a bakery. Go for it, Mom! My favorites growing up were the candies she made: divinity, fudge, chocolate covered peanut butter balls that look like chestnuts, and, my favorite of all, potato candy.
Potato candy is super simple and is fun to make with kids. Boil a potato (an “arshtater” as we called it back in the holler). Mash a couple of tablespoons of the boiled tuber in a mixing bowl, and add confectioners’ sugar until it forms a ball of elastic dough. You will want to coat your hands with some of the sugar to keep the dough from sticking to you while you knead it. Put the ball on some wax paper and flatten it out with a rolling pin into a sheet like a pizza crust. Spread peanut butter on the sheet of dough, and then roll the whole shebang into a tube (peanut butter on the inside, of course).
Finally, slice the roll into half inch thick patties. I prefer to chill the roll in the fridge before slicing, because the pieces will have a more uniform shape and the candy is better cold. As you may surmise, potato candy is super sweet, so it is not for the faint hearted.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Liberty and Tolerance
From time to time, I hear a conspecific waxing about the importance of preserving “traditional values”. I’m frequently not at all sure what is meant by “traditional”, but I am usually willing to concede that tried and true, time tested, and widely distributed “values”, whatever those are, should not be discarded lightly. My conspecifics usually mean mores, goals, priorities and all kinds of normative assumptions when they talk about “values”, but they also occasionally throw in sets of factual assertions about reality as “values”.
These would be conservators of tradition seem to have forgotten that almost every tradition was once an innovation and that it became tried and true only after it was first tried and found to be true in some particular cases. Others copied the innovation with varying degrees of satisfaction, and the innovation became widespread because it worked. If it did not satisfy, the innovation would not have been widely adopted and maintained and would be added to the pile of failed and abandoned experiments or to the pile of eccentricities maintained by eccentrics.
The satisfying innovation eventually replaces a former tradition, and this will almost always be accompanied by much hand wringing about how the old ways really ought to be preserved. “My father was a pastoralist and his father before him and so on into dim antiquity, so what sense is it for me to settle down and grow crops? This sedentism and agriculture seem like risky business to me, and our children will forget the ancient arts of tent making and ungulate driving.” Some folks will cling to the old ways, may they prosper and be content. Others will adopt the new ways albeit unhappily and still others will embrace them.
If a tradition fails to satisfy, it will, barring compulsion, be replaced with other ways that are more satisfactory. This will occur without any central planning as individuals pursue their own happiness and invent and mimic strategies and practices that seem to them to work for them. If a tradition satisfies under current conditions, it will be widely maintained without any help from would be conservators, thank you very much.
Of course, traditions sometimes persist well beyond their usefulness because of their attachment to religion, appeals to the very idea of tradition, and because the social order is often structured to privilege some choices over others by the ruling elites. And while a practice or strategy is very widespread, bucking the trend may be difficult until a certain tipping point is reached and innovation becomes less likely to come with social sanctions.
If I regard a tradition highly, either for its own sake or because it suits my circumstances, then I ought to honor it and, to the extent that love for my fellow man dictates it, broadcast to the world the beauty and delight that the tradition bestows. If my neighbor has less regard for it and judges that his welfare is better promoted by something else, then I ought to hope that his choices bring him happiness.
This is a stance that takes discipline and practice, however, unless you are blessed with a natural disposition for tolerance or have been conditioned by the indwelling Holy Ghost to love your neighbor enough to let him alone. For most folks, I fear, it is not enough to feel that one’s choices are suited to one’s own circumstances; rather, they tend to couch their choices in the language of universal virtue and tend to believe that they would be justified in imposing their choices on others, for their own good, of course. A stay at home mother may not be content to embrace her choices but finds satisfaction in condemning mothers who work outside the home. Parents of public school children may find that their choices are insufficiently satisfactory unless they can also condemn homeschoolers. Suburbanites may be unhappy with their suburban lifestyles unless they can criticize city dwellers, and vice versa.
A culture of liberty wants, I think, the cultivation of an abiding tolerance for diversity of opinion and life choices. We do not have to believe that every value or choice is equally valid or correct. By adopting particular values and making particular choices, we belie such a notion. But we ought, deliberately as a core libertarian value, to take the position that each of us is the best judge of his own wants and that each of us should be given the widest latitude possible consistent with the liberty of others to fulfill them. Think of all we might learn from our neighbors’ trials, successes, and even their failures.
These would be conservators of tradition seem to have forgotten that almost every tradition was once an innovation and that it became tried and true only after it was first tried and found to be true in some particular cases. Others copied the innovation with varying degrees of satisfaction, and the innovation became widespread because it worked. If it did not satisfy, the innovation would not have been widely adopted and maintained and would be added to the pile of failed and abandoned experiments or to the pile of eccentricities maintained by eccentrics.
The satisfying innovation eventually replaces a former tradition, and this will almost always be accompanied by much hand wringing about how the old ways really ought to be preserved. “My father was a pastoralist and his father before him and so on into dim antiquity, so what sense is it for me to settle down and grow crops? This sedentism and agriculture seem like risky business to me, and our children will forget the ancient arts of tent making and ungulate driving.” Some folks will cling to the old ways, may they prosper and be content. Others will adopt the new ways albeit unhappily and still others will embrace them.
If a tradition fails to satisfy, it will, barring compulsion, be replaced with other ways that are more satisfactory. This will occur without any central planning as individuals pursue their own happiness and invent and mimic strategies and practices that seem to them to work for them. If a tradition satisfies under current conditions, it will be widely maintained without any help from would be conservators, thank you very much.
Of course, traditions sometimes persist well beyond their usefulness because of their attachment to religion, appeals to the very idea of tradition, and because the social order is often structured to privilege some choices over others by the ruling elites. And while a practice or strategy is very widespread, bucking the trend may be difficult until a certain tipping point is reached and innovation becomes less likely to come with social sanctions.
If I regard a tradition highly, either for its own sake or because it suits my circumstances, then I ought to honor it and, to the extent that love for my fellow man dictates it, broadcast to the world the beauty and delight that the tradition bestows. If my neighbor has less regard for it and judges that his welfare is better promoted by something else, then I ought to hope that his choices bring him happiness.
This is a stance that takes discipline and practice, however, unless you are blessed with a natural disposition for tolerance or have been conditioned by the indwelling Holy Ghost to love your neighbor enough to let him alone. For most folks, I fear, it is not enough to feel that one’s choices are suited to one’s own circumstances; rather, they tend to couch their choices in the language of universal virtue and tend to believe that they would be justified in imposing their choices on others, for their own good, of course. A stay at home mother may not be content to embrace her choices but finds satisfaction in condemning mothers who work outside the home. Parents of public school children may find that their choices are insufficiently satisfactory unless they can also condemn homeschoolers. Suburbanites may be unhappy with their suburban lifestyles unless they can criticize city dwellers, and vice versa.
A culture of liberty wants, I think, the cultivation of an abiding tolerance for diversity of opinion and life choices. We do not have to believe that every value or choice is equally valid or correct. By adopting particular values and making particular choices, we belie such a notion. But we ought, deliberately as a core libertarian value, to take the position that each of us is the best judge of his own wants and that each of us should be given the widest latitude possible consistent with the liberty of others to fulfill them. Think of all we might learn from our neighbors’ trials, successes, and even their failures.
Monday, November 13, 2006
New Veep?
Some of my conspecifics were speculating that Dick Cheney is going to resign to spend more time with his shotgun and that he will be picking up his Medal of Freedom in a few months. That way, the GOP can install a new Veep who will have a leg up in the 2008 race. My conspecifics were talking Rudy Guiliani or John McCain, but I reckon that the new Veep will not so much benefit from the office but will have the stink of the Bush debacle all over him or her. It has the benefit of wiping away the stigma of Senate service, but what could be more difficult to overcome than being tagged with the Bush legacy going into '08? If they are counting on Bush turning it around and getting some luster in the next two years, they would be real gamblers.
Bush isn't going to pick anyone who will outshine him or try to dominate him like Cheney. Look where that got him so far. And a candidate who thinks he has a real shot is not going to want to bet on Bush. If Cheney resigns, I reckon the slot could go to some wingnut Senator who just lost his Senate seat, say George Allen or Rick Santorum. The Veepidency couldn't hurt them all that much. This might get Bush some cred with the wingnut base by nominating one of their own, even if they come out looking insane in their confirmation hearings. And the major contenders probably wouldn't feel threatened by these guys.
If I were going to pull off such a ploy, I'd wait until I knew more about the field and which way the wind was blowing.
Bush isn't going to pick anyone who will outshine him or try to dominate him like Cheney. Look where that got him so far. And a candidate who thinks he has a real shot is not going to want to bet on Bush. If Cheney resigns, I reckon the slot could go to some wingnut Senator who just lost his Senate seat, say George Allen or Rick Santorum. The Veepidency couldn't hurt them all that much. This might get Bush some cred with the wingnut base by nominating one of their own, even if they come out looking insane in their confirmation hearings. And the major contenders probably wouldn't feel threatened by these guys.
If I were going to pull off such a ploy, I'd wait until I knew more about the field and which way the wind was blowing.
I Hate Veterans' Day
In church on Sunday, the pastor asked all the veterans to stand, and I stood up without thinking. I didn’t expect this and would have remained seated if I had known it was coming. “Look at me, I used to be an idiot and may still be one!” The ten or so men in the choir and congregation got a brief round of applause. Mercifully, the honoring was short, and the pastor’s prayer was directed at the end of ongoing wars rather than an ode to military service.
I was heartened by this, since I am not really sure where my co-religionists stand on political issues such as the War on Terra and the adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would like to think that they adhere to the teachings of Jesus in this regard, but I avoid political discussions at church and so don’t really know. Presumably, the pastor’s calls for peace indicate that the congregation is generally for peace and an end to war.
I was also happy to see so few veterans in the congregation, less than 5% of those present and some of them likely WW2 and Korean War vets who may not have had a choice. That there are so few dupes in the congregation speaks well of our collective intelligence level and the quality of our families overall. It was probably the parents of the non-veterans who saved them from the mistake of enlisting when they were young and foolish. I know I was a total maroon back when I took the king’s shilling, and I reckon that if my old man had been around he might have talked me out of it. He tried to talk my younger brother out of it fifteen years later, but he was evidently an even bigger maroon than I was since he enlisted despite this good fatherly advice.
How did Armistice Day, a celebration of peace, become Veterans’ Day, a day of glorification of warriors? I bet those WW2 glory hounds were somehow behind it. Their constant parades and honor seeking do much to keep up the myth of the glory of war and the sacrifices of the warrior, and I wish they would quit it already. I much prefer your Korean War vet or your Vietnam War vet, since they aren’t always looking for a grateful nation to keep on thanking them ad nauseam. They don’t pretend that their service was glorious. Look at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial: it’s a wall with the names of the 50,000 plus folks who died so senselessly. And Korean War memorials are even hard to find in most places.
It won’t be long before the WW2 vets will be too feeble to parade, and let’s hope the Iraq War vets fail to follow their example.
I was heartened by this, since I am not really sure where my co-religionists stand on political issues such as the War on Terra and the adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would like to think that they adhere to the teachings of Jesus in this regard, but I avoid political discussions at church and so don’t really know. Presumably, the pastor’s calls for peace indicate that the congregation is generally for peace and an end to war.
I was also happy to see so few veterans in the congregation, less than 5% of those present and some of them likely WW2 and Korean War vets who may not have had a choice. That there are so few dupes in the congregation speaks well of our collective intelligence level and the quality of our families overall. It was probably the parents of the non-veterans who saved them from the mistake of enlisting when they were young and foolish. I know I was a total maroon back when I took the king’s shilling, and I reckon that if my old man had been around he might have talked me out of it. He tried to talk my younger brother out of it fifteen years later, but he was evidently an even bigger maroon than I was since he enlisted despite this good fatherly advice.
How did Armistice Day, a celebration of peace, become Veterans’ Day, a day of glorification of warriors? I bet those WW2 glory hounds were somehow behind it. Their constant parades and honor seeking do much to keep up the myth of the glory of war and the sacrifices of the warrior, and I wish they would quit it already. I much prefer your Korean War vet or your Vietnam War vet, since they aren’t always looking for a grateful nation to keep on thanking them ad nauseam. They don’t pretend that their service was glorious. Look at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial: it’s a wall with the names of the 50,000 plus folks who died so senselessly. And Korean War memorials are even hard to find in most places.
It won’t be long before the WW2 vets will be too feeble to parade, and let’s hope the Iraq War vets fail to follow their example.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Progress Report
It's been two weeks since I pledged to get fit. I have been to the gym 9 times in 14 days and will go this evening as well, God willing. I have lifted weights 6 times and run on a treadmill for 20-30 minutes all 9 times. I plan to move up to three sets on weights this evening, having done two sets each time this past week. I had an evaluation by a trainer and got instruction on the Technogym machines they have at the gym. I enjoy working out, and I already feel better.
I am still motivated by the "God hates fatties" sermon of last month, my doctor's reading me the riot act, and by my realization that it just feels better to be fitter. I have added some other motivations for good measure: (a) I need to be in top condition for the revolution or the cadre will stick me in a desk job or in the mess hall; (b) I fly a lot, and I would be a lot more comfortable if I had more seat than ass; (c) we are going to Jamaica again next June, and I don't want to be mistaken for a beached beluga whale again; and (d) I want to resume horseback riding without being accused of animal cruelty.
The weight loss side of things is not going so well. I keep vacillating between 248 and 250 on the bathroom scale. The scale at the gym where I weigh with my workout clothes on has dropped from 260 to 256. My digestive doctor's scale two and a half weeks ago read 263! I suspect a gravitational anomaly. My regular doctor's scale last weekend read 255.
It's a little frustrating since I have been quite good on my diet, although I haven't resorted to anything extreme. Breakfast is Special K or some a bowl of Colon Bowl high fiber cereal. Lunch is usually a salad, and dinner has been a bowl of Mrs Vache Folle's homemade soup or chowder or other sensible supper. I eschew (rather than chew) desserts, pasta, snacks, fried foods and all good things. Still, I smash the scale. Oddly enough, my clothes feel a little looser. I am considering doing Atkins or Scarsdale for a couple ofweeks to get a jump start.
In the fitness evaluation, which mercifully came up "below average" rather than "moribund", the trainer used a strange device to measure my body fat. It fed a low current into my body and did some stuff some scientist could explain to me and informed me that I was about 40% fat. That means I am carrying over 100 pounds of fat. No wonder I get tired. It's as if I were at a normal weight and walking around with Jasper my 90 pound pit bull strapped to my back.
The good news is, that aside from the wages of gluttony, I am in excellent health, or so says my regular doctor.
I am still motivated by the "God hates fatties" sermon of last month, my doctor's reading me the riot act, and by my realization that it just feels better to be fitter. I have added some other motivations for good measure: (a) I need to be in top condition for the revolution or the cadre will stick me in a desk job or in the mess hall; (b) I fly a lot, and I would be a lot more comfortable if I had more seat than ass; (c) we are going to Jamaica again next June, and I don't want to be mistaken for a beached beluga whale again; and (d) I want to resume horseback riding without being accused of animal cruelty.
The weight loss side of things is not going so well. I keep vacillating between 248 and 250 on the bathroom scale. The scale at the gym where I weigh with my workout clothes on has dropped from 260 to 256. My digestive doctor's scale two and a half weeks ago read 263! I suspect a gravitational anomaly. My regular doctor's scale last weekend read 255.
It's a little frustrating since I have been quite good on my diet, although I haven't resorted to anything extreme. Breakfast is Special K or some a bowl of Colon Bowl high fiber cereal. Lunch is usually a salad, and dinner has been a bowl of Mrs Vache Folle's homemade soup or chowder or other sensible supper. I eschew (rather than chew) desserts, pasta, snacks, fried foods and all good things. Still, I smash the scale. Oddly enough, my clothes feel a little looser. I am considering doing Atkins or Scarsdale for a couple ofweeks to get a jump start.
In the fitness evaluation, which mercifully came up "below average" rather than "moribund", the trainer used a strange device to measure my body fat. It fed a low current into my body and did some stuff some scientist could explain to me and informed me that I was about 40% fat. That means I am carrying over 100 pounds of fat. No wonder I get tired. It's as if I were at a normal weight and walking around with Jasper my 90 pound pit bull strapped to my back.
The good news is, that aside from the wages of gluttony, I am in excellent health, or so says my regular doctor.
Reading the Bills
I would love to see the Democrats investigate the crap about everything the regime has been doing the last six years, and I think that they can do that while at the same time trying to work collaboratively with Bush and GOP congresscritters to solve problems and address issues. Let them extend all kinds of symbolic olive branches and communicate openly in a bipartisan way, all the while hitting the GOP with nonstop hearings and aggressive oversight. I especially want the Democrats to look hard at waste, fraud and abuse in government and by contractors. It goes without saying that lying the US into war and then bungling it have got to be scrutinized closely. I would love impeachment hearings, but the fact is that there are not enough votes in the Senate to convict, and GOP Senators are not going to vote to convict even if they find out that Bush and Cheney killed and ate orphans and wiped their rears with the Constitution. THere needs to be a huge public outcry such that GOP Senators see throwing Bush and Cheney under the bus as necessary to protect their own political hides. Of course, at some point point less than a possibility of conviction, the Democrats may see some political advantage to impeachment proceedings.
What I don't want the Democrats to do is to subvert the Congress the way Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay did. Those wankers manipulated and abused the rules of the House in a way that concentrated power in their own hands and cut Democrats and fellow Republicans who did not toe the line out of meaningful deliberations. They completely cut Democrats out of the conference committees set up to resolve differences between House and Senate versions of bills and redrafted legislation which they would deem "emergency" measures. This meant that they were voted on almost immediately with almost no chance to review the final version. In some cases, members had 30 minutes to vote on bills that were thousands of pages long.
If I were a congresscritter, I would have voted nay on any bill I didn't get enough time to review. Of course, then my opponent would point out that I voted against The Ponies for Crippled Children Act or the Throw Money Indiscriminately at the Military Act or the National Day of Gratitude to Mothers, and my constituents would think I was monster and throw me out of office next time around. I don't know if Senators can filibuster a bill after it comes out of conference, but if they can and if I were a Senator, I'd stand up and read the whole bill aloud before I would yield.
I am hopeful that Democrats won't practice Gingrich/DeLay wanksterism and that bills will have time for review. But just in case wankers take over Congress again, we should probably consider structural changes to prevent abuse of House rules.
What I don't want the Democrats to do is to subvert the Congress the way Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay did. Those wankers manipulated and abused the rules of the House in a way that concentrated power in their own hands and cut Democrats and fellow Republicans who did not toe the line out of meaningful deliberations. They completely cut Democrats out of the conference committees set up to resolve differences between House and Senate versions of bills and redrafted legislation which they would deem "emergency" measures. This meant that they were voted on almost immediately with almost no chance to review the final version. In some cases, members had 30 minutes to vote on bills that were thousands of pages long.
If I were a congresscritter, I would have voted nay on any bill I didn't get enough time to review. Of course, then my opponent would point out that I voted against The Ponies for Crippled Children Act or the Throw Money Indiscriminately at the Military Act or the National Day of Gratitude to Mothers, and my constituents would think I was monster and throw me out of office next time around. I don't know if Senators can filibuster a bill after it comes out of conference, but if they can and if I were a Senator, I'd stand up and read the whole bill aloud before I would yield.
I am hopeful that Democrats won't practice Gingrich/DeLay wanksterism and that bills will have time for review. But just in case wankers take over Congress again, we should probably consider structural changes to prevent abuse of House rules.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
A Cunning Plan
It was traffic hell last night. It was one of those evenings where the darkness, rain, low visibility, wet leaves, idiot New York drivers and massive puddles on the parkway made the commute an absolute stomach churning, teeth gnashing nightmare. By the time I got home after 2.5 hours on the devil's parkway, I couldn't imagine getting back in the car to go to the gym. So I did the next best thing. I made myself a vodka tonic. A tall one. Three actually. After the third, it hit me that I had misinterpreted the election.
Rove is a genius after all. Bush was being held back by the GOP Congress and Cheney and the neocons, so he devised a cunning plan worthy of Baldrick to throw the election to the Democrats. That's why Bush was out campaigning despite his enormous unpopularity and saying such asinine things about the Democrats, Iraq, the universe, everything. He was working to get the neocon/GOP Congress monkey off his back. Maybe now that he has some problem solvers in the Democratic Congress to work with, this will be his chance to shine and salvage his legacy.
It sounded more plausible last night on my mini-bender. Have a few drinks and then reread this post, and you'll see what I mean.
Rove is a genius after all. Bush was being held back by the GOP Congress and Cheney and the neocons, so he devised a cunning plan worthy of Baldrick to throw the election to the Democrats. That's why Bush was out campaigning despite his enormous unpopularity and saying such asinine things about the Democrats, Iraq, the universe, everything. He was working to get the neocon/GOP Congress monkey off his back. Maybe now that he has some problem solvers in the Democratic Congress to work with, this will be his chance to shine and salvage his legacy.
It sounded more plausible last night on my mini-bender. Have a few drinks and then reread this post, and you'll see what I mean.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Election Day
I didn't vote straight ticket after all. I voted Libertarian for Governor and Attorney General and some other office, all the offices where Libertarians were on the ballot save one. I always vote for Hilary Clinton. I do this solely because the wingnuts hate her so much. I want her to stay around in politics and succeed just so Sean Hannity and his fellow morons will be made even crazier.
My vote means nothing, so I might as well get some entertainment value out of it.
I am getting on board with the idea of having voting by mail. It would save a lot of hassle at the polling places.
My vote means nothing, so I might as well get some entertainment value out of it.
I am getting on board with the idea of having voting by mail. It would save a lot of hassle at the polling places.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
What I Did After the Revolution
I’m not proud of what I did after the revolution, but I reckon it had to be done. Once the Devolution Party held it’s convention and announced the dissolution of the federal government and after the “Mutiny of the Colonels” left the pro-federals with limited means to enforce their will, federal officials became an endangered species. POTUS and VPOTUS and a number of their henchmen sought asylum in Riyadh. Ironically, it was a vengeful Mossad that apprehended them and brought them to justice.
I don’t know how I ended up on the tribunal set up to try the neocons. I’m a nobody. I used to be a military lawyer, and I had been outspoken in my criticism of the regime. I reckon I was considered a sure guilty vote and could be counted on to understand that these were show trials after all. We were going to give the neocons a fair trial and then hang them.
We decided it was a no-brainer that we would set up the tribunal along the lines of the tribunals that the neocons had designed for their detainees. How could they object to the fairness of their own mechanism? And those aggressive interrogation techniques the neocons touted? Boy, that one White HOuse advisor turned into our lead witness after just one waterboarding session. VPOTUS never made it to trial, what with that bum ticker of his. POTUS was pathetic as he tried to lay all the blame on the dead Veep. “I was out of the loop,” he claimed. He tried to convince us that he had been surrounded by a cadre of yes men who had hidden all bad news from him and had misled him about what the regime was up to. His defense lawyers tried the insanity defense and alleged that POTUS was so addled by coke and booze that he couldn’t tell right from wrong.
After the trials, we would pretend to deliberate for a couple of days. We mostly played cards and noshed in the secret deliberation room. Then we’d announce that we had found the accused guilty on almost every count. Sometimes we’d find them not guilty on a few counts just to make it look as if we were really weighing evidence and considering the defenses. I liked to read the not guilty verdicts first just to get the defendants’ hopes up. I was a jerk. We all were.
Then we’d have a sentencing hearing to determine if the accused would be executed or imprisoned or some such thing. Everybody got death except the White House advisor who had cooperated with the prosecutors. He got life in a prison in Baghdad. Who knew he’d get a shiv in the liver so soon after checking in?
I usually oppose the death penalty, in large part because I don’t want states to have that kind of power. But we weren’t part of any state. We were just a kangaroo court, a kind of gussied up lynch mob with no legitimate authority, and we were going to disband after the purges. So I went along with the death sentences. These guys were ruthless murderers, after all. I felt that I had to attend all the hangings personally. The first couple of hangings were disturbing, but you get used to them after a while. You even find yourself able to engage in some gallows humor after a couple dozen executions. The hard part was the galling speechifying by the condemned. They were proud to give their lives for their country and yadda yadda yadda. I preferred the begging for mercy.
We never did disband. We kept on trying a widening pool of former federal officials, lobbyists, neocon think tankers, Fox News “journalists”, and what have you. It took years to round them all up. A lot of them tried to pass for decent people and lived among them for years before being recognized and apprehended. Still others fled to Paraguay and Myanmar. We didn’t sentence everybody to death any longer after the higher level folks had been purged.
I left the tribunal after the fifth year, and I don’t follow its activities much any longer. I just can’t get all that worked up over the crimes of some GS-3 file clerk at the Department of Commerce. I know that they have to be rehabilitated or removed from society to keep their parasitism from re-infecting us. Now I’m working on the tribunal for the former State of New York here in the Confederated Republics of Beekman and East Fishkill. Man, those former state legislators are a whiny bunch and hard to catch.
I don’t know how I ended up on the tribunal set up to try the neocons. I’m a nobody. I used to be a military lawyer, and I had been outspoken in my criticism of the regime. I reckon I was considered a sure guilty vote and could be counted on to understand that these were show trials after all. We were going to give the neocons a fair trial and then hang them.
We decided it was a no-brainer that we would set up the tribunal along the lines of the tribunals that the neocons had designed for their detainees. How could they object to the fairness of their own mechanism? And those aggressive interrogation techniques the neocons touted? Boy, that one White HOuse advisor turned into our lead witness after just one waterboarding session. VPOTUS never made it to trial, what with that bum ticker of his. POTUS was pathetic as he tried to lay all the blame on the dead Veep. “I was out of the loop,” he claimed. He tried to convince us that he had been surrounded by a cadre of yes men who had hidden all bad news from him and had misled him about what the regime was up to. His defense lawyers tried the insanity defense and alleged that POTUS was so addled by coke and booze that he couldn’t tell right from wrong.
After the trials, we would pretend to deliberate for a couple of days. We mostly played cards and noshed in the secret deliberation room. Then we’d announce that we had found the accused guilty on almost every count. Sometimes we’d find them not guilty on a few counts just to make it look as if we were really weighing evidence and considering the defenses. I liked to read the not guilty verdicts first just to get the defendants’ hopes up. I was a jerk. We all were.
Then we’d have a sentencing hearing to determine if the accused would be executed or imprisoned or some such thing. Everybody got death except the White House advisor who had cooperated with the prosecutors. He got life in a prison in Baghdad. Who knew he’d get a shiv in the liver so soon after checking in?
I usually oppose the death penalty, in large part because I don’t want states to have that kind of power. But we weren’t part of any state. We were just a kangaroo court, a kind of gussied up lynch mob with no legitimate authority, and we were going to disband after the purges. So I went along with the death sentences. These guys were ruthless murderers, after all. I felt that I had to attend all the hangings personally. The first couple of hangings were disturbing, but you get used to them after a while. You even find yourself able to engage in some gallows humor after a couple dozen executions. The hard part was the galling speechifying by the condemned. They were proud to give their lives for their country and yadda yadda yadda. I preferred the begging for mercy.
We never did disband. We kept on trying a widening pool of former federal officials, lobbyists, neocon think tankers, Fox News “journalists”, and what have you. It took years to round them all up. A lot of them tried to pass for decent people and lived among them for years before being recognized and apprehended. Still others fled to Paraguay and Myanmar. We didn’t sentence everybody to death any longer after the higher level folks had been purged.
I left the tribunal after the fifth year, and I don’t follow its activities much any longer. I just can’t get all that worked up over the crimes of some GS-3 file clerk at the Department of Commerce. I know that they have to be rehabilitated or removed from society to keep their parasitism from re-infecting us. Now I’m working on the tribunal for the former State of New York here in the Confederated Republics of Beekman and East Fishkill. Man, those former state legislators are a whiny bunch and hard to catch.
I am Spiteful
The boss is letting us out early today so we can vote. I'm gonna vote a straight Democratic ticket. I'm even going to vote for that corrupt Hevesi for Comptroller. I'm doing this out of pure unadulterated spite. The GOP sucks so much that I want to show my contempt as clearly as possible by not only refusing to vote for GOP candidates but by voting for the Democrats they hate so much. I will never, ever cast a vote for a GOP candidate again as long as I live.
I don't expect the Democrats to do anything that I approve of. I'm pretty sure they will suck, too, but is it even possible for them to screw up as much as the GOP has? They are not as authoritarian as the GOP, that's for sure.
My car pool companion, a lifelong Republican is voting a straight Democratic ticket, too. He was going to vote for some Republicans, but he got a dozen annoying robo-calls in the last couple of days so he aims to punish the GOP for that.
I don't expect the Democrats to do anything that I approve of. I'm pretty sure they will suck, too, but is it even possible for them to screw up as much as the GOP has? They are not as authoritarian as the GOP, that's for sure.
My car pool companion, a lifelong Republican is voting a straight Democratic ticket, too. He was going to vote for some Republicans, but he got a dozen annoying robo-calls in the last couple of days so he aims to punish the GOP for that.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Hanging Politicians
Paul Craig Roberts wonders whether Bush will get a death sentence now that Saddam has a date with the hangman: http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts180.html
I thought about making a list of all the political leaders who want hanging, but I reckon it would be easier to make a list of those who don’t merit the noose. Indeed, let’s presume guilt in the case of political leaders and put the burden on them to present mitigating factors. The kind of person who even wants to be a political leader is probably too disturbed to be permitted to live among decent human beings.
I thought about making a list of all the political leaders who want hanging, but I reckon it would be easier to make a list of those who don’t merit the noose. Indeed, let’s presume guilt in the case of political leaders and put the burden on them to present mitigating factors. The kind of person who even wants to be a political leader is probably too disturbed to be permitted to live among decent human beings.
Friday, November 03, 2006
Base Plus Fraud Enough to Keep GOP Entrenched and Other Random Stuff
I won’t be surprised if the GOP holds onto both houses of Congress next week. They have their demented base and can steal some key elections by manipulating electronic voting machines and engaging in more old-fashioned forms of election fraud. What’s to stop them?
Did a prominent gay baiting pastor of a Colorado megachurch pay a gay prostitute for sex over the last three years? I sure hope so. There’s nothing more fun than a self -righteous blowhard getting his comeuppance.
Waterboarding isn’t torture? Then why was a Japanese interrogator sentenced to 15 years of hard labor after WW2 for waterboarding Allied POWs?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html.
Some songs that pretty much suck might have a chance of being tolerable if they were done in a different genre. Don McLean’s “I Love You Too Much to Ever Start Liking You” is not bad as a calypso tune, for example. Contemporary “country” ballads whined out by male singers cannot be redeemed by a genre change, however. Nothing can save them from sucking.
Is it possible to enjoy professional football if you don’t have money on the game? If so, what’s the secret?
I have eaten sensibly for over a week now and went to the gym five times in the previous week for weight training and jogging on a treadmill. I’ve lost about three pounds. I actually look forward to the gym and am already feeling more fit. I’m hitting the red wine, too, since it is supposed to counteract the effects of obesity.
When I was a kid, almost all men wore hats outside. How come we don’t wear hats so much anymore, aside from slobs in sideways ball caps and ersatz cowboys in ten gallon hats? Of course, back in the day everybody dressed up more in public. My mother would not have dreamed of going to the supermarket in sweat pants. Actually, I have become more likely to try to be presentable now that we live in the exurbs. I am more likely to run into someone I know out here than in the city.
My father’s birthday is Guy Fawke’s Day. I am thankful that he is still with us.
Did a prominent gay baiting pastor of a Colorado megachurch pay a gay prostitute for sex over the last three years? I sure hope so. There’s nothing more fun than a self -righteous blowhard getting his comeuppance.
Waterboarding isn’t torture? Then why was a Japanese interrogator sentenced to 15 years of hard labor after WW2 for waterboarding Allied POWs?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html.
Some songs that pretty much suck might have a chance of being tolerable if they were done in a different genre. Don McLean’s “I Love You Too Much to Ever Start Liking You” is not bad as a calypso tune, for example. Contemporary “country” ballads whined out by male singers cannot be redeemed by a genre change, however. Nothing can save them from sucking.
Is it possible to enjoy professional football if you don’t have money on the game? If so, what’s the secret?
I have eaten sensibly for over a week now and went to the gym five times in the previous week for weight training and jogging on a treadmill. I’ve lost about three pounds. I actually look forward to the gym and am already feeling more fit. I’m hitting the red wine, too, since it is supposed to counteract the effects of obesity.
When I was a kid, almost all men wore hats outside. How come we don’t wear hats so much anymore, aside from slobs in sideways ball caps and ersatz cowboys in ten gallon hats? Of course, back in the day everybody dressed up more in public. My mother would not have dreamed of going to the supermarket in sweat pants. Actually, I have become more likely to try to be presentable now that we live in the exurbs. I am more likely to run into someone I know out here than in the city.
My father’s birthday is Guy Fawke’s Day. I am thankful that he is still with us.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Another Reason to Vote Against the GOP
The Rude Pundit has the best reason yet to punish the GOP at the polls: http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2006/11/why-vote-against-republicans-because.html
Authoritarians are Zombies
I have been reading John Dean’s “Conservatives Without Conscience”, and I have been persuaded that the “authoritarian personality” and “social dominance’ are useful constructs for making sense of the conservative movement in America. Conservatives can’t be expected to be principled or consistent in word or deed, and their leaders can be expected to act solely in their own interests in pursuit of power, because, frankly, they are nutjobs (my interpretation, not Dean’s).
The authority figures who rouse the rabble with authoritarian personalities are straight opportunists who have no qualms about saying or doing whatever it takes to get and keep power. They will talk about family values while hurting actual families and do so with a straight face. Their followers will support them no matter what they do as long as the leaders keep saying the right buzz words.
Dean relies on the work of Altmeyer who emphasizes three facets of the authoritarian personality: conventionalism, aggression, and submission to authority. Adorno and others include additional facets as follows, together with my own personal take on what they signify:
Conventionalism. The authoritarian clings to tradition and norms with more fervor than most folks. He reckons everyone should live as he does and sees alternative lifestyles and values as a threat. His way is based on his righteousness, not his adaptation to his circumstances, and those who deviate from his way are wicked or foolish. This is one reason that authoritarians tend to be right wingers. They don’t like change, and the right wing offers them tradition and conservation of the status quo.
Submission. The authoritarian blindly follows his leaders and sees criticism of them as offensive and treasonous. He can’t recognize their inconsistencies and prevarications and does not believe criticism of them. He prefers Fox News because the cheerleading for his leaders is soothing.
Aggression. The authoritarian is quick to use threats, intimidation and violence against enemies identified by his leaders. The leaders generate and use real and make believe enemies to rile up the base, and they exaggerate every threat in order to get maximum use of the inherent fearfulness of authoritarians. The enemies may be homosexuals, “Islamofascists”, liberals, secular humanists, or Big Oil. It doesn’t matter. They’re everywhere for the authoritarian.
Anti-intraception. The authoritarian is not as self aware as other folks, and he doesn’t like to look inside and think about things. He certainly isn’t interested in finding out whether he might be wrong about something, because that’s impossible. I have known quite a few of these near zombies, and I reckon that they are sort of autistic. They don’t really have the capacity to empathize, so they don’t value empathy or attempts to make sense of what other people are thinking, feeling or doing. This impairment allows the authoritarian to be hypocritical and to contradict himself freely and to allow his leaders to the same without any pesky inner voice calling him on it. Their selves are insufficiently integrated for them to manifest integrity.
Substitution and stereotyping. The authoritarian is superstitious and is unusually susceptible to cliches and slogans, the stupider the better. He is quick to see others as collectives and to reify the categories of people that he or his leaders have invented. He is foremost a member of collectives and enactor of social roles rather than a sentient individual.
Power and toughness. The authoritarian is always afraid, and he admires the powerful and the tough. He wants a tough leader to protect him from the scary, scary world, and he acts tough to compensate for his feelings of weakness and cowardice.
Destructiveness and Cynicism. The authoritarian reckons that all mankind is evil and/or stupid and out to get him, so he puts no trust in anyone or anything other than his leaders. He will believe any outrageous lie about the enemy, and he is on board with whatever mayhem the leaders deem desirable to wreak.
Projectivity. The authoritarian projects onto others his own shortcomings. Since he has no inner life and can’t conceive of others’ having their own views and motivations, he can’t do otherwise. When he says people are thieves, he is telling you to watch your stuff when he’s around.
Sex. The authoritarian is obsessed with sex, or at least other people’s sex lives. He can’t stand it that anyone else might be having sex and enjoying it. This may be an aspect of conventionalism and religiosity. I don’t get it. Maybe it’s also an aspect of projection. If he is a closeted self-hating homosexual, he is apt to become zealous in persecuting homosexuals.
I don’t know how authoritarians are created, but I suspect that you will become one if you are a near zombie to begin with, especially if you are also fearful and insecure. Dollars to doughnuts, it’s mostly genetic. I bet it can be treated with drugs. If so, I say we put those drugs in the water supply.
The authority figures who rouse the rabble with authoritarian personalities are straight opportunists who have no qualms about saying or doing whatever it takes to get and keep power. They will talk about family values while hurting actual families and do so with a straight face. Their followers will support them no matter what they do as long as the leaders keep saying the right buzz words.
Dean relies on the work of Altmeyer who emphasizes three facets of the authoritarian personality: conventionalism, aggression, and submission to authority. Adorno and others include additional facets as follows, together with my own personal take on what they signify:
Conventionalism. The authoritarian clings to tradition and norms with more fervor than most folks. He reckons everyone should live as he does and sees alternative lifestyles and values as a threat. His way is based on his righteousness, not his adaptation to his circumstances, and those who deviate from his way are wicked or foolish. This is one reason that authoritarians tend to be right wingers. They don’t like change, and the right wing offers them tradition and conservation of the status quo.
Submission. The authoritarian blindly follows his leaders and sees criticism of them as offensive and treasonous. He can’t recognize their inconsistencies and prevarications and does not believe criticism of them. He prefers Fox News because the cheerleading for his leaders is soothing.
Aggression. The authoritarian is quick to use threats, intimidation and violence against enemies identified by his leaders. The leaders generate and use real and make believe enemies to rile up the base, and they exaggerate every threat in order to get maximum use of the inherent fearfulness of authoritarians. The enemies may be homosexuals, “Islamofascists”, liberals, secular humanists, or Big Oil. It doesn’t matter. They’re everywhere for the authoritarian.
Anti-intraception. The authoritarian is not as self aware as other folks, and he doesn’t like to look inside and think about things. He certainly isn’t interested in finding out whether he might be wrong about something, because that’s impossible. I have known quite a few of these near zombies, and I reckon that they are sort of autistic. They don’t really have the capacity to empathize, so they don’t value empathy or attempts to make sense of what other people are thinking, feeling or doing. This impairment allows the authoritarian to be hypocritical and to contradict himself freely and to allow his leaders to the same without any pesky inner voice calling him on it. Their selves are insufficiently integrated for them to manifest integrity.
Substitution and stereotyping. The authoritarian is superstitious and is unusually susceptible to cliches and slogans, the stupider the better. He is quick to see others as collectives and to reify the categories of people that he or his leaders have invented. He is foremost a member of collectives and enactor of social roles rather than a sentient individual.
Power and toughness. The authoritarian is always afraid, and he admires the powerful and the tough. He wants a tough leader to protect him from the scary, scary world, and he acts tough to compensate for his feelings of weakness and cowardice.
Destructiveness and Cynicism. The authoritarian reckons that all mankind is evil and/or stupid and out to get him, so he puts no trust in anyone or anything other than his leaders. He will believe any outrageous lie about the enemy, and he is on board with whatever mayhem the leaders deem desirable to wreak.
Projectivity. The authoritarian projects onto others his own shortcomings. Since he has no inner life and can’t conceive of others’ having their own views and motivations, he can’t do otherwise. When he says people are thieves, he is telling you to watch your stuff when he’s around.
Sex. The authoritarian is obsessed with sex, or at least other people’s sex lives. He can’t stand it that anyone else might be having sex and enjoying it. This may be an aspect of conventionalism and religiosity. I don’t get it. Maybe it’s also an aspect of projection. If he is a closeted self-hating homosexual, he is apt to become zealous in persecuting homosexuals.
I don’t know how authoritarians are created, but I suspect that you will become one if you are a near zombie to begin with, especially if you are also fearful and insecure. Dollars to doughnuts, it’s mostly genetic. I bet it can be treated with drugs. If so, I say we put those drugs in the water supply.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Who Owes the Troops an Apology? GW Bush and his Co-conspirators
CNN was on in the locker room at the gym last night (I've gone every day since I joined and am down to 248.6 pounds, thanks for asking), and I couldn't help overhear about John Kerry's joke and the wingnut reaction to it. Kerry said something to the effct that you should study hard and get smart or you could end up stuck in Iraq. "Ha Ha!" thought I. "He means be smart, not stupid like GW Bush who ended up in the Iraq quagmire."
Then I heard that GW Bush and the wingnuts who support him interpreted this as a slam on the military, that Kerry was calling the troops uneducated and stupid. I reckon that this is a case of classic projection. Of course, the wingnuts interpret the statement this way, because that's how they really feel inside. Nobody has more contempt for the military than GW Bush, except maybe Rumsfeld. Bush and Rumsfeld have underequipped and undermanned the forces in operations that have no bearing on the defense of the US or freedom. The almost 3,000 dead are just so many saps that had to be sacrificed to advance the political agenda of the neocon death cult. Bush owes the military, among many others, an apology. It's just like Bush to evade a comment that was directed at him by deflecting it to the military. He would sacrifice every last soldier, sailor and airman to protect his political ass.
In a much more nuanced way than GW Bush is capable of grasping, one might very well make the case that, thanks to GW Bush, the Iraq quagmire has become an apt metaphor for the undesirable situation that one studies to avoid. He has created the circumstance where future recruiting for the military will depend on a pool of unfortunates. In my day, it was the prospect of becoming a "ditchdigger" that was held out as motivation; then it was the prospect of having to go to Vietnam. Who indeed will end up in Iraq in the next ten years of endless, idiotic war? It will be those lacking in other prospects or those whose character is seriously flawed. Those who were already servicemembers when these clusterf***ks in the Middle East were getting underway can't really be blamed or have their intelligence or morality held in suspicion because of their service. They had previously been duped into thinking that their military service would be for the defense of their country. By now, it should be clear to even the minimally educated that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with defense of America or fighting terror, that it was entered into fraudulently and unlawfully, that it has been prosecuted incompetently and unjustly, and that continuing it makes no sense at all. If you join the military now, you should do so with every expectation of serving in the Iraq war; therefore, you must be wanting other prospects, woefully misinformed, lacking the capacity to discern the true situation, or just like to kill people.
It is ironic indeed that GW Bush is calling for anyone other than his own regime to apologize to the troops. Nobody has insulted them more than him.
Then I heard that GW Bush and the wingnuts who support him interpreted this as a slam on the military, that Kerry was calling the troops uneducated and stupid. I reckon that this is a case of classic projection. Of course, the wingnuts interpret the statement this way, because that's how they really feel inside. Nobody has more contempt for the military than GW Bush, except maybe Rumsfeld. Bush and Rumsfeld have underequipped and undermanned the forces in operations that have no bearing on the defense of the US or freedom. The almost 3,000 dead are just so many saps that had to be sacrificed to advance the political agenda of the neocon death cult. Bush owes the military, among many others, an apology. It's just like Bush to evade a comment that was directed at him by deflecting it to the military. He would sacrifice every last soldier, sailor and airman to protect his political ass.
In a much more nuanced way than GW Bush is capable of grasping, one might very well make the case that, thanks to GW Bush, the Iraq quagmire has become an apt metaphor for the undesirable situation that one studies to avoid. He has created the circumstance where future recruiting for the military will depend on a pool of unfortunates. In my day, it was the prospect of becoming a "ditchdigger" that was held out as motivation; then it was the prospect of having to go to Vietnam. Who indeed will end up in Iraq in the next ten years of endless, idiotic war? It will be those lacking in other prospects or those whose character is seriously flawed. Those who were already servicemembers when these clusterf***ks in the Middle East were getting underway can't really be blamed or have their intelligence or morality held in suspicion because of their service. They had previously been duped into thinking that their military service would be for the defense of their country. By now, it should be clear to even the minimally educated that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with defense of America or fighting terror, that it was entered into fraudulently and unlawfully, that it has been prosecuted incompetently and unjustly, and that continuing it makes no sense at all. If you join the military now, you should do so with every expectation of serving in the Iraq war; therefore, you must be wanting other prospects, woefully misinformed, lacking the capacity to discern the true situation, or just like to kill people.
It is ironic indeed that GW Bush is calling for anyone other than his own regime to apologize to the troops. Nobody has insulted them more than him.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Happy Halloween
I like Halloween. When I was a lad of 3 or 4 or 5, we lived in an ethnic, largely Catholic neighborhood in Cleveland, and folks went all out decorating their homes and yards for Halloween. I dressed as one of those cartoon crows, Heckel or Jeckel, and scored a huge haul of goodies and even some real money. Those were some of the most fun times of my life.
We moved back to rural Georgia when I was 6, and Halloween was nowhere near as big a deal as it had been in Cleveland. Beyond jack'o'lanterns, nobody bothered to decorate much. It was also too dark and dangerous to walk down sparsely populated country roads to trick or treat, so we had to be driven to various Halloween friendly homes in the valley and to parties. Some of our neighbors saw Halloween as a manifestation of the occult and the work of the devil, so we didn't call on them to get treats. Frankly, the rural, white, Protestant Halloween was not nearly as much fun as the urban, ethnic, Catholic Halloween.
I had the pleasure of living in neighborhoods that were quite enthusiastic for Halloween. In 1987, we moved to a neighborhood in Rockville, Maryland that was just starting to yuppify after a metro station had opened nearby. Most of our neighbors decorated for the holiday, and there were scores of trick or treaters at our front door.
In 1998, we moved to a dense working class neighborhood in Yonkers where most of our neighbors were Catholic. When Halloween 1999 approached, most of the households decorated their front entrances and yards starting a few weeks ahead of time. Quite a few went whole hog and featured elaborate displays taking up their entire front yards or stoops. As many as 200 children would call on us. One year, we had some of our nephews for the holiday, and we had to give out some of the candy they had scored because we had run out.
Now I live in the country again, and I don't expect any trick or treaters. It's too dark and dangerous, and the houses are too far apart for kids to get the kind of booty that makes for a memorable Halloween without putting in way too much effort. I'll pick up some candy just in case.
The fun/boring Halloween dichotomy is not merely a function of urban/rural differences. We have lived in urban and susburban communities that had pretty lame and halfhearted levels of Halloween participation. I have identified some correlates with high neighborhood enthusiasm for Halloween:
1. Relatively high population density.
2. Presence of street lighting.
3. Lots of lawn ornaments such as "Bathtub Virgin Marys", St Francis statues, little Dutch kids by windmills, donkeys pulling a cart full of plastic flowers, lawn jockeys, flamingos, etc.
4. A relatively high proportion of Roman Catholics.
5. A relatively high proportion of immigrants or descendants of immigrants who arrived after 1890.
6. Presence of sidewalks.
We moved back to rural Georgia when I was 6, and Halloween was nowhere near as big a deal as it had been in Cleveland. Beyond jack'o'lanterns, nobody bothered to decorate much. It was also too dark and dangerous to walk down sparsely populated country roads to trick or treat, so we had to be driven to various Halloween friendly homes in the valley and to parties. Some of our neighbors saw Halloween as a manifestation of the occult and the work of the devil, so we didn't call on them to get treats. Frankly, the rural, white, Protestant Halloween was not nearly as much fun as the urban, ethnic, Catholic Halloween.
I had the pleasure of living in neighborhoods that were quite enthusiastic for Halloween. In 1987, we moved to a neighborhood in Rockville, Maryland that was just starting to yuppify after a metro station had opened nearby. Most of our neighbors decorated for the holiday, and there were scores of trick or treaters at our front door.
In 1998, we moved to a dense working class neighborhood in Yonkers where most of our neighbors were Catholic. When Halloween 1999 approached, most of the households decorated their front entrances and yards starting a few weeks ahead of time. Quite a few went whole hog and featured elaborate displays taking up their entire front yards or stoops. As many as 200 children would call on us. One year, we had some of our nephews for the holiday, and we had to give out some of the candy they had scored because we had run out.
Now I live in the country again, and I don't expect any trick or treaters. It's too dark and dangerous, and the houses are too far apart for kids to get the kind of booty that makes for a memorable Halloween without putting in way too much effort. I'll pick up some candy just in case.
The fun/boring Halloween dichotomy is not merely a function of urban/rural differences. We have lived in urban and susburban communities that had pretty lame and halfhearted levels of Halloween participation. I have identified some correlates with high neighborhood enthusiasm for Halloween:
1. Relatively high population density.
2. Presence of street lighting.
3. Lots of lawn ornaments such as "Bathtub Virgin Marys", St Francis statues, little Dutch kids by windmills, donkeys pulling a cart full of plastic flowers, lawn jockeys, flamingos, etc.
4. A relatively high proportion of Roman Catholics.
5. A relatively high proportion of immigrants or descendants of immigrants who arrived after 1890.
6. Presence of sidewalks.
Monday, October 30, 2006
Test the Voting Machines
I hear that electronic voting machines are relatively easy to hack or to manipulate so as to steal elections. This is from my IT nerd friend, whom I trust, but who usually starts to sound to me like the adults on a Charlie Brown special after five minutes of techno-speak.
Maybe the machines could be tested right before an election by casting 1000 votes on them in a set way and comparing the results provided by the machine with the known votes that were cast. If the numbers don't match, can the machine and run off some paper ballots. Also, investigate and prosecute the machine maker or programmer and the party that was advantaged by the hack.
I still think Ohio 2004 was rigged. The exit polls could not have been that wrong, and the voting machine maker's CEO said he was going to deliver Ohio for Bush.
Maybe the machines could be tested right before an election by casting 1000 votes on them in a set way and comparing the results provided by the machine with the known votes that were cast. If the numbers don't match, can the machine and run off some paper ballots. Also, investigate and prosecute the machine maker or programmer and the party that was advantaged by the hack.
I still think Ohio 2004 was rigged. The exit polls could not have been that wrong, and the voting machine maker's CEO said he was going to deliver Ohio for Bush.
Language Curmudgeon
I have become and amateur language curmudgeon in my middle age, although I am by and large very tolerant of other folks' writing and speaking styles. I have a few pet peeves, however, that drive me nuts. Perhaps by airing them, I can help myself get over them:
1. "Nauseous" means having the characteristic of inducing nausea in others. "Nauseated" means you have nausea. If you say "I'm nauseous", you are saying that you make other people sick, when you probably really mean to say that you are nauseated.
2. "Therefor" is a perfectly cromulent word even if Microsoft Word's spell check doesn't recognize it. It means "for it" and refers back to an antecedent in the sentence or even an earlier sentence. Example: "This settlement covers both the leases and security given therefor." The word refers back to the leases and could be replaced with "for them". "Therefore" is an entirely different word which connotes "accordingly" or "consequently". Akin to "therefor" are the words "therefrom", "thereunder", "thereto", "thereat", "thereupon" and the like. You can also do the same thing with "here", as in "hereunder".
3. There is nothing wrong with the passive voice, even if Microsoft Word underlines it with a green squiggle. It is useful for emphasizing the object when the subject is not all that relevant. It is also good for making a less emphatic statement. My favorite is using it to be deliberately evasive or obscure. "Mistakes were made, and people were killed." "Responsibility has been taken."
4. It bothers me when people use "hopefully" for "it is hoped that". "Hopefully" is an adverb that denotes that an action or proposition is taken or uttered in a hopeful manner. "'We are going to take Congress," he said hopefully." "They planted their crops hopefully but had no guarantee of success." Those are OK. "Hopefully, I won't fall down the stairs today." That's not right.
5. "And I" is not always right, and "and me" is sometimes right. "He yelled at John and I" is wrong. You wouldn't say "he yelled at I".
6. "Aren't I" is wrong. You wouldn't say "are I not" or "I are not good with figures". I advocate the use of "ain't" as a contraction for "am not". That's what it means. The use of "ain't" with the second or third person or the first person plural is wrong, but you can deliberately use it incorrectly to make a point, of course. "GW Bush ain't much for book learnin'".
These are the peeves that bother me most. Hopefully, they are now exorcised and won't make me so nauseous any more. Hey, lookie there. I'm already bending the rules myself, aren't I?
1. "Nauseous" means having the characteristic of inducing nausea in others. "Nauseated" means you have nausea. If you say "I'm nauseous", you are saying that you make other people sick, when you probably really mean to say that you are nauseated.
2. "Therefor" is a perfectly cromulent word even if Microsoft Word's spell check doesn't recognize it. It means "for it" and refers back to an antecedent in the sentence or even an earlier sentence. Example: "This settlement covers both the leases and security given therefor." The word refers back to the leases and could be replaced with "for them". "Therefore" is an entirely different word which connotes "accordingly" or "consequently". Akin to "therefor" are the words "therefrom", "thereunder", "thereto", "thereat", "thereupon" and the like. You can also do the same thing with "here", as in "hereunder".
3. There is nothing wrong with the passive voice, even if Microsoft Word underlines it with a green squiggle. It is useful for emphasizing the object when the subject is not all that relevant. It is also good for making a less emphatic statement. My favorite is using it to be deliberately evasive or obscure. "Mistakes were made, and people were killed." "Responsibility has been taken."
4. It bothers me when people use "hopefully" for "it is hoped that". "Hopefully" is an adverb that denotes that an action or proposition is taken or uttered in a hopeful manner. "'We are going to take Congress," he said hopefully." "They planted their crops hopefully but had no guarantee of success." Those are OK. "Hopefully, I won't fall down the stairs today." That's not right.
5. "And I" is not always right, and "and me" is sometimes right. "He yelled at John and I" is wrong. You wouldn't say "he yelled at I".
6. "Aren't I" is wrong. You wouldn't say "are I not" or "I are not good with figures". I advocate the use of "ain't" as a contraction for "am not". That's what it means. The use of "ain't" with the second or third person or the first person plural is wrong, but you can deliberately use it incorrectly to make a point, of course. "GW Bush ain't much for book learnin'".
These are the peeves that bother me most. Hopefully, they are now exorcised and won't make me so nauseous any more. Hey, lookie there. I'm already bending the rules myself, aren't I?
Friday, October 27, 2006
Weight Loss. This Time I Really Mean It. No, Really. I'm Going to Stick with the Program.
Our pastor has been giving a series of sermons on how Christians should live a life in which they attend to their minds, spirits and bodies. This has been fairly interesting, but there is an undertone of old fashioned railing against sin. Sunday before last, we were reminded that our bodies were temples, and the preacher admonished folks for gluttony. Those of us who are overweight were squirming in our seats a little bit. Ours is the one sin that really stands out. We wear our gluttony on our frames, as opposed to lustful or envious folks who can lust or envy in secret. I treat my body as a temple. It’s just that I’ve sacrificed a lot of animals at the altar.
Yesterday, one of my doctors really read me the riot act about being overweight. I swear the scale in her office is situated on some kind of gravitational anomaly. It shows me 12 pound heavier than my scale at home or the scale the insurance company nurse used on me two weeks ago.
Now I read that I’m wasting gasoline by driving while fat! Pretty soon, the war on obesity is going to become the war on the obese, and I’ll end up in a gulag for fatties. That’s why I’m getting serious about my weight. I know I’ve said this before, but this time I mean it. I joined a gym, and I actually went to it and worked out! The gym is more expensive than the last one I joined and almost never visited, and I am counting on Mrs Vache Folle’s theory that you are more likely to exercise if you have forked over serious money for gym membership or sneakers. That way, my streak of parsimony will help to motivate me. Mrs VF’s frugality will certainly lead her to nag me about going to the gym, and, trust me, nobody wants her in full on shrew mode. The gym also has other middle aged and malformed clients rather than twenty something body builders, and it has a cadre of trainers and a curriculum of classes. There are indoor tennis and basketball courts, too.
And I’ve modified my diet significantly on my doctor’s recommendation because of some gastrointestinal distress I had been experiencing. Instead of being a pure carnivore, I have added a healthy, if unappetizing, dose of fruits, vegetables and fiber. I am even starting to like them. I have cut out snacks, deep fat fried stuff, biscuits and gravy (sob!), pasta, desserts of all kinds, and most bread. Meat makes up less of my diet than before. I am already feeling a lot better even if I have not lost any weight yet. If I can just stick it out for a month, I will be in the habit of exercising and eating sensibly, and it will be easier to keep it up. It was rough eating sensibly while on the road last week, but I managed to do so.
I have had bad eating habits most of my life. Before I was thirty, I was scary thin and could (and did) eat anything I wanted without gaining weight. After thirty, I reckon the old metabolism slowed down, and I crept up in weight little by little. About ten years ago, I managed to lose 60 pounds and develop good habits, but I blew it when I started a desk job. I didn’t handle the stress of all the life changes too well, and I reverted to my slothful, gluttonous default. It’s as though I have bulimia but keep forgetting to purge. I would just avoid mirrors and keep buying bigger clothes.
Now that I have been made to understand by my pastor that Jesus doesn’t like fatties and by my doctor that I’m literally killing myself, I am pretty motivated. Let’s hope it lasts. Just to put pressure on myself, I’m planning to report my progress on this blog from time to time so that my imaginary readership can shame me if I falter.
My weight this morning was 251.4 pounds. My goal: be scary thin and make Nicole Richie look like a cow. Seriously, I aim to lose 75 pounds within the next twelve months. Then I’ll be at the weight where I used to think I was getting fat.
Yesterday, one of my doctors really read me the riot act about being overweight. I swear the scale in her office is situated on some kind of gravitational anomaly. It shows me 12 pound heavier than my scale at home or the scale the insurance company nurse used on me two weeks ago.
Now I read that I’m wasting gasoline by driving while fat! Pretty soon, the war on obesity is going to become the war on the obese, and I’ll end up in a gulag for fatties. That’s why I’m getting serious about my weight. I know I’ve said this before, but this time I mean it. I joined a gym, and I actually went to it and worked out! The gym is more expensive than the last one I joined and almost never visited, and I am counting on Mrs Vache Folle’s theory that you are more likely to exercise if you have forked over serious money for gym membership or sneakers. That way, my streak of parsimony will help to motivate me. Mrs VF’s frugality will certainly lead her to nag me about going to the gym, and, trust me, nobody wants her in full on shrew mode. The gym also has other middle aged and malformed clients rather than twenty something body builders, and it has a cadre of trainers and a curriculum of classes. There are indoor tennis and basketball courts, too.
And I’ve modified my diet significantly on my doctor’s recommendation because of some gastrointestinal distress I had been experiencing. Instead of being a pure carnivore, I have added a healthy, if unappetizing, dose of fruits, vegetables and fiber. I am even starting to like them. I have cut out snacks, deep fat fried stuff, biscuits and gravy (sob!), pasta, desserts of all kinds, and most bread. Meat makes up less of my diet than before. I am already feeling a lot better even if I have not lost any weight yet. If I can just stick it out for a month, I will be in the habit of exercising and eating sensibly, and it will be easier to keep it up. It was rough eating sensibly while on the road last week, but I managed to do so.
I have had bad eating habits most of my life. Before I was thirty, I was scary thin and could (and did) eat anything I wanted without gaining weight. After thirty, I reckon the old metabolism slowed down, and I crept up in weight little by little. About ten years ago, I managed to lose 60 pounds and develop good habits, but I blew it when I started a desk job. I didn’t handle the stress of all the life changes too well, and I reverted to my slothful, gluttonous default. It’s as though I have bulimia but keep forgetting to purge. I would just avoid mirrors and keep buying bigger clothes.
Now that I have been made to understand by my pastor that Jesus doesn’t like fatties and by my doctor that I’m literally killing myself, I am pretty motivated. Let’s hope it lasts. Just to put pressure on myself, I’m planning to report my progress on this blog from time to time so that my imaginary readership can shame me if I falter.
My weight this morning was 251.4 pounds. My goal: be scary thin and make Nicole Richie look like a cow. Seriously, I aim to lose 75 pounds within the next twelve months. Then I’ll be at the weight where I used to think I was getting fat.
Thomas Sowell is Off HIs Meds
Shorter Thomas Sowell (http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/tsowell/2006/ts_10241.shtml):
“Yes, the GOP is incompetent and corrupt. But I urge you to vote for them anyway because I think the Democrats are soft on national security. I don’t have any basis for this, but the leaders of Iran and North Korea are just like Hitler, and we all know that only the GOP could stand up to Hitler.”
Sowell is demented or deliberately misleading the people who regularly have his columns read to them. If, like Sowell, we measure strength on national security by the degree of warmongering, interventionism, and throwing money indiscriminately at the national security apparatus, the Democrats historically beat the GOP in head to head competition hands down. I prefer to measure strength on national security by the extent to which the party supports policies and investments that actually enhance national security without undue interference with individual liberty, but I am going to use Sowell “reasoning” to debunk his proposition that the Democrats are weak on national security.
Let’s take a trip down the national memory lane.
Who dispatched the navy and marines to North Africa to raise hell with the Barbary Pirates? The Democrat Thomas Jefferson. He also acquired Louisiana and all but eliminated the French as a bordering power.
Who got the US into the War of 1812 and was C-in-C during the invasion of Canada? The Democrat James Madison.
Who established the doctrine that interference by foreign powers with the western hemisphere would be deemed interference with the US? The Democrat James Monroe. Who failed to enforce this doctrine by letting France install Maximilian in Mexico? The Republican Abraham Lincoln. Monroe was also C-in-C when General Jackson, a Democrat, put the kibosh on raids by Indians and bandits from Spanish Florida. The acquisition of Florida eliminated Spain as a power on a good stretch of border.
Who ended the menace from Indians east of the Mississippi? The Democrat Andrew Jackson.
Who oversaw the defeat of Mexico and the annexation of vast parts of that country? The Democrat James Polk. Who was a namby pamby detractor of that glorious endeavor? None other than future Republican Abe Lincoln.
Who settled the northwest border with Britain on favorable terms and pacified the Nez Perce? Democrats Tyler, Pierce and Buchanan.
The War for Southern Independence doesn’t count for either party since it had nothing to do with national security and since it was prosecuted mainly by the GOP on one side and Democrats on the other. Arguably, this internecine struggle made the country considerably weaker.
The GOP gets credit for the next couple of decades of Indian Wars, although Little Big Horn was nothing to crow about. If you don’t count the Indians, there seems to have been a national consensus on pacifying Indians, so there are no points to be had by either party as compared to the other.
The GOP can have the Spanish-American War. They can also take the blame for the far flung possessions that had to be defended with no apparent increase in national security and no apparent benefit to the American people.
Who was hell bent on getting into WWI? The Democrat Woodrow Wilson. Who obstructed him and then negated any gains in security by torpedoing the League of Nations? The GOP.
Who was determined to stand up to Hitler and Japan? The Democrat Franklin Roosevelt. Who obstructed him until Pearl Harbor? The GOP.
Who nuked two entire cities of Japanese civilians just for the sake of convenience? The Democrat Harry Truman. He started the arms race and the Cold War policy that had bipartisan support for the next half century.
Who warned about the rise of the military industrial complex? Republican Dwight Eisenhower. The Democrats embraced the national security apparatus and have supported its growth enthusiastically whether they were in or out of power. They started Korea and Vietnam. Republicans pulled out.
Both parties embraced the Cold War policy of nuclear proliferation and brinksmanship that kept the world on the edge of annihilation. It was Republican Richard Nixon that came up with détente with the Soviets and made nice with China. What a softy!
Democrats have supported a number of mindless interventions and projections of power in recent history. Examples include Grenada, Lebanon, Haiti, Colombia, Somalia, the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq. They are changing their mind on the interventions in the Middle East, as they did with Vietnam, because it is clear to anyone with the sense that God gave a duck that they are hurting national security, not helping it.
By Sowell “reasoning”, his claim that Democrats are soft on national security is unsupportable. If your concern is with enemies just like Hitler, let’s remember the party that actually took Hitler out, the Democrats. Democrats are as warmongering and interventionist as the GOP, and they can’t be any worse than the GOP, can they? I’m going by my default: if Sowell says vote GOP, then it’s a safe bet that voting Democrat is the way to go. The GOP cannot be allowed to go unpunished for its incompetence, corruption and overreaching.
“Yes, the GOP is incompetent and corrupt. But I urge you to vote for them anyway because I think the Democrats are soft on national security. I don’t have any basis for this, but the leaders of Iran and North Korea are just like Hitler, and we all know that only the GOP could stand up to Hitler.”
Sowell is demented or deliberately misleading the people who regularly have his columns read to them. If, like Sowell, we measure strength on national security by the degree of warmongering, interventionism, and throwing money indiscriminately at the national security apparatus, the Democrats historically beat the GOP in head to head competition hands down. I prefer to measure strength on national security by the extent to which the party supports policies and investments that actually enhance national security without undue interference with individual liberty, but I am going to use Sowell “reasoning” to debunk his proposition that the Democrats are weak on national security.
Let’s take a trip down the national memory lane.
Who dispatched the navy and marines to North Africa to raise hell with the Barbary Pirates? The Democrat Thomas Jefferson. He also acquired Louisiana and all but eliminated the French as a bordering power.
Who got the US into the War of 1812 and was C-in-C during the invasion of Canada? The Democrat James Madison.
Who established the doctrine that interference by foreign powers with the western hemisphere would be deemed interference with the US? The Democrat James Monroe. Who failed to enforce this doctrine by letting France install Maximilian in Mexico? The Republican Abraham Lincoln. Monroe was also C-in-C when General Jackson, a Democrat, put the kibosh on raids by Indians and bandits from Spanish Florida. The acquisition of Florida eliminated Spain as a power on a good stretch of border.
Who ended the menace from Indians east of the Mississippi? The Democrat Andrew Jackson.
Who oversaw the defeat of Mexico and the annexation of vast parts of that country? The Democrat James Polk. Who was a namby pamby detractor of that glorious endeavor? None other than future Republican Abe Lincoln.
Who settled the northwest border with Britain on favorable terms and pacified the Nez Perce? Democrats Tyler, Pierce and Buchanan.
The War for Southern Independence doesn’t count for either party since it had nothing to do with national security and since it was prosecuted mainly by the GOP on one side and Democrats on the other. Arguably, this internecine struggle made the country considerably weaker.
The GOP gets credit for the next couple of decades of Indian Wars, although Little Big Horn was nothing to crow about. If you don’t count the Indians, there seems to have been a national consensus on pacifying Indians, so there are no points to be had by either party as compared to the other.
The GOP can have the Spanish-American War. They can also take the blame for the far flung possessions that had to be defended with no apparent increase in national security and no apparent benefit to the American people.
Who was hell bent on getting into WWI? The Democrat Woodrow Wilson. Who obstructed him and then negated any gains in security by torpedoing the League of Nations? The GOP.
Who was determined to stand up to Hitler and Japan? The Democrat Franklin Roosevelt. Who obstructed him until Pearl Harbor? The GOP.
Who nuked two entire cities of Japanese civilians just for the sake of convenience? The Democrat Harry Truman. He started the arms race and the Cold War policy that had bipartisan support for the next half century.
Who warned about the rise of the military industrial complex? Republican Dwight Eisenhower. The Democrats embraced the national security apparatus and have supported its growth enthusiastically whether they were in or out of power. They started Korea and Vietnam. Republicans pulled out.
Both parties embraced the Cold War policy of nuclear proliferation and brinksmanship that kept the world on the edge of annihilation. It was Republican Richard Nixon that came up with détente with the Soviets and made nice with China. What a softy!
Democrats have supported a number of mindless interventions and projections of power in recent history. Examples include Grenada, Lebanon, Haiti, Colombia, Somalia, the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq. They are changing their mind on the interventions in the Middle East, as they did with Vietnam, because it is clear to anyone with the sense that God gave a duck that they are hurting national security, not helping it.
By Sowell “reasoning”, his claim that Democrats are soft on national security is unsupportable. If your concern is with enemies just like Hitler, let’s remember the party that actually took Hitler out, the Democrats. Democrats are as warmongering and interventionist as the GOP, and they can’t be any worse than the GOP, can they? I’m going by my default: if Sowell says vote GOP, then it’s a safe bet that voting Democrat is the way to go. The GOP cannot be allowed to go unpunished for its incompetence, corruption and overreaching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)