One of the best examples of people's selective memory is Saturday Night Live. Ask folks who were around long enough about the early years and they all talk about how great it was. Their memory must have been refreshed by "Best of" recordings because while plenty of former cast members were truly special, the show hasn't really changed in quality all that much. Like all things, it's had its highs and lows, but it's still pretty good for what it does. Those who selectively remember only the high points through some very rough early years tend to forget how horrible all live bands used to sound or how many dud sketches even the greats sluffed through. What brings me to finally posting this worthless rambling is recent episode with host, comedian Dane Cook. It was one of the best I've seen in all of my memory with the exception maybe of lost episodes like the "dick" episode that will never be seen again. Anyway, this Cook guy's a nut. Not just a funny stand up performer, but a truly unique character with an observant, dead-on, twisted perspective and, as it turns out, a decent sketch performer as well. His weird energy filled in every minute of the show from his intro monologue (a rare, real writer-performer one) to the last skit. I can't remember the last time I actually stayed awake through an entire episode, but that's only because I'm getting old. This one kept me watching and when the music played and the cast gathered for the final call, I couldn't believe I'd been watching for the entire hour. You know life's good when you notice something simple and utterly unimportant like that.
You know what else is cool? High school sports. The night of that SNL episode also kicked off the basketball and wrapped up the football season. Champs were decided on gridirons in some parts of the state while contenders showed their game faces and announced their presence in gyms. The Russia-New Bremen game was as exciting as the SNL spectacle. (To a Russia fan) Two county champ candidates brushed off the off-season rust and ran at each other full speed in a game that could have gone either way until about 25 seconds were left. How cool is that?
And then, in one of the first worst winter blasts of the year, I drove all the way homeover and through freezing rain covered with a dusting of snow without seeing even one car in the ditch. It's almost as if the world (my little piece of it anyway) has suddenly wised up and seen the light... and that light is shining on me. It's a welcome change... or is it? Maybe I just ignored the signs of it earlier.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Luth
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Why no comments on the Kinsley piece?
I was in Iraq when I ran across the Michael Kinsley piece about how Democrats, since the Reagan years, have out-economized the Republicans consistently. The old tax and spenders have proven not only more fiscally responsible, but more fiscally conservative than the Repubs since, as Kinsley put it, "time began" during the Reagan years. I know Kinsley's pretty far left and not many people like him, but he cites White House budget reports and they support everything he claims.
What led me to this particular article though was that the O'reilly Factor picked on just about every column Kinsley wrote EXCEPT this one during the time period. Billy O criticized darn near every opinion Kinsley had except the one that happened to really matter... money talks, right? Or does it? Why is it that the two parties lob opinion pieces back and forth at each other endlessly, but when the facts come up, everyone shuts up. More importantly, how long do the Repubs get to be called the smaller government party even though their governments have cost us more since the 80s. How long do they get to claim that cutting taxes will increase revenues even though it hasn't happened since Reagan's golden era? Why is tax and spend such a bad thing but cut and spend (even more) is ok? It simply hasn't worked.
For that matter, how long do the Repubs get to be called the pro-life party when abortions have consistently gone up under their watch, but gone down under Dems. (Check the abortion stats... the numbers, like Kinsley points out, favor the Dems... in fact, Clinton is the only President since Roe v. Wade to actually see the number of abortions performed during his terms go down in 7 out of those 8 years. If you assume that his first year was still the result of the previous pres, HW Bush, then the case is sealed - Wild Willy is the last pro-life pres we've had according to the numbers) I don't know who gets to decide which party represents what, but the facts seem to suggest otherwise lately. How come nobody talks about that anymore?
At this point I feel the need, again, to point out that I don't belong to either party. I'll admit, there was a time when, if undecided or uninformed about a candidate, I would vote Dem by default, but those days are no more. Again, I only voted for one dem in the last two elections we've had. Voting by party is simply too dangerous... and as the Kinsley piece and the abortion numbers suggest, too misleading these days. If you don't know the candidate you want, you're better off not voting. Never thought I'd say that out loud.
So anyway, how come nobody ever comments about those numbers and the conclusions they support? Why isn't our "liberal" media all over that?! And if the economy is the key, how come there are so many people out there still supporting this spend and spend president?
Sign me "just curious"
Luth
Out
What led me to this particular article though was that the O'reilly Factor picked on just about every column Kinsley wrote EXCEPT this one during the time period. Billy O criticized darn near every opinion Kinsley had except the one that happened to really matter... money talks, right? Or does it? Why is it that the two parties lob opinion pieces back and forth at each other endlessly, but when the facts come up, everyone shuts up. More importantly, how long do the Repubs get to be called the smaller government party even though their governments have cost us more since the 80s. How long do they get to claim that cutting taxes will increase revenues even though it hasn't happened since Reagan's golden era? Why is tax and spend such a bad thing but cut and spend (even more) is ok? It simply hasn't worked.
For that matter, how long do the Repubs get to be called the pro-life party when abortions have consistently gone up under their watch, but gone down under Dems. (Check the abortion stats... the numbers, like Kinsley points out, favor the Dems... in fact, Clinton is the only President since Roe v. Wade to actually see the number of abortions performed during his terms go down in 7 out of those 8 years. If you assume that his first year was still the result of the previous pres, HW Bush, then the case is sealed - Wild Willy is the last pro-life pres we've had according to the numbers) I don't know who gets to decide which party represents what, but the facts seem to suggest otherwise lately. How come nobody talks about that anymore?
At this point I feel the need, again, to point out that I don't belong to either party. I'll admit, there was a time when, if undecided or uninformed about a candidate, I would vote Dem by default, but those days are no more. Again, I only voted for one dem in the last two elections we've had. Voting by party is simply too dangerous... and as the Kinsley piece and the abortion numbers suggest, too misleading these days. If you don't know the candidate you want, you're better off not voting. Never thought I'd say that out loud.
So anyway, how come nobody ever comments about those numbers and the conclusions they support? Why isn't our "liberal" media all over that?! And if the economy is the key, how come there are so many people out there still supporting this spend and spend president?
Sign me "just curious"
Luth
Out
The Sanctity of Marriage?!
I got a call tonight requesting my support of the God-ordained institution of marriage. If I support it, I was to press 1. If I felt the sanctity of man-woman marriage was worth saving, I should press 1. Right off the bat, it reminded me of those NRA surveys where only an idiot could possibly answer "no" to any of the questions and then at the end it says, "if you answered 'yes' to any of the above questions, you should give us your money now to protect your freedoms."
This "phone survey" however was even more presumptuous... there was never any other option than agreeing and pressing 1. Because I try to keep an open mind, I listened to the entire phone call and at the end I was invited to join this grass roots movement to save America and the American, God-ordained institution of man-woman marriage. Again, only one option. I couldn't press a number to indicate that I thought whoever was behind this was as radical as other fundamentalists in the news today. I couldn't ask any questions. I couldn't press a button or dial a number to indicate that I didn't want to be called by these people again. At least the NRA survey gave me the opportunity to check the "no" box even if its questions were loaded to the point where no one ever would.
I thought the national do-not-call register protected me from unsolicited calls like this, but, as it turns out, it falls into one of those categories that doesn't count. Technically, it was a sales call and it was definitely unsolicited, but there's no way I can remove my name from their list. I couldn't respond since it was recorded, and my only option was to call an 800 number if I wanted to join the movement. This call, the recorded voice explained, would get me on the mailing list to receive the actual petition.
What kind of legitimate organization with a legitimate cause conducts business like this? It's almost like toilet-papering someone's house, or lighting the flaming bag of poo on the front step. It's hit and run. Come to think of it, it's a little like the insurgents in Iraq. They fire off a few shots then high tail it out of there, or lob a few rockets into a base from miles away and no one ever saw them. They stir up some resentment, ruffle some feathers, maybe even cause some serious harm and then disappear into the periphery.
But that's not even what really bothers me about it. What really gets me is how irritatingly inconsistent their logic is. The sanctity of man-woman marriage?! By that do they mean the more than 50% divorce rate for "man-woman" marriages in this country? Or do they mean the sanctity that hetero marriages uphold when they stay together for the kids, but cheat on their spouses? Or is it the sanctity of marriages in which battered spouses stay because divorce brings too much shame, is not allowed by the church, or is scarier than leaving because our laws already favor it so much? What, exactly, is sanctified about heterosexual marriages?
Aside from these superficial inconsistencies, there are others more deeply rooted in this nation's history. No matter what the radical right fundamentalist caller believes about the Christian intent of our forefathers, Thomas Jefferson, a key forefather by most accounts, thought there should be a wall between church and state. So any time a person's argument is that God ordains it, then that's all the more reason the law of our nation should stay on the other side of that wall. If God truly ordains it, then we don't really need to worry about it anyway. God doesn't need man's laws to take care of business. There are plenty of countries that think otherwise. We invaded one recently, as if to say, "hey, you can't do that... you can't use your radical religious beliefs to rule your people!" We ignored another country where this is so even though their citizens flew planes into our buildings. Iraq had, and the Saudis have laws taken directly out of their holy book. By some interpretations (radical fundamentalist interpretations), those laws even justify those violent acts. Is that the sanctity of which my caller spoke? There are plenty of places in the world for people who think religion should shape law. America was founded by people who believed it should not.
Then there's the inconsistency of the party that has promoted the momentum of groups like that represented by the caller. Marriage, legally speaking, is defined by the states. How is it that the party of smaller government, the party that promises to reduce the government's intrusion into our lives fosters such intrusive thinking? It seems awfully flip-floppy, to borrow a term from their campaign rhetoric, to promote the usurpation of state powers but claim to support the "sanctity" of those powers. That's a flip-flop involving much more than poor word choice. That's flat out saying one thing but doing another. Most people call that lying.
In this country, as far as the law is concerned, marriage is no more than a legal partnership. Churches in America view marriage differently and the members of those churches are free to believe and practice whatever they want, but the law sees it as a partnership, nothing more. What the group who called me seems to propose is that we make our law look more like their interpretation of the Bible. Two problems with that in this country: 1) The liberty that churches have to define marriage is a direct result of Jefferson's efforts and desire to separate church and state. "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It's as simple as that. If Congress passes a law saying what kind of couples churches can marry, they are prohibiting a church's practices. 2) There is simply is no other justification for a ban on gay marriages than one based on religious beliefs... unless, of course, you consider "some people find it icky," to be a justification for constitutional change. So we either change our purposely non-religious constitution to be more religious, or we pass a law not based on religion, but that prohibits the exercise thereof. Either way, we're twisting what the founders said about Christian beliefs and ignoring what they said about keeping them out of the law. So do we believe in our constitution or not?
Merry Christmas!
Luth,
Out
This "phone survey" however was even more presumptuous... there was never any other option than agreeing and pressing 1. Because I try to keep an open mind, I listened to the entire phone call and at the end I was invited to join this grass roots movement to save America and the American, God-ordained institution of man-woman marriage. Again, only one option. I couldn't press a number to indicate that I thought whoever was behind this was as radical as other fundamentalists in the news today. I couldn't ask any questions. I couldn't press a button or dial a number to indicate that I didn't want to be called by these people again. At least the NRA survey gave me the opportunity to check the "no" box even if its questions were loaded to the point where no one ever would.
I thought the national do-not-call register protected me from unsolicited calls like this, but, as it turns out, it falls into one of those categories that doesn't count. Technically, it was a sales call and it was definitely unsolicited, but there's no way I can remove my name from their list. I couldn't respond since it was recorded, and my only option was to call an 800 number if I wanted to join the movement. This call, the recorded voice explained, would get me on the mailing list to receive the actual petition.
What kind of legitimate organization with a legitimate cause conducts business like this? It's almost like toilet-papering someone's house, or lighting the flaming bag of poo on the front step. It's hit and run. Come to think of it, it's a little like the insurgents in Iraq. They fire off a few shots then high tail it out of there, or lob a few rockets into a base from miles away and no one ever saw them. They stir up some resentment, ruffle some feathers, maybe even cause some serious harm and then disappear into the periphery.
But that's not even what really bothers me about it. What really gets me is how irritatingly inconsistent their logic is. The sanctity of man-woman marriage?! By that do they mean the more than 50% divorce rate for "man-woman" marriages in this country? Or do they mean the sanctity that hetero marriages uphold when they stay together for the kids, but cheat on their spouses? Or is it the sanctity of marriages in which battered spouses stay because divorce brings too much shame, is not allowed by the church, or is scarier than leaving because our laws already favor it so much? What, exactly, is sanctified about heterosexual marriages?
Aside from these superficial inconsistencies, there are others more deeply rooted in this nation's history. No matter what the radical right fundamentalist caller believes about the Christian intent of our forefathers, Thomas Jefferson, a key forefather by most accounts, thought there should be a wall between church and state. So any time a person's argument is that God ordains it, then that's all the more reason the law of our nation should stay on the other side of that wall. If God truly ordains it, then we don't really need to worry about it anyway. God doesn't need man's laws to take care of business. There are plenty of countries that think otherwise. We invaded one recently, as if to say, "hey, you can't do that... you can't use your radical religious beliefs to rule your people!" We ignored another country where this is so even though their citizens flew planes into our buildings. Iraq had, and the Saudis have laws taken directly out of their holy book. By some interpretations (radical fundamentalist interpretations), those laws even justify those violent acts. Is that the sanctity of which my caller spoke? There are plenty of places in the world for people who think religion should shape law. America was founded by people who believed it should not.
Then there's the inconsistency of the party that has promoted the momentum of groups like that represented by the caller. Marriage, legally speaking, is defined by the states. How is it that the party of smaller government, the party that promises to reduce the government's intrusion into our lives fosters such intrusive thinking? It seems awfully flip-floppy, to borrow a term from their campaign rhetoric, to promote the usurpation of state powers but claim to support the "sanctity" of those powers. That's a flip-flop involving much more than poor word choice. That's flat out saying one thing but doing another. Most people call that lying.
In this country, as far as the law is concerned, marriage is no more than a legal partnership. Churches in America view marriage differently and the members of those churches are free to believe and practice whatever they want, but the law sees it as a partnership, nothing more. What the group who called me seems to propose is that we make our law look more like their interpretation of the Bible. Two problems with that in this country: 1) The liberty that churches have to define marriage is a direct result of Jefferson's efforts and desire to separate church and state. "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It's as simple as that. If Congress passes a law saying what kind of couples churches can marry, they are prohibiting a church's practices. 2) There is simply is no other justification for a ban on gay marriages than one based on religious beliefs... unless, of course, you consider "some people find it icky," to be a justification for constitutional change. So we either change our purposely non-religious constitution to be more religious, or we pass a law not based on religion, but that prohibits the exercise thereof. Either way, we're twisting what the founders said about Christian beliefs and ignoring what they said about keeping them out of the law. So do we believe in our constitution or not?
Merry Christmas!
Luth,
Out
Monday, November 21, 2005
Proposed High School Football Rule Changes - No Player Left Behind
NEW FOOTBALL RULES
These changes are being proposed to make football programs work equally and more proficiently.
1. All teams must make the state playoffs, and all will win the championship. If a team does not win the championship, they will be on probation until they are champions, and coaches will be held responsible.
2. All kids will be expected to have the same football skills at the same time and in the same conditions. No exceptions will be made for interest in football, a desire to perform athletically, or genetic abilities or disabilities. ALL KIDS WILL PLAY AT A PROFICIENT LEVEL.
3. Talented players will be asked to work out on their own. Coaches must work with students who aren’t interested in football.
4. Games will be played year around but statistics will only be kept in the 4th, 8th and 11th games.
5. This will create a New Age of sports where every school is expected to have the same level of talent and all teams will reach the same minimal goals. If no team gets ahead, then no team will be left behind.
Reprinted *without* permission from SECO newsletter
Terry Shiverdecker Executive director
Terry Shiverdecker Executive director
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
One can only imagine how wonderful Ohio's High School Football program will be once these changes take effect. For those of you unfamiliar with the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, these proposed changes to OHSAA football rules are but a natural extension.
Once these changes are in place, minor details like single parent households where the one parent is working 60 hours a week to pay the bills and therefore can't help with homework or even suggest that school is a good idea, will simply disappear. In the meantime, these rule changes will eliminate the need for parental involvement anyway. These changes will make all students accept their responsibility on their own, motivating them all to become fully functioning football players simply because they will know that federal government is looking out for them by requiring them all to perform at the same level regardless of their actual ability, desire, support from home, or legal problems.
Likewise, the reliance on community involvement will be eliminated. With these rules in place, school levies will become a thing of the past. Members of communities who benefitted from well funded public schools in the past will be able to scrub from their conscience the fact that their public education was paid for with tax money, that it was good enough for them, and that it educated them enough in the political process to be able to vote no for a new levy. Modern students be damned what with all their wasteful ways, reliance on the public largesse, and greedy desire to get a diploma. NCLB will answer that call by adding more requirements to the already cash-strapped system thus enabling them to spend their way out of a deficit. After all, local debt, like national debt isn't really debt - it's just imaginary money we're borrowing from ourselves. School boards can simply follow the federal lead and quit worrying about balanced budgets and start focusing on football for everyone. With the focus on football, no one will notice 9 digit deficits in the local school board budgets.
These rules should solve the voucher issue as well. No more crying about public funds being funnelled off to private schools who don't have to follow the rules... who are able to recruit football players, and expel non-performers. Under this plan, everyone will be a football player. Private schools will no longer have the advantage of choosing their students from households where education is a high priority, where both parents attended college, where personal responsibility is instilled, and where a parent is available to help with homework and moral responsibility. Under the new rules, students won't need parents to instill values. The public schools will either do that through their NCLB Football Program or they'll be taken over by the state. Problem solved.
The need for Head Start programs or other such fluff will be eliminated immediately. When students' football prowess is measured at the 4th, 8th, and 11th games, they will be too focused on the tests to worry about whether or not they've had breakfast or adequate healthcare or been abused or any of that crap. Football will rule, and we'll measure it, and we'll get rid of coaches who can't convince their players that nutrition or mental health or a safe home environment or parents as role models aren't as important as football. Weed out the deadwood and play ball. Then test it so we know it works.
Sure, the tests and their administration will cost money, but we can make that up in a number of ways. First of all, we can eliminate all school counselors and administrators who aren't already coaches in their spare time. They don't need time with their familes. They need to keep the gyms and the weight rooms open at all hours. We won't need to deal with individual issues or seek scholarships or offer career advice or discipline students since every student will get a football scholarship and won't have to learn how to behave. If those budget cuts fall short, and we can't spend our way out of debt, the NFL will pitch in. Football programs will be so successful that NFL teams will want to pour money into them as their minor leagues. In addition, we can cut taxes, thereby sparking the local economies, thus actually generating more revenue. No matter how you look at it, this is a win-win, trust me.
But the best part is, we can begin systematically eliminating all those overpaid, egotistical teachers who don't carry their own weight and who believe their subject matter is even remotely important. Let's face it: Those who can do and those who can't teach. Those teachers and administrators have been given a free ride for far too long. What with all their "but what about the curriculum" and all that "I love my job." They've been sucking up the big bucks, having their egos massaged by rooms full of adolescent admirers for far too long. They've let the praise, constant adoration and gratitude of students and their parents, the public respect and inflated salaries, go to their heads. It's time for a wake-up call. They either turn those students, every one of them, into football studs, or they find a job at McDonald's. Where else will they find a use for those masters degrees?
Speaking of that, there's another funding source waiting to be tapped. How many school districts pay for all those state-mandated masters programs? That's ridiculous. Who ever heard of an employer requiring further education and then actually paying for that additional requirement! First off, we can cut the masters programs entirely. Then we can eliminate all those generous tuition reimbursement programs that help the already overpaid teachers pay for another diploma to hang on their "I-love-me" walls. Those teachers will eventually leave public schools anyway as soon as they realize the public good is better served if they leave the cushy, glamorous world of education and do something more altruistic like sell pharmaceuticals or consult corporations, or become actuaries or brokers or doctors or lawyers or GM employees or some other low-paying position for which they're probably way underqualified and certainly undereducated. While it's hard to leave the bell-scheduled-28-minute-lunch-perform-8-different-sales-pitches-to-120-hostile-clients-per-day-boogers-on-your-desk ritual, eventually a higher need does call many of them away. So we'll have that exodus working for us as well.
In the end, the state of Ohio will become a football powerplant generating batch after batch of high-performing players who will flood the NFL and go on to solve every single problem facing our nation, like stopping the Colts, or bringing the Texans up to speed, or putting all the elements of one Browns team together in the same season. Parents, health, abilities and desires will be eliminated from the equation - they're signs of selfishness anyway. They serve no purpose on a team. Ability won't matter as long as they want it bad enough and the coaches will make them want it bad enough once those pesky teachers and administrators with their petty curricular concerns are out of the way. Life skills, personal independence and responsibility will no longer weigh anyone down. In the rare event that a player falters or loses the desire, that player can carry water bottles during the game and run suicides in practice until the motivation returns. I really don't see how we can lose nor why we waited so long to implement such a basic idea.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Shiverdecker is a former science teacher where I work. She now works for the Science Education Council for Ohio (SECO). The only change I made to the "New Football Rules" from their newsletter is to change the "Reprinted with permission..." to "Reprinted without..." I hope I don't get sued for that!
At this point, I feel it appropriate to end with a quote from a highly regarded cultural source. In the immortal words of Ox, from his informative, thoughtful, cleverly written campaign speech for student council president in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure:
"SAN DIMAS HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL RULES!"
Luth,
Out.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Democrats more fiscally conservative than Republicans?!
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/tables05.html
This is the page where you can access the President's Economic Report frequently referenced in the following editorial. The report compilers conveniently list historical reports, in most cases back through 1959, with this year's report.
I've included it here because I know many people won't trust Michael Kinsley's opinion. Even the LA Times fired him. That's probably why he looked at, and clearly referenced the reports found at that URL.
I can't say any better than he did what this LA Times editorial says so I won't even try. I just find it amazing that so many people continue to operate under the beliefs it dispels. Doing so is akin to my wife's method of predicting NFL outcomes. She goes by the quarterback, which isn't really a bad method, except when she thinks Cowboys, she thinks Roger Staubach - clearly a different circumstance than today. As times change, so do the players. Sounds like it's time for fiscal conservatives to buy a new program to keep up with the quarterbacks.
----------------------------------------
"More GOP Than the GOP"
Michael Kinsley, LATimes.com on the Web, April 3, 2005
Los Angeles -- It was the TV talker Chris Matthews, I believe, who first labeled Democrats and Republicans the "Mommy Party" and the "Daddy Party." Archaic as these stereotypes may be, they do capture general attitudes about the two parties. But we live in the age of the one-parent family, and it is Mom, more often than Dad, who must play both roles.
This is the page where you can access the President's Economic Report frequently referenced in the following editorial. The report compilers conveniently list historical reports, in most cases back through 1959, with this year's report.
I've included it here because I know many people won't trust Michael Kinsley's opinion. Even the LA Times fired him. That's probably why he looked at, and clearly referenced the reports found at that URL.
I can't say any better than he did what this LA Times editorial says so I won't even try. I just find it amazing that so many people continue to operate under the beliefs it dispels. Doing so is akin to my wife's method of predicting NFL outcomes. She goes by the quarterback, which isn't really a bad method, except when she thinks Cowboys, she thinks Roger Staubach - clearly a different circumstance than today. As times change, so do the players. Sounds like it's time for fiscal conservatives to buy a new program to keep up with the quarterbacks.
----------------------------------------
"More GOP Than the GOP"
Michael Kinsley, LATimes.com on the Web, April 3, 2005
Los Angeles -- It was the TV talker Chris Matthews, I believe, who first labeled Democrats and Republicans the "Mommy Party" and the "Daddy Party." Archaic as these stereotypes may be, they do capture general attitudes about the two parties. But we live in the age of the one-parent family, and it is Mom, more often than Dad, who must play both roles.
It has not escaped notice that the Daddy Party has been fiscally misbehaving. But it hasn't really sunk in how completely the Republicans have abandoned allegedly Republican values — if, in fact, they ever really had such values.
Our text today is the 2005 Economic Report of the President. I did this exercise a year ago, and couldn't quite believe the results. But the 2005 data confirm it: The party with the best record of serving Republican economic values is the Democrats. It isn't even close.
The values I'm referring to are widely shared. We all want prosperity, we oppose unemployment, we dislike inflation, we don't enjoy paying taxes, etc. They're Republican only in the sense that Republicans are supposed to treasure them more, and to be more reluctant to sacrifice them for other goals, such as equality or clean air. Statistics in the Economic Report back to 1960 tell the story. And a consistent pattern over 45 years cannot be explained away by shorter-term factors, like war or who controls Congress.
Maybe presidents can't affect the economy much. But the assumption that they can and do is so prominent in Republican rhetoric that they are stuck with it. Consider federal spending (a.k.a. "big government"). It has gone up an average of about $50 billion a year under presidents of both parties. But that breaks down as $35 billion a year under Democratic presidents and $60 billion under Republicans. If you assume that it takes a year for a president's policies to take effect (so, for example, President Clinton is responsible for 2001 and George W. Bush takes over in 2002), Democrats have raised spending by $40 billion a year and Republicans by $55 billion.
Leaning over backward even further, let's start our measurement in 1981, the date when Ronald Reagan took office on a platform of shrinking government and many Republicans believe that life as we know it began. The result: Democrats still have a better record at smaller government. Republican presidents added more government spending for each year they served, whether you credit them with the actual years they served or with the year that followed.
Now look at federal revenues (a.k.a. taxes). You can't take it away from them: Republicans do cut taxes. Or rather, tax revenues go up under both parties, but only about half as fast under Republicans. This is true no matter when you start counting, or whether you give a president's policies that extra year to take effect. It's the only test of Republican economics that the Republicans win. That is, they win if you consider lower federal revenues to be a victory.
Sometimes Republicans say that cutting taxes will raise government revenues by stimulating the economy. And sometimes they say that lower revenues are good because they will lead (by some mysterious process) to lower spending. The numbers in the Economic Report undermine both theories. Spending goes up faster under Republican presidents than under Democratic ones. And the economy grows faster under Democrats than Republicans.
What grows faster under Republicans is debt. Under Republican presidents since 1960, the federal deficit has averaged $131 billion a year. Under Democrats, that figure is $30 billion. In an average Republican year the deficit has grown by $36 billion. In the average Democratic year it has shrunk by $25 billion. The national debt has gone up more than $200 billion a year under Republican presidents and less than $100 billion a year under Democrats.
If you start counting in 1981 or attribute responsibility with a year's delay, the numbers change, but the bottom line doesn't: Democrats do Republican economics better than Republicans do.
As for measures of general prosperity, each president inherits the economy. What counts is what happens next. Let's take just two measures, although they all show the same thing: Democrats do better under every variation.
From 1960 to 2005, the gross domestic product measured in year-2000 dollars (in other words, taking inflation into account) rose an average of $165 billion a year under Republican presidents and $212 billion a year under Democrats. Measured from 1989, or with a one-year delay, or both, the results are similar. And how about this one? The average annual rise in real per capita income (that's the statistic that puts money in your pocket): Democrats score about 30% higher. Democratic presidents have a better record on inflation (averaging 3.13 % versus 3.89% for Republicans) and on unemployment (5.33% versus 6.38%). Unemployment went down in the average Democratic year, up in the average Republican one.
Oh yes, almost forgot: If you start in 1981 and if you factor in a year's delay, inflation under Republican presidents averages 4.36%, while under Democrats it's 4.57%. Congratulations.
--------------------------------------------
Luth,
Out
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Civil Discussions don't have to be civil to be beneficial.
This one's for Ray, and how encouraging it is to hear his point.
By definition, civil discussion is the same thing as argument. The American Heritage Dictionary (via dictionary.com) lists, "a discussion in which disagreement is expressed" as the primary definition for the word "argument." Their listing under the secondary use of the term is, "A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood." So I'm not at all surprised that Ray and WCharles have "civil discussions" in spite of the fact that they are from opposing ends of the political spectrum. What surprises me is that they're willing to admit it and how few people still engage in it.
Here's the deal: civil discussion is beneficial to all who engage or even listen. It is the only way to solve problems that we've never considered before because if we don't at least hear another point of view, the only facts we'll consider are the ones we've already considered. What happens when a new problem comes along? Civil discussion is a handy way to get the job done or the decision made and I believe it is precisely what our founding fathers had in mind when they created that whole checks and balances scenario. Civil discussion used to be the fruit of our two-party system that evolved out of what those fathers set up. These days, however, civil discussion, which is actually just argument, has taken on an evil persona.
I'd rather listen to Plato and Socrates... so did our founding fathers. Plato and Socrates had this crazy idea that by arguing (discussing) topics, we could learn more about them and come up with better decisions that were necessary in order to deal with those topics. So why is argument such a bad word today? Why do so many shy away from argument now? Why has it become acceptable to "avoid confrontation," especially in places where it's supposed to happen, like congress, or on topics about which it is necessary to establish consensus, like politics. How is it that we let "never argue politics" become de facto law in a land supposedly run by the people. If we don't argue, we can't rule. Not effectively and in the spirit of how our rule was created anyway.
As a continuing student of the writing process, I've noticed a trend in the changing definition of research as well... formal research in an academic environment, that stems from this changing connotation of argument.
While it is human nature to seek out that which proves our point while at the same time ignoring that which disproves it, academic research used to mean getting over that human trait in search of something closer to true knowledge. Academic research used to mean learning something. Today it seems to mean "proving our point." But if all we ever do is seek out only that information which proves our own point and ignore the rest of the facts, we've stopped learning anything. Before I continue, I have to give credit to Dr. Chris Hall in the Graduate Writing and Rhetoric program at Wright State University. His was the first class I've attended in which this topic was formally discussed. He made it very clear in his Research for Writing class that one's thesis may change, perhaps dramatically, during the collection of information. If it doesn't, you're probably not doing real research... or your topic may not be worthy of research since you were able to guess at the thesis without gathering data on it.
So what does academia have to do with our political world these days? In his article, "Greetings from Idiot America," in the November Esquire, Tom Junod describes the nationwide effect of this changing definition of research like this: "...America is devolving into a land where fact is merely that which enough people believe and truth is measured by how fervently they believe it." Junod describes several ways for determining truth in Idiot America including this handy test: "How does it play to Joe Six-Pack in the bar?" To verify this decision making process, Junod points out the survey taken during the presidential election wherein more respondents said they'd rather have a beer with W than with John Kerry. And so the fate of a nation went. The only problem I have with this is, if we're going to elect "one of the guys" as president, I want it to be me. I doubt I could have done a better job, but I want it to be me. When electing a president, "most fun to have a beer with" shouldn't be a factor. I don't want to be president precisely because I am one of the guys. A president should be more than that. That should have been an argument but it wasn't. It wasn't allowed to be because we all wanted to avoid confrontation.
Idiot America's method for "discovering truth" is great for checking popular opinion, but that's not fact. It's not truth. Worse, when facts aren't involved, Idiot America seems to think that right or wrong can be determined in the same way - numbers. In addition to forgetting what the definition of "argument" really is, we seem to have forgotten that majority rules, which is an expedient way of ending discussion, has no bearing whatsoever on whether the outcome is actually a good one. Idiot America says, "hey, the majority said it, so it must be true or good." Truth has nothing to do with numbers. It shouldn't anyway. Nor does truth have anything to do with marketing. We all bought VCRs instead of the superior Beta... we continued to buy Harleys when they were really AMFs (and junk). The numbers are no indication of truth or quality.
So when Idiot America confuses the majority opinion with the truth, the argument should begin. It is at this point that the importance of discussion, civil or otherwise, becomes evident. Rather than growing tired of arguing and calling for an immediate vote, this is when the argument should pick up steam. And the arguers need to forget feeling good, or avoiding confrontation and just argue. State your points. Listen to the other guy's points. Get mad, say the wrong things, throw political correctness out the frickin' window and argue for Pete's sake! How else are you ever going to find any common ground?
The issue of confrontation avoidance may well be at the heart of the changing definition of research. Since we don't really want to offend anyone anymore, we quietly gather all of our facts, launch a salvo of them, and leave. We concentrate so hard on making bulletproof "arguments" that we don't bother to acknowledge any of the facts that don't fit the plan. Instead of asking the "opponent" what he knows about this or that fact, which would fall into his area of expertise and make his case and hurt ours, we ignore those facts. In this way, everyone can stay happy and smile because no one has to argue or debate anything. Then we let all of this build up until it spills into public policy, formed in the absence of true debate rather than as a result of it. Instead of trying to determine if our facts are sound, we concern ourselves more with how many people agree with them.
That's not what the founding fathers had in mind. They argued. I think we're supposed to as well.
The 'blog is such a great forum for it too. No one gets hurt but everyone can play. So when I am overtaken by my military institutionalization and stoop to creating an acronym for Anonymous Super Spin Boy, don't be offended Ray. If I didn't see some worthwhile outcome in engaging your comments, I wouldn't respond to them. ASS boy was pretty low, but it didn't really hurt and it wasn't really intended to... it was intended to keep you coming back, armed to the teeth so that something bigger might come of all this wind.
A close friend of mine is also a conservative republican. In our younger days, we had quite a few discussions of the sort Ray and WCharles have, only ours weren't usually civil. They are much more so these days, but only because we've both grown so disillusioned. But even in the most heated, non-civil arguments, I learned a lot. He's told me he gave up discussing politics with me because he didn't want to argue. (exactly my point) By the new definition, many would call that a victory. I considered it a loss, on my part, of his perspective. I've always respected his views and just assumed we agreed to disagree, but during our last little vacation in Iraq, I discovered how much we really have in common again. In fact here's a funny story about that:
He and I were driving back from lunch one day when we passed the spot where two of our troops had been injured when a rocket landed near them. The injuries were minor (to the extent that an injury during a war can be minor), but met the requirements of the Purple Heart citation. Rumors and opinions flew through camp, as gossip tends to, on whether these medals were deserved or not and we couldn't really escape it even though neither of us really cared whether or not these guys got their medals. We were just glad we didn't get hurt! And, of course, that these two guys weren't hurt more seriously.
As we rounded the corner of the building where the incident took place, he turned to me just as I turned to him and here's what we said to each other simultaneously:
Me: I'll never question the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth again.
Him: I'll never question John Kerry's Purple Hearts again.
This inspired a healthy dose of much needed laughter and it re-opened our long dormant discussions. He's pretty pissed right now about the current price of diesel fuel. I'm pretty pissed about the public opinion polls which, from my perspective, only confirm what I had guessed seven years ago and tried to say more eloquently again three years ago.
So it shouldn't surprise you Ray that I do value your opinion even if I think it's wrong. (I'm kidding... I don't always think that, and it's your opinion... it doesn't matter what I think of it!) I want to hear it. I want to be forced to reinforce and defend my own thoughts. The way I see it, if you're not willing to argue for your opinion, then how much can you really believe it. And, as they say, if you don't believe in something, you'll fall for anything. I don't want people who will fall for anything electing my next Commander in Chief. I don't want people whose opinions are so weak, so ill founded that they're not capable or are not willing to defend them deciding the fate of our nation.
Oh, and don't take Matthawk's criticism as harshly as it sounds. Less than five years ago he and I had a series of heated discussions about how important voting is... he wasn't even registered and tried to convince me it was a waste of time! I didn't win anything and he didn't lose, but now he stays informed on the issues and he votes and is learning to express his opinions on matters politic. He's relatively new to the game and is just sharpening his claws, so give him some room. I've had to all my life... he's my little brother. Don't think I molded his opinion either... he never does anything I tell him to do. He says he just got tired of the idiots he works with choosing his leader for him.
And no, it doesn't surprise me to hear that democrats are described as not wanting to hear the truth on conservative 'blogs... nor does it really concern me all that much. I'm not a democrat. On the 2004 ballot, I only voted for one democrat (guess who) out of about fifteen partisan races. But did you know that on some liberal 'blogs people say Ann Coulter is hot? I love a woman who's not afraid to argue! It's one of many, many reasons I stay married to my wife!
By definition, civil discussion is the same thing as argument. The American Heritage Dictionary (via dictionary.com) lists, "a discussion in which disagreement is expressed" as the primary definition for the word "argument." Their listing under the secondary use of the term is, "A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood." So I'm not at all surprised that Ray and WCharles have "civil discussions" in spite of the fact that they are from opposing ends of the political spectrum. What surprises me is that they're willing to admit it and how few people still engage in it.
Here's the deal: civil discussion is beneficial to all who engage or even listen. It is the only way to solve problems that we've never considered before because if we don't at least hear another point of view, the only facts we'll consider are the ones we've already considered. What happens when a new problem comes along? Civil discussion is a handy way to get the job done or the decision made and I believe it is precisely what our founding fathers had in mind when they created that whole checks and balances scenario. Civil discussion used to be the fruit of our two-party system that evolved out of what those fathers set up. These days, however, civil discussion, which is actually just argument, has taken on an evil persona.
I'd rather listen to Plato and Socrates... so did our founding fathers. Plato and Socrates had this crazy idea that by arguing (discussing) topics, we could learn more about them and come up with better decisions that were necessary in order to deal with those topics. So why is argument such a bad word today? Why do so many shy away from argument now? Why has it become acceptable to "avoid confrontation," especially in places where it's supposed to happen, like congress, or on topics about which it is necessary to establish consensus, like politics. How is it that we let "never argue politics" become de facto law in a land supposedly run by the people. If we don't argue, we can't rule. Not effectively and in the spirit of how our rule was created anyway.
As a continuing student of the writing process, I've noticed a trend in the changing definition of research as well... formal research in an academic environment, that stems from this changing connotation of argument.
While it is human nature to seek out that which proves our point while at the same time ignoring that which disproves it, academic research used to mean getting over that human trait in search of something closer to true knowledge. Academic research used to mean learning something. Today it seems to mean "proving our point." But if all we ever do is seek out only that information which proves our own point and ignore the rest of the facts, we've stopped learning anything. Before I continue, I have to give credit to Dr. Chris Hall in the Graduate Writing and Rhetoric program at Wright State University. His was the first class I've attended in which this topic was formally discussed. He made it very clear in his Research for Writing class that one's thesis may change, perhaps dramatically, during the collection of information. If it doesn't, you're probably not doing real research... or your topic may not be worthy of research since you were able to guess at the thesis without gathering data on it.
So what does academia have to do with our political world these days? In his article, "Greetings from Idiot America," in the November Esquire, Tom Junod describes the nationwide effect of this changing definition of research like this: "...America is devolving into a land where fact is merely that which enough people believe and truth is measured by how fervently they believe it." Junod describes several ways for determining truth in Idiot America including this handy test: "How does it play to Joe Six-Pack in the bar?" To verify this decision making process, Junod points out the survey taken during the presidential election wherein more respondents said they'd rather have a beer with W than with John Kerry. And so the fate of a nation went. The only problem I have with this is, if we're going to elect "one of the guys" as president, I want it to be me. I doubt I could have done a better job, but I want it to be me. When electing a president, "most fun to have a beer with" shouldn't be a factor. I don't want to be president precisely because I am one of the guys. A president should be more than that. That should have been an argument but it wasn't. It wasn't allowed to be because we all wanted to avoid confrontation.
Idiot America's method for "discovering truth" is great for checking popular opinion, but that's not fact. It's not truth. Worse, when facts aren't involved, Idiot America seems to think that right or wrong can be determined in the same way - numbers. In addition to forgetting what the definition of "argument" really is, we seem to have forgotten that majority rules, which is an expedient way of ending discussion, has no bearing whatsoever on whether the outcome is actually a good one. Idiot America says, "hey, the majority said it, so it must be true or good." Truth has nothing to do with numbers. It shouldn't anyway. Nor does truth have anything to do with marketing. We all bought VCRs instead of the superior Beta... we continued to buy Harleys when they were really AMFs (and junk). The numbers are no indication of truth or quality.
So when Idiot America confuses the majority opinion with the truth, the argument should begin. It is at this point that the importance of discussion, civil or otherwise, becomes evident. Rather than growing tired of arguing and calling for an immediate vote, this is when the argument should pick up steam. And the arguers need to forget feeling good, or avoiding confrontation and just argue. State your points. Listen to the other guy's points. Get mad, say the wrong things, throw political correctness out the frickin' window and argue for Pete's sake! How else are you ever going to find any common ground?
The issue of confrontation avoidance may well be at the heart of the changing definition of research. Since we don't really want to offend anyone anymore, we quietly gather all of our facts, launch a salvo of them, and leave. We concentrate so hard on making bulletproof "arguments" that we don't bother to acknowledge any of the facts that don't fit the plan. Instead of asking the "opponent" what he knows about this or that fact, which would fall into his area of expertise and make his case and hurt ours, we ignore those facts. In this way, everyone can stay happy and smile because no one has to argue or debate anything. Then we let all of this build up until it spills into public policy, formed in the absence of true debate rather than as a result of it. Instead of trying to determine if our facts are sound, we concern ourselves more with how many people agree with them.
That's not what the founding fathers had in mind. They argued. I think we're supposed to as well.
The 'blog is such a great forum for it too. No one gets hurt but everyone can play. So when I am overtaken by my military institutionalization and stoop to creating an acronym for Anonymous Super Spin Boy, don't be offended Ray. If I didn't see some worthwhile outcome in engaging your comments, I wouldn't respond to them. ASS boy was pretty low, but it didn't really hurt and it wasn't really intended to... it was intended to keep you coming back, armed to the teeth so that something bigger might come of all this wind.
A close friend of mine is also a conservative republican. In our younger days, we had quite a few discussions of the sort Ray and WCharles have, only ours weren't usually civil. They are much more so these days, but only because we've both grown so disillusioned. But even in the most heated, non-civil arguments, I learned a lot. He's told me he gave up discussing politics with me because he didn't want to argue. (exactly my point) By the new definition, many would call that a victory. I considered it a loss, on my part, of his perspective. I've always respected his views and just assumed we agreed to disagree, but during our last little vacation in Iraq, I discovered how much we really have in common again. In fact here's a funny story about that:
He and I were driving back from lunch one day when we passed the spot where two of our troops had been injured when a rocket landed near them. The injuries were minor (to the extent that an injury during a war can be minor), but met the requirements of the Purple Heart citation. Rumors and opinions flew through camp, as gossip tends to, on whether these medals were deserved or not and we couldn't really escape it even though neither of us really cared whether or not these guys got their medals. We were just glad we didn't get hurt! And, of course, that these two guys weren't hurt more seriously.
As we rounded the corner of the building where the incident took place, he turned to me just as I turned to him and here's what we said to each other simultaneously:
Me: I'll never question the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth again.
Him: I'll never question John Kerry's Purple Hearts again.
This inspired a healthy dose of much needed laughter and it re-opened our long dormant discussions. He's pretty pissed right now about the current price of diesel fuel. I'm pretty pissed about the public opinion polls which, from my perspective, only confirm what I had guessed seven years ago and tried to say more eloquently again three years ago.
So it shouldn't surprise you Ray that I do value your opinion even if I think it's wrong. (I'm kidding... I don't always think that, and it's your opinion... it doesn't matter what I think of it!) I want to hear it. I want to be forced to reinforce and defend my own thoughts. The way I see it, if you're not willing to argue for your opinion, then how much can you really believe it. And, as they say, if you don't believe in something, you'll fall for anything. I don't want people who will fall for anything electing my next Commander in Chief. I don't want people whose opinions are so weak, so ill founded that they're not capable or are not willing to defend them deciding the fate of our nation.
Oh, and don't take Matthawk's criticism as harshly as it sounds. Less than five years ago he and I had a series of heated discussions about how important voting is... he wasn't even registered and tried to convince me it was a waste of time! I didn't win anything and he didn't lose, but now he stays informed on the issues and he votes and is learning to express his opinions on matters politic. He's relatively new to the game and is just sharpening his claws, so give him some room. I've had to all my life... he's my little brother. Don't think I molded his opinion either... he never does anything I tell him to do. He says he just got tired of the idiots he works with choosing his leader for him.
And no, it doesn't surprise me to hear that democrats are described as not wanting to hear the truth on conservative 'blogs... nor does it really concern me all that much. I'm not a democrat. On the 2004 ballot, I only voted for one democrat (guess who) out of about fifteen partisan races. But did you know that on some liberal 'blogs people say Ann Coulter is hot? I love a woman who's not afraid to argue! It's one of many, many reasons I stay married to my wife!
Friday, October 21, 2005
Biblical Interpretations
"I would dictate that "tolerance groups" who go about promoting thier homosexual agenda and who hypocratically persecute those of us who believe homosexuality is a sin, will from now on be made to read the Bible (either the King James or New International Version) in its entirey until they realize the error of thier ways. " WJL from Shaker Heights, OH
I was browsing 'blogs, procrastinating the mountain of work I brought home for the weekend when I ran across one of those political quizzes that promises to tell you if you're liberal or conservative... so I took it... no surprises, and while looking at my results and those of the last 10 quizzees, just as I thought there wasn't anything to get fired up about, I found WJL- from-Shaker-Heights,-OH's quote.
The spelling above is as it appeared on the site. In fact, I just cut and pasted it here from OKCupid.com... where I took the quiz. That should be the first indication that something is wrong with WJL, but it's far from the only indication. As a trained grader of student writing, I have learned to look for the potential, not the mechanical flaws, so I can overlook and make the best of the poor spelling and punctuation WJL uses. It's the potential that frightens me. WJL seems to have the potential to stir up the fourth Reich. While WJL is certainly entitled to this opinion, it's frighteningly narrowminded and a little misguided.
From WJL's quote we can make a number of inferences.
WJL...
-believes there can be no other interpretation of the Bible than his or her own
-believes that all who support tolerance have and promote a "homosexual agenda"
-believes that supporting the rights of others = persecution of WJL
And, as expected, here's why I believe WJL is wrong. First of all, WJL assumes that "interpreting" the Bible in any way other than WJL's is wrong. What WJL doesn't account for is the fact that the two versions of the Bible she* mentions are, in fact, interpretations of the book which had already been interpreted several times prior to that. Guesses as to the original meaning are just that and anything other than general guidance from the Book, interpreted by humans, is bound to be flawed as a result. Add to that the fact that many of those interpretations came at the behest of kings whose agendas were made clear to the interpreters and the threat of punishment for any of them who failed to incorporate those agendas made just as clear, and the distance from God's word to what we have today is greater than the years. (*to avoid our language's awkward lack of a non-gender singular personal pronoun I'm going to assume WJL is a woman henceforth)
So the interpretation argument is flawed already, but as long as we're on it, let's take a closer look at the particular interpretation that WJL seems to have come up with. I'll have to assume that WJL would mention Sodom and Gomorrah as "evidence" that homosexuality is a sin. Again, this is a pretty specific interpretation, not general guidance, thus it's slippery at best. In any event, the Bibles to which WJL refers say nothing of the sort regarding Sodom. Nothing that specific anyway. In fact, if anything, those Bibles promote rape by portraying Lot as a good guy who offers his daughters up to appease the mob (offering them to be raped.) Then later in Isaiah (1:10 & 3:9) and Ezekiel (16:49) those Bibles tell us that social injustice and oppression of the poor were the reasons Sodom was destroyed, not the homosexual intentions of the mob and their treatment of Lot's guests. Even Jesus tells us that Sodom was destroyed because of inhospitality (Luke 10:12). So there's no indication whatsoever that the city was destroyed due to homosexuality, but rather for the way everyone there except Lot treated guests. Benevolent treatment of guests was kind of big thing back in the day. It's a general idea that can be safely interpreted since it is supported by other sources of history. It was almost like they were tolerant of travellers. More than that, they were good Samaritans to them. Yeah, they were more than tolerant to them. But who would ever read that in the Bible!
So where else might WJL be getting her ideas about homosexuality? Well, there's the oft cited story of Leviticus (18:22) which clearly instructs us... "Do not lie with a man as with a woman; that is detestable. If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own hands." How much clearer can you get than that?! The only problem there is that just about all Christians ignore the rest of Leviticus because it goes on to add some other crazy rules like...
men shouldn't cut their hair, don't eat meat with blood in it, don't eat rabbit or shellfish, don't have sex during menstruation, don't cross breed cattle, and don't wear clothes made out of more than one material. One can only guess at what agendas may have been furthered by such rules, but we're all pretty comfortable ignoring them today. So why are we all so comfortable ignoring the bulk of Leviticus as crazy, outdated, or whatever excuse we make to ignore it, but that part about the man and the woman and the man... well, that part's serious man! Again, we could take general advice from the Book, but when it comes to specific interpretations, or specific directions on what to do and how to do it, we're just asking for trouble.
But maybe it's clearer somewhere else... Paul, the apostle, he was pretty clear about it. He said it was unnatural for women to be with women and men to be with men. Of course he also said men should have SHORT hair (he should have consulted Leviticus!) and women will only be redeemed through childbirth - so Hillary Clinton is going to Heaven but Mother Theresa is not?! WOW, I wonder why WJL left that interpretation out?
Even Paul's charges aren't as clear as they seem. People who have spent their lives studying the Bible as theologians and as literary scholars can only agree that some of the words interpreted these days that Paul supposedly used can't be interpreted today. In my own trusted Revised Standard Version,1Corinthianss 6:9 specifically mentions "homosexuals" among those not inheriting the kingdom of God. There's a footnote with it though that says, "two Greek words are rendered by this expression." Now I know that WJL doesn't specifically mention the RSV, but this footnote doesn't even come close to explaining that the alleged original text from which this was interpreted used the word, "arsenokoitai" instead of the word "homosexuals." Did you get that out of the footnote? Do you even read footnotes?
Here's what the KJV says in the same verse: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind..." Hey wait a minute there WJL... KJV doesn't say anything about homosexuals! But it does suggest that Ghandi and maybe even Jimmy Carter ain't goin' to Heaven! (C'mon, admit it, he was pretty effeminate... for a president anyway.)
And here's the NIV interpretation: Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders..." Well, at least they put the homos back in. Apparently straight female prostitutes who don't overcharge and make correct change are OK though. (see how much fun strict, detailed interpretations can be!)
And here's the crazy part... while that original word, arsenokoitai, has been interpreted by some Biblical scholars as maybe meaning homosexual, most think it referred to "sacred prostitutes" or the young virile men who "worked" in fertility temples at a time when Christianity was competing with the Greek gods for popularity. It was the non-Christian Greeks who promoted the fertility temples. Here's how they worked: Seemingly barren women visited the fertility temple, "worshipped" these young virile men, and lo and behold, came home preggers! Is it any wonder that their husbands and Paul thought these guys might not represent the ideal lifestyle and should be considered bad, bad men? It's Orwell's Ministry of Love gaining a foothold in the ancient world. Paul put a stop to it, but his motive for stopping it didn't have anything to do with homosexuality.
There are other circumstances throughout the Bible that can be laced together to suggest that not only were homosexuals tolerated, but even destined to inherit the Earth. Examinations of the word "naked" indicate that it meant more than just "naked" and lots of people were naked together that don't fit WJL's interpretation. Various interpretations of specific words can change the entire meaning of a passage and even how several passages work together. Hence the danger of word by word interpretations, or the use of specific words to prove any specific meaning. These extended interpretations are fun and perhaps will appear in another installment, but this short story's already become long so let's move on.
The second inference I made based on WJL's quote is that if one is tolerant, one promotes a homosexual agenda. This probably isn't even really an inference since WJL, having left no wiggle room, practically states this. This one will be a little tougher to shoot down because I'm not even sure what a homosexual agenda is, so I'll follow my advice and stay general. In spite of all of WJL's assumptions about the Bible, one general idea that most Biblical scholars, casual Christians and even atheists agree on is this: Jesus was the poster boy for tolerance. God wasn't. The God in the Old Testament was vindictive and vengeful, but Jesus is definitely tolerant. There's little question about that. The guy didn't even protest when he was wrongly convicted and forced to carry his own crucifix up the mountain. Heck, in Mel Gibson's version of it, he put up with some severe beatings on the way. That's pretty tolerant. So... if I may borrow WJL's own premises, Jesus was a one man "tolerance group." Tolerance groups have homosexual agendas. Therefore Jesus had a homosexual agenda and should thus be forced to read the KJV or the NIV in their "entirey" until He realizes the error of His ways. Moving on...
I don't even know WJL. I'm pretty sure I've never persecuted WJL in spite of being quick to stand for others' rights. Having grown up close to there, I'd go so far as to say that living in Shaker Heights these days is actually a pretty good insulator against most forms of persecution with the possible exception of self-imposed persecution. Here's how that might work: A person convinces herself that only a strictly defined, extremely limited set of behaviors is right and everything else is wrong. In fear of falling on the wrong side of that line, the person chooses to live in fear of everything different from herself and thus limits social and public interaction as a result. When this person realizes what a crappy life such narrowmindedness has created, she grows bitter and seeks out someone or something to blame. Hey, why not mankind in general what with all its tolerance and deviant behavior! Only that's not really persecution. It's fear driven ignorance-induced self exile. So don't blame the rest of us for your choices WJL! It's Jesus's fault. Cuz by WJL-logic, Jesus, with his tolerance and homosexual agenda has persecuted WJL. If the rest of us apply the old WWJD test, we too should persecute WJL. It would be "hypocratical" of a Bible thumper like WJL to complain about that, wouldn't it?
NOTE: I was really lazy in not listing some of my sources for this info. There's no excuse, but it's only cuz there were so many and I don't remember which ones were which... I got rolling and couldn't stop! I used a number of online Bible sites for the NIV and KJV text, my own paper copy of the RSV gifted to me, per the inscription, by my Aunt Betty in 1970, and several results of Googling "biblical interpretation," "gays in the Bible," and any other combination of WJL's main ideas I could think of... I didn't just make this stuff up! And I teach people how to determine the validity of a web page. I'm not asking you to trust me. I wouldn't do that but these are the closest trails I can send you down to verify on your own. If you have an issue with anything specific, I'll look it up for you and post it.
Type at ya later,
Luth
I was browsing 'blogs, procrastinating the mountain of work I brought home for the weekend when I ran across one of those political quizzes that promises to tell you if you're liberal or conservative... so I took it... no surprises, and while looking at my results and those of the last 10 quizzees, just as I thought there wasn't anything to get fired up about, I found WJL- from-Shaker-Heights,-OH's quote.
The spelling above is as it appeared on the site. In fact, I just cut and pasted it here from OKCupid.com... where I took the quiz. That should be the first indication that something is wrong with WJL, but it's far from the only indication. As a trained grader of student writing, I have learned to look for the potential, not the mechanical flaws, so I can overlook and make the best of the poor spelling and punctuation WJL uses. It's the potential that frightens me. WJL seems to have the potential to stir up the fourth Reich. While WJL is certainly entitled to this opinion, it's frighteningly narrowminded and a little misguided.
From WJL's quote we can make a number of inferences.
WJL...
-believes there can be no other interpretation of the Bible than his or her own
-believes that all who support tolerance have and promote a "homosexual agenda"
-believes that supporting the rights of others = persecution of WJL
And, as expected, here's why I believe WJL is wrong. First of all, WJL assumes that "interpreting" the Bible in any way other than WJL's is wrong. What WJL doesn't account for is the fact that the two versions of the Bible she* mentions are, in fact, interpretations of the book which had already been interpreted several times prior to that. Guesses as to the original meaning are just that and anything other than general guidance from the Book, interpreted by humans, is bound to be flawed as a result. Add to that the fact that many of those interpretations came at the behest of kings whose agendas were made clear to the interpreters and the threat of punishment for any of them who failed to incorporate those agendas made just as clear, and the distance from God's word to what we have today is greater than the years. (*to avoid our language's awkward lack of a non-gender singular personal pronoun I'm going to assume WJL is a woman henceforth)
So the interpretation argument is flawed already, but as long as we're on it, let's take a closer look at the particular interpretation that WJL seems to have come up with. I'll have to assume that WJL would mention Sodom and Gomorrah as "evidence" that homosexuality is a sin. Again, this is a pretty specific interpretation, not general guidance, thus it's slippery at best. In any event, the Bibles to which WJL refers say nothing of the sort regarding Sodom. Nothing that specific anyway. In fact, if anything, those Bibles promote rape by portraying Lot as a good guy who offers his daughters up to appease the mob (offering them to be raped.) Then later in Isaiah (1:10 & 3:9) and Ezekiel (16:49) those Bibles tell us that social injustice and oppression of the poor were the reasons Sodom was destroyed, not the homosexual intentions of the mob and their treatment of Lot's guests. Even Jesus tells us that Sodom was destroyed because of inhospitality (Luke 10:12). So there's no indication whatsoever that the city was destroyed due to homosexuality, but rather for the way everyone there except Lot treated guests. Benevolent treatment of guests was kind of big thing back in the day. It's a general idea that can be safely interpreted since it is supported by other sources of history. It was almost like they were tolerant of travellers. More than that, they were good Samaritans to them. Yeah, they were more than tolerant to them. But who would ever read that in the Bible!
So where else might WJL be getting her ideas about homosexuality? Well, there's the oft cited story of Leviticus (18:22) which clearly instructs us... "Do not lie with a man as with a woman; that is detestable. If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own hands." How much clearer can you get than that?! The only problem there is that just about all Christians ignore the rest of Leviticus because it goes on to add some other crazy rules like...
men shouldn't cut their hair, don't eat meat with blood in it, don't eat rabbit or shellfish, don't have sex during menstruation, don't cross breed cattle, and don't wear clothes made out of more than one material. One can only guess at what agendas may have been furthered by such rules, but we're all pretty comfortable ignoring them today. So why are we all so comfortable ignoring the bulk of Leviticus as crazy, outdated, or whatever excuse we make to ignore it, but that part about the man and the woman and the man... well, that part's serious man! Again, we could take general advice from the Book, but when it comes to specific interpretations, or specific directions on what to do and how to do it, we're just asking for trouble.
But maybe it's clearer somewhere else... Paul, the apostle, he was pretty clear about it. He said it was unnatural for women to be with women and men to be with men. Of course he also said men should have SHORT hair (he should have consulted Leviticus!) and women will only be redeemed through childbirth - so Hillary Clinton is going to Heaven but Mother Theresa is not?! WOW, I wonder why WJL left that interpretation out?
Even Paul's charges aren't as clear as they seem. People who have spent their lives studying the Bible as theologians and as literary scholars can only agree that some of the words interpreted these days that Paul supposedly used can't be interpreted today. In my own trusted Revised Standard Version,1Corinthianss 6:9 specifically mentions "homosexuals" among those not inheriting the kingdom of God. There's a footnote with it though that says, "two Greek words are rendered by this expression." Now I know that WJL doesn't specifically mention the RSV, but this footnote doesn't even come close to explaining that the alleged original text from which this was interpreted used the word, "arsenokoitai" instead of the word "homosexuals." Did you get that out of the footnote? Do you even read footnotes?
Here's what the KJV says in the same verse: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind..." Hey wait a minute there WJL... KJV doesn't say anything about homosexuals! But it does suggest that Ghandi and maybe even Jimmy Carter ain't goin' to Heaven! (C'mon, admit it, he was pretty effeminate... for a president anyway.)
And here's the NIV interpretation: Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders..." Well, at least they put the homos back in. Apparently straight female prostitutes who don't overcharge and make correct change are OK though. (see how much fun strict, detailed interpretations can be!)
And here's the crazy part... while that original word, arsenokoitai, has been interpreted by some Biblical scholars as maybe meaning homosexual, most think it referred to "sacred prostitutes" or the young virile men who "worked" in fertility temples at a time when Christianity was competing with the Greek gods for popularity. It was the non-Christian Greeks who promoted the fertility temples. Here's how they worked: Seemingly barren women visited the fertility temple, "worshipped" these young virile men, and lo and behold, came home preggers! Is it any wonder that their husbands and Paul thought these guys might not represent the ideal lifestyle and should be considered bad, bad men? It's Orwell's Ministry of Love gaining a foothold in the ancient world. Paul put a stop to it, but his motive for stopping it didn't have anything to do with homosexuality.
There are other circumstances throughout the Bible that can be laced together to suggest that not only were homosexuals tolerated, but even destined to inherit the Earth. Examinations of the word "naked" indicate that it meant more than just "naked" and lots of people were naked together that don't fit WJL's interpretation. Various interpretations of specific words can change the entire meaning of a passage and even how several passages work together. Hence the danger of word by word interpretations, or the use of specific words to prove any specific meaning. These extended interpretations are fun and perhaps will appear in another installment, but this short story's already become long so let's move on.
The second inference I made based on WJL's quote is that if one is tolerant, one promotes a homosexual agenda. This probably isn't even really an inference since WJL, having left no wiggle room, practically states this. This one will be a little tougher to shoot down because I'm not even sure what a homosexual agenda is, so I'll follow my advice and stay general. In spite of all of WJL's assumptions about the Bible, one general idea that most Biblical scholars, casual Christians and even atheists agree on is this: Jesus was the poster boy for tolerance. God wasn't. The God in the Old Testament was vindictive and vengeful, but Jesus is definitely tolerant. There's little question about that. The guy didn't even protest when he was wrongly convicted and forced to carry his own crucifix up the mountain. Heck, in Mel Gibson's version of it, he put up with some severe beatings on the way. That's pretty tolerant. So... if I may borrow WJL's own premises, Jesus was a one man "tolerance group." Tolerance groups have homosexual agendas. Therefore Jesus had a homosexual agenda and should thus be forced to read the KJV or the NIV in their "entirey" until He realizes the error of His ways. Moving on...
I don't even know WJL. I'm pretty sure I've never persecuted WJL in spite of being quick to stand for others' rights. Having grown up close to there, I'd go so far as to say that living in Shaker Heights these days is actually a pretty good insulator against most forms of persecution with the possible exception of self-imposed persecution. Here's how that might work: A person convinces herself that only a strictly defined, extremely limited set of behaviors is right and everything else is wrong. In fear of falling on the wrong side of that line, the person chooses to live in fear of everything different from herself and thus limits social and public interaction as a result. When this person realizes what a crappy life such narrowmindedness has created, she grows bitter and seeks out someone or something to blame. Hey, why not mankind in general what with all its tolerance and deviant behavior! Only that's not really persecution. It's fear driven ignorance-induced self exile. So don't blame the rest of us for your choices WJL! It's Jesus's fault. Cuz by WJL-logic, Jesus, with his tolerance and homosexual agenda has persecuted WJL. If the rest of us apply the old WWJD test, we too should persecute WJL. It would be "hypocratical" of a Bible thumper like WJL to complain about that, wouldn't it?
NOTE: I was really lazy in not listing some of my sources for this info. There's no excuse, but it's only cuz there were so many and I don't remember which ones were which... I got rolling and couldn't stop! I used a number of online Bible sites for the NIV and KJV text, my own paper copy of the RSV gifted to me, per the inscription, by my Aunt Betty in 1970, and several results of Googling "biblical interpretation," "gays in the Bible," and any other combination of WJL's main ideas I could think of... I didn't just make this stuff up! And I teach people how to determine the validity of a web page. I'm not asking you to trust me. I wouldn't do that but these are the closest trails I can send you down to verify on your own. If you have an issue with anything specific, I'll look it up for you and post it.
Type at ya later,
Luth
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Comments-Earle, facts and fiction, awards
If I didn't want to be dragged down to this level, I wouldn't have a 'blog. Since the anonymous comments keep piling up and many won't bother clicking to see them, let's pull them onto the main page and air them out a little. (they're really starting to stink!)
First of all, I never tried "to defend Ronnie Earle" as a morally righteous dude. What I said was an article in Esquire claims that both Republicans and Democrats in Texas have said he was a morally righteous dude throughout his career. (that's at least as credible as Dereliction of Duty.) The Bush administration has made positive comments about him in the past and Texas Republicans loved him when he went after Clinton fundraisers. Now they're crying foul. So if he's coming after you he's a party zealot but when he's after your opponents, he's a good guy. That's BS and there's no disguising it. Partisan BS.
Here's a list of notable indictments, in no particular order, brought by Travis County(TX) DA Ronnie Earle:
-Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox (Democrat) convicted
-Texas House Speaker Gib Lewis (Democrat) convicted
-Texas Representative Gilbert Serna (Democrat) convicted
-Texas Representative Lane Denton (Democrat) convicted
-Texas Representative Betty Denton (Democrat) convicted
-U.S. Senator Kay Baily Hutchison (Republican) charges dropped by DA (yeah, that was Earle)
-Texas Land Commissioner Gary Mauro (Democrat) acquitted
-Texas voter registrar Marco Gomes (Democrat) convicted
-Texas Representative Charles Staniswallis (Republican) convicted... pleaded guilty
-Texas Treasurer Warren Harding (Democrat) convicted
-Texas Representative Mike Martin (Republican) convicted... pleaded guilty
-Texas Representative Gene Jones (Democrat) convicted
-County Commissioner Bob Honts (Democrat) convicted
You're right... the evidence is there... the facts support it... there's clearly a pattern to the people Earle goes after. They've broken the law! This is a matter of public record... ie the facts. Ignorance of them in favor of the opinion of one's party, an opinion NOT supported by facts, is the highest form of stupidity.
Re: justification for war... so we're back to the WMD's eh? Cuz when we found there were none, the President's story quickly changed to "Democratizing the Middle East," and when the futility of that was pointed out, it became "Ousting Saddam 'cuz he's an evil dictator." Nevermind the fact that there are plenty of evil dictators all over the world committing far greater crimes in larger numbers and who were not surrounded and held in check by the U.S. and our allies back when we still had allies. Regardless, we got him. Then it was "get 'em over there so they can't get us over here." But the "us" included England and the fight came to them, so that wasn't working. So now it's "The War on Terror," which, by definition is an eternal war and one that is not based in Iraq any more than it is based in Seattle or San Francisco or Cleveland. So tell me one more time one clear, rational justification? Which one of these stories is it? I agree we can't pull out now, but we shouldn't have gone in the first place without a more consistent argument. Shut up and keep reading...
Re: bipartisan support for the war from Congress - the left may have forgotten that Congress (that's a Republican majority Congress by the way) shirked their responsibility for declaring war, but I haven't. That's not the President's fault. Granted, point taken. However, the War Powers act of 1973 and the clearly intended Constitutional restraint (Article II gives the Pres no power to declare war) still apply even after Congress hands their responsibility to the President. There still has to be an imminent threat to the American people. There has to be a threat to our liberty. When referring to the President's powers regarding war, the War Powers Act says, "involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances." (U.S. Code, Title 50, Ch. 30) If involvement in hostilities was that clearly indicated, half the nation wouldn't be questioning that very decision right now. The President made the final decision after being given the approval to do so by Congress. So yes, this Republican Congress, with the help of many Democrats including John Kerry and John Edwards, blew the intent of our constitution by NOT declaring war and instead giving that ability to the President, but the result of that is that the decision came down to one man - W.
Technically, since Congress approved it, this wasn't a War Powers Act situation anyway, but both that act and the Constitution clearly state the necessity for imminent threat. Passing that responsibility on to the President was a bad move on Congress's part, but its result was that it was the President's decision that sent us to war, ignoring the imminent threat requirement. This war was the President's decision. It has cost us billions of dollars, as many as 25,000 lives (see Body Count links for source info), and has left our military drastically unprepared for another major regional conflict. You can't spin that away on anyone else.
Re: Ronnie Earle's permission to record grand jury hearings - How is that any different than impeaching a sitting President on CNN?! I just don't get it. Why is it only so wrong when a Democrat does it?
Re: Ronnie Earle delivering indictments to different grand juries until he finds one that agrees with him - Tom Delay would say "that's neither illegal nor unprecedented," but I'm sure you know that already. It's not unprecedented... sort of like channeling funds through different offices until earnest attempts to track them are thwarted. Or no... it's not really like that at all. Cuz see, pursuing an indictment, which still gives the accused a day in court, is a DA's JOB whereas covering up the source of funds, which only hides the identity of who is buying a seat, is NOT the job of a Representative. In fact, it's against the law. Not unprecedented... what a great line. Kenneth Starr pursued fraudulent investment charges against the Clintons through a number of dead end venues before the Republican Congress agreed to air his concerns... so I guess "not unprecedented" is an adequate response.
Anonymous's suggestion that Earle's "only happy ending" is having Delay's face on TV with the word "indicted" under it is also not unprecedented. I recall seeing John Kerry's face on TV with words below it questioning his war record in spite of the fact that he was able to produce a DD214 - proof provided by the very government that brought him down. As I recall, that government administration was led by a man who still hasn't provided the same proof, of which every servicemember is repeatedly told to keep a safe copy, and yet that President still managed to avoid answering any further questions about his sketchy fulfillment of his cushy national guard obligations. Kerry provided the proof of his honorable discharge and his awards and was still questioned. W provided dental records?! and the questions stopped. Liberal media my rear! While we're at it, I recall seeing President Clinton's face on TV with the word "impeached" under it... the special prosecutor's happy ending... not unprecedented. Was there ever a picture of his face with the word "acquitted" under it? Liberal media my rear. Thank goodness for Tom Delay and his great quotes to put the proper spin on all of this.
And finally, comments about awards I've received per my own DD214 - The only one at the forefront of my mind right now is the small arms marksmanship award. That's right, I'm a liberal who can shoot pretty well. Well enough to get that particular award anyway. It may surprise many to know that I own and use a variety of guns. I even have one on my Christmas list this year. (I'm still undecided between the Marlin or the Winchester, but I want a 30-30. It was my first rifle, but my dad traded it for a shotgun when I was still too young to have much of a say in that so if anyone has any constructive advice on that dilemma, bring it on.) I support the right of others to own guns as well. I also support sensible legislation to prevent some of my idiot friends from owning fully automatic assault rifles because by the time they realized how stupid they're acting, the entire neighborhood could be mowed down. I don't believe the NRA's slippery slope argument that sensible gun legislation will lead to a ban on all private ownership. Furthermore, I believe anyone who subscribes to that particular fallacy should also believe that the same slippery slope exists with laws that discriminate against gays. After all, by that kind of logic if we ban gays from anything, the next logical step will be laws governing how we can or cannot have heterosexual sex. Some of those idiot friends, based on the stories I've heard, should be more concerned with that than with gun laws!
Anyhoo, keep those comments coming. They're better entertainment than the letters to the editor in my local paper. I used to be amazed at how ignorant some people are. Now what amazes me is just how MANY people are THAT ignorant!
Luth
First of all, I never tried "to defend Ronnie Earle" as a morally righteous dude. What I said was an article in Esquire claims that both Republicans and Democrats in Texas have said he was a morally righteous dude throughout his career. (that's at least as credible as Dereliction of Duty.) The Bush administration has made positive comments about him in the past and Texas Republicans loved him when he went after Clinton fundraisers. Now they're crying foul. So if he's coming after you he's a party zealot but when he's after your opponents, he's a good guy. That's BS and there's no disguising it. Partisan BS.
Here's a list of notable indictments, in no particular order, brought by Travis County(TX) DA Ronnie Earle:
-Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox (Democrat) convicted
-Texas House Speaker Gib Lewis (Democrat) convicted
-Texas Representative Gilbert Serna (Democrat) convicted
-Texas Representative Lane Denton (Democrat) convicted
-Texas Representative Betty Denton (Democrat) convicted
-U.S. Senator Kay Baily Hutchison (Republican) charges dropped by DA (yeah, that was Earle)
-Texas Land Commissioner Gary Mauro (Democrat) acquitted
-Texas voter registrar Marco Gomes (Democrat) convicted
-Texas Representative Charles Staniswallis (Republican) convicted... pleaded guilty
-Texas Treasurer Warren Harding (Democrat) convicted
-Texas Representative Mike Martin (Republican) convicted... pleaded guilty
-Texas Representative Gene Jones (Democrat) convicted
-County Commissioner Bob Honts (Democrat) convicted
You're right... the evidence is there... the facts support it... there's clearly a pattern to the people Earle goes after. They've broken the law! This is a matter of public record... ie the facts. Ignorance of them in favor of the opinion of one's party, an opinion NOT supported by facts, is the highest form of stupidity.
Re: justification for war... so we're back to the WMD's eh? Cuz when we found there were none, the President's story quickly changed to "Democratizing the Middle East," and when the futility of that was pointed out, it became "Ousting Saddam 'cuz he's an evil dictator." Nevermind the fact that there are plenty of evil dictators all over the world committing far greater crimes in larger numbers and who were not surrounded and held in check by the U.S. and our allies back when we still had allies. Regardless, we got him. Then it was "get 'em over there so they can't get us over here." But the "us" included England and the fight came to them, so that wasn't working. So now it's "The War on Terror," which, by definition is an eternal war and one that is not based in Iraq any more than it is based in Seattle or San Francisco or Cleveland. So tell me one more time one clear, rational justification? Which one of these stories is it? I agree we can't pull out now, but we shouldn't have gone in the first place without a more consistent argument. Shut up and keep reading...
Re: bipartisan support for the war from Congress - the left may have forgotten that Congress (that's a Republican majority Congress by the way) shirked their responsibility for declaring war, but I haven't. That's not the President's fault. Granted, point taken. However, the War Powers act of 1973 and the clearly intended Constitutional restraint (Article II gives the Pres no power to declare war) still apply even after Congress hands their responsibility to the President. There still has to be an imminent threat to the American people. There has to be a threat to our liberty. When referring to the President's powers regarding war, the War Powers Act says, "involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances." (U.S. Code, Title 50, Ch. 30) If involvement in hostilities was that clearly indicated, half the nation wouldn't be questioning that very decision right now. The President made the final decision after being given the approval to do so by Congress. So yes, this Republican Congress, with the help of many Democrats including John Kerry and John Edwards, blew the intent of our constitution by NOT declaring war and instead giving that ability to the President, but the result of that is that the decision came down to one man - W.
Technically, since Congress approved it, this wasn't a War Powers Act situation anyway, but both that act and the Constitution clearly state the necessity for imminent threat. Passing that responsibility on to the President was a bad move on Congress's part, but its result was that it was the President's decision that sent us to war, ignoring the imminent threat requirement. This war was the President's decision. It has cost us billions of dollars, as many as 25,000 lives (see Body Count links for source info), and has left our military drastically unprepared for another major regional conflict. You can't spin that away on anyone else.
Re: Ronnie Earle's permission to record grand jury hearings - How is that any different than impeaching a sitting President on CNN?! I just don't get it. Why is it only so wrong when a Democrat does it?
Re: Ronnie Earle delivering indictments to different grand juries until he finds one that agrees with him - Tom Delay would say "that's neither illegal nor unprecedented," but I'm sure you know that already. It's not unprecedented... sort of like channeling funds through different offices until earnest attempts to track them are thwarted. Or no... it's not really like that at all. Cuz see, pursuing an indictment, which still gives the accused a day in court, is a DA's JOB whereas covering up the source of funds, which only hides the identity of who is buying a seat, is NOT the job of a Representative. In fact, it's against the law. Not unprecedented... what a great line. Kenneth Starr pursued fraudulent investment charges against the Clintons through a number of dead end venues before the Republican Congress agreed to air his concerns... so I guess "not unprecedented" is an adequate response.
Anonymous's suggestion that Earle's "only happy ending" is having Delay's face on TV with the word "indicted" under it is also not unprecedented. I recall seeing John Kerry's face on TV with words below it questioning his war record in spite of the fact that he was able to produce a DD214 - proof provided by the very government that brought him down. As I recall, that government administration was led by a man who still hasn't provided the same proof, of which every servicemember is repeatedly told to keep a safe copy, and yet that President still managed to avoid answering any further questions about his sketchy fulfillment of his cushy national guard obligations. Kerry provided the proof of his honorable discharge and his awards and was still questioned. W provided dental records?! and the questions stopped. Liberal media my rear! While we're at it, I recall seeing President Clinton's face on TV with the word "impeached" under it... the special prosecutor's happy ending... not unprecedented. Was there ever a picture of his face with the word "acquitted" under it? Liberal media my rear. Thank goodness for Tom Delay and his great quotes to put the proper spin on all of this.
And finally, comments about awards I've received per my own DD214 - The only one at the forefront of my mind right now is the small arms marksmanship award. That's right, I'm a liberal who can shoot pretty well. Well enough to get that particular award anyway. It may surprise many to know that I own and use a variety of guns. I even have one on my Christmas list this year. (I'm still undecided between the Marlin or the Winchester, but I want a 30-30. It was my first rifle, but my dad traded it for a shotgun when I was still too young to have much of a say in that so if anyone has any constructive advice on that dilemma, bring it on.) I support the right of others to own guns as well. I also support sensible legislation to prevent some of my idiot friends from owning fully automatic assault rifles because by the time they realized how stupid they're acting, the entire neighborhood could be mowed down. I don't believe the NRA's slippery slope argument that sensible gun legislation will lead to a ban on all private ownership. Furthermore, I believe anyone who subscribes to that particular fallacy should also believe that the same slippery slope exists with laws that discriminate against gays. After all, by that kind of logic if we ban gays from anything, the next logical step will be laws governing how we can or cannot have heterosexual sex. Some of those idiot friends, based on the stories I've heard, should be more concerned with that than with gun laws!
Anyhoo, keep those comments coming. They're better entertainment than the letters to the editor in my local paper. I used to be amazed at how ignorant some people are. Now what amazes me is just how MANY people are THAT ignorant!
Luth
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Relief in the form of a DD214
I recently received, by regular mail, my third copy of the Department of Defense Form 214 - Separation from Active Military Service. I received the first one upon completion of basic training and technical school back in 1987 (yeah, I'm old). The last two came as the result of my desert vacations. I'll always remember the form number because they pound it into your head throughout basic training. Any serviceman who ever completed basic training has been told at least 45 times (once per day) to keep a copy of it in safe deposit box because it is your record of discharge from the military.
What I discovered on this particular copy is that it also verifies every award I've ever received. The funny thing about these awards is, I didn't even know about a couple of them. I didn't put myself in for them and some of them were never formally presented to me so I never knew I had them. That's just how it works, the service branch keeps the record then sends you a copy when you separate. And all servicemembers are told to make sure they keep a copy just in case they'd ever have reason to prove they satisfactorily fulfilled their obligation. It was kind of cool seeing my time and my awards listed on this very important form that verified my service and that I knew to keep a copy of in a safe place.
So yeah, it's a pretty cool form. In a little over a year, I'll also receive my 20-year letter. This very important letter verifies that I have completed 20 years of qualifying service in the Air National Guard. This too, I've been told over and over, is a very important letter to keep in a safe place. I would guess that only an idiot would ever have any difficulty proving his or her service in the Air National Guard since the importance of all these forms and letters is just pounded into your head throughout your career. Anyone who doesn't have one, probably has a questionable service record. I think employers assume that you were discharged under other than honorable conditions if you list military service on your resume and can't produce one of these forms. In my experience, employers don't accept ID photos or, say dental records. They want to see the DD214 or your separation letter.
John Kerry has a DD214. I have a DD214. My little brother even has a copy of his from back in the early 90's and he only did a three year hitch!
Have a great weekend!
Luth
What I discovered on this particular copy is that it also verifies every award I've ever received. The funny thing about these awards is, I didn't even know about a couple of them. I didn't put myself in for them and some of them were never formally presented to me so I never knew I had them. That's just how it works, the service branch keeps the record then sends you a copy when you separate. And all servicemembers are told to make sure they keep a copy just in case they'd ever have reason to prove they satisfactorily fulfilled their obligation. It was kind of cool seeing my time and my awards listed on this very important form that verified my service and that I knew to keep a copy of in a safe place.
So yeah, it's a pretty cool form. In a little over a year, I'll also receive my 20-year letter. This very important letter verifies that I have completed 20 years of qualifying service in the Air National Guard. This too, I've been told over and over, is a very important letter to keep in a safe place. I would guess that only an idiot would ever have any difficulty proving his or her service in the Air National Guard since the importance of all these forms and letters is just pounded into your head throughout your career. Anyone who doesn't have one, probably has a questionable service record. I think employers assume that you were discharged under other than honorable conditions if you list military service on your resume and can't produce one of these forms. In my experience, employers don't accept ID photos or, say dental records. They want to see the DD214 or your separation letter.
John Kerry has a DD214. I have a DD214. My little brother even has a copy of his from back in the early 90's and he only did a three year hitch!
Have a great weekend!
Luth
Friday, September 30, 2005
Scheduled Delay
We knew this was coming - check out the last paragraph of the "Time for a Rant" post back in April about Ronnie Earle vs. Tom Delay. I wrote that after reading an Esquire feature about Earle who, on the verge of retirement, stumbled onto the Delay/TRMPAC case and was so enraged by the "above the law" audacity of it he just couldn't let it go. His wife told him not to take the case... to go ahead and retire. Said he had nothing left to prove since he was respected by Dems and Repubs alike in Texas and even nationally. His colleagues described him as the last of a dying breed... seeking only justice, irreplaceable in that respect. Over the course of his career, where party affiliation was an issue, he prosecuted more Dems than Repubs. Now, he's "a partisan wacko only trumping up charges against Delay because Delay's a Republican." Please.
By the way, anyone catch Delay's overzealous proclamation of innocence on TV? Did it look and sound a little too much like, "I never had sexual relations with that woman..."
But, of course, the comparison stops there. After all, Delay is only being accused of manipulating a federal election by violating federal law pouring millions of illegally raised funds into it. C'mon... this is a fishing expedition... nowhere near as critical to national security as Clinton's sexual exploits. If only Kenneth Starr had spent a few million more of our dollars, maybe he could have convicted Clinton and solved all of our country's problems.
Smell ya later,
Luth
By the way, anyone catch Delay's overzealous proclamation of innocence on TV? Did it look and sound a little too much like, "I never had sexual relations with that woman..."
But, of course, the comparison stops there. After all, Delay is only being accused of manipulating a federal election by violating federal law pouring millions of illegally raised funds into it. C'mon... this is a fishing expedition... nowhere near as critical to national security as Clinton's sexual exploits. If only Kenneth Starr had spent a few million more of our dollars, maybe he could have convicted Clinton and solved all of our country's problems.
Smell ya later,
Luth
Achieving Grace through Self Help
I only ever had a vague memory of how beautifully Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel's voices blended from back when my parents still listened to them in our house. I remember the original S & G's Greatest hits; Peter, Paul and Mary; Johnny Cash, Live from Folsom Prison; Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass, and a few others that I'd probably have to see again to remember. These were the last sounds to fill our house before I developed my own taste in music and before my dad switched permanently to talk radio.
A few years later, I remember seeing Simon and Garfunkel on Saturday Night Live together. They'd broken up, but got back together for the show for some reason. That caused me to be aware that Garfunkel had released some solo albums, but they never quite turned into much and so from that point on, and especially after a number of Paul Simon solo hits as I was growing up, I always wondered why Simon ever kept this guy around. Once my parents quit listening to them, I'd only ever hear their songs on the radio at work or while other things were going on so I never really paid attention and it was only rarely that the sound quality could do the vocals justice anyway. I always assumed I only liked their songs together because they reminded me of that wonderful time when my parents were still cool enough to play real music.
Last year I got a digitally remastered copy of a two disc "greatest hits" and actually listened to it on a decent system with no distractions. Here's the point: Art Garfunkel's voice is one of the purest, clearest, most brilliantly beautiful sounds I've ever heard. It is Grace (with a capital G) unleashed upon us earthly creatures. Like Ben Franklin said of beer: "it's proof God loves us and wants us to have fun."
Don't really know where all that came from, but if you haven't listened to Bridge Over Troubled Water in a while, do yourself a favor. It'll remind you why Simon kept him around as long as he did. Oh yeah, I told you that story to tell you this one...
Those were some of the last sounds to emanate from my dad's stereo speakers before talk radio took over. Much like its effect on the rest of the world, commercial talk radio represented the demise of rational thought in our household. From that point on, good music was no longer acceptable. I tried hard. I bought dad the cassette deck to go along with the Willie Nelson album I got him for Christmas one year. We played it a couple of times, but after that, no more music. Just that talk radio crap. Even worse, it was AM talk radio.
By now you must know where I'm going with this, but here's where the idea came from: I'm reading SHAM by Steve Salerno. It's about how the self-help industry is leaving us helpless. He titled it based on his self-coined acronym - Self-Help And Motivation (industry.)
Anyway, Salerno's real point is that while most of us just pass self-help off as, at worst, an annoying but amusing fad, its effect on all of us is worse than we imagine. It costs even those of us who would never buy it more than we think.
Salerno splits his description of the industry into two camps: the victimization camp and the empowerment camp. The victimization folks believe that nothing is their fault, rapidly destroying all sense of personal responsibility... like say joining the national guard to avoid the draft, but then never fulfilling your obligations, and then, when questioned about it during a presidential campaign, never producing the DD214 that would clear up all the questions, thus not living up to one's personal obligations and being perfectly fine with it. Republicans usually call these people Democrats.
The empowerment folk believe that simply setting one's mind to something and trying it is good enough, regardless of whether you accomplish anything or are even remotely qualified to even try it... like, say, being the president of a horse club, but really wanting to run a federal agency. So empowerment means you can do whatever you want regardless of your ability, desire, means, or qualifications... kind of like being above the rules. Democrats call these people Republicans.
How, you ask, does this apply at all to talk radio? Well, it seems to me that both Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'reilly are graduates of both camps. Rush was a victim when he accepted public assistance during leaner times, but an expert on fairness when he suggests cutting such "entitlement" programs now that he's rich. He was a victim of his housecleaner's unrelenting supply of Vicodin, but now he's empowered to talk about the illegality of abortion clinic funding. O'reilly is blameless when caught masturbating with tele-porn, but empowered to write a teen advice book.
Those instances, by themselves, are no more than humorous anecdotes. Pure entertainment, but Rush and Bill, like their predecessor, Paul Harvey, often blur the lines between entertaining political commentary and paid advertising. Unlike John Stewart, who cries foul whenever he hears people say they "get their news" from The Daily Show, Rush and Bill never make those pleas. They never distinguish among entertainment (what they do,) political expertise (what they and their fans claim,) and paid endorsements for products they talk about. Again, for those of us who are familiar with valid, logical arguments, the relevance of facts, and the common fallacies invoked by those with little truth on their side, this is innocent entertainment. I admire the fortune Bill and Rush have amassed with their mastery of oversimplification and false logic. And since it's only entertainment, what harm could it do?
But in the last 10 years, their oversimplification and false logic seems to sum up the way we choose political leaders. Fit it into a sound bite, take it as gospel, ignore all the contrary, obvious evidence, and go about your business. It's the empowerment argument. Then when something goes wrong, blame everyone and everything else (like partisan politics) and become a victim.
This trend really has made its way into public policy. Personal religious beliefs are being turned into laws for the greater good and protection of all mankind even though not all of mankind shares those personal religious beliefs and they offer no real protection from anything. The empowerment camp struck a victory when faith-based programs like Alcoholics Anonymous received government funding even though little or no documented evidence exists supporting those programs' success. In fact, according to Salerno, a 1995 study by Harvard Med says those NOT in AA stood a better chance of quitting drinking.
What really amazes me about this now $8.5 billion is how it defies the very trends that it replaces. Granted, business consultants preach a different brand of help, but the Continuous Improvement, Baldridge Total Quality, TQM, Value Added, whatever the hell you want to call it movement is all about measuring and tracking results and yet there is NO documented evidence that we've received anything in return for the $8.5 billion this industry has sucked out of us all. And don't think just cuz you haven't bought anything to contribute to Tony Robbins's $80 million a year income you haven't paid for some of it. Corporations shell out big bucks to hire these guys to "train" employees. Guess who ends up paying for that? Not only is there no evidence that it helps, but the growth of sales suggests we're worse off for all the crap we've already bought... we must need even MORE help as a result of it. This market is supposed to increase even more dramatically. Actually, that's about the only logical thing I see in these trends. The SHAM folks have us all convinced we're empowered enough to move up to the next level of training, or that we're victims who need their help to deal with what we deserve. Man are we idiots.
So anyway, listen to Art Garfunkel again. I hope that guy's still getting some royalty checks, cuz that's therapy that works! And like George Carlin says, "if you're readin' it in a book, it ain't SELF help, it's HELP."
Chow,
Luth
A few years later, I remember seeing Simon and Garfunkel on Saturday Night Live together. They'd broken up, but got back together for the show for some reason. That caused me to be aware that Garfunkel had released some solo albums, but they never quite turned into much and so from that point on, and especially after a number of Paul Simon solo hits as I was growing up, I always wondered why Simon ever kept this guy around. Once my parents quit listening to them, I'd only ever hear their songs on the radio at work or while other things were going on so I never really paid attention and it was only rarely that the sound quality could do the vocals justice anyway. I always assumed I only liked their songs together because they reminded me of that wonderful time when my parents were still cool enough to play real music.
Last year I got a digitally remastered copy of a two disc "greatest hits" and actually listened to it on a decent system with no distractions. Here's the point: Art Garfunkel's voice is one of the purest, clearest, most brilliantly beautiful sounds I've ever heard. It is Grace (with a capital G) unleashed upon us earthly creatures. Like Ben Franklin said of beer: "it's proof God loves us and wants us to have fun."
Don't really know where all that came from, but if you haven't listened to Bridge Over Troubled Water in a while, do yourself a favor. It'll remind you why Simon kept him around as long as he did. Oh yeah, I told you that story to tell you this one...
Those were some of the last sounds to emanate from my dad's stereo speakers before talk radio took over. Much like its effect on the rest of the world, commercial talk radio represented the demise of rational thought in our household. From that point on, good music was no longer acceptable. I tried hard. I bought dad the cassette deck to go along with the Willie Nelson album I got him for Christmas one year. We played it a couple of times, but after that, no more music. Just that talk radio crap. Even worse, it was AM talk radio.
By now you must know where I'm going with this, but here's where the idea came from: I'm reading SHAM by Steve Salerno. It's about how the self-help industry is leaving us helpless. He titled it based on his self-coined acronym - Self-Help And Motivation (industry.)
Anyway, Salerno's real point is that while most of us just pass self-help off as, at worst, an annoying but amusing fad, its effect on all of us is worse than we imagine. It costs even those of us who would never buy it more than we think.
Salerno splits his description of the industry into two camps: the victimization camp and the empowerment camp. The victimization folks believe that nothing is their fault, rapidly destroying all sense of personal responsibility... like say joining the national guard to avoid the draft, but then never fulfilling your obligations, and then, when questioned about it during a presidential campaign, never producing the DD214 that would clear up all the questions, thus not living up to one's personal obligations and being perfectly fine with it. Republicans usually call these people Democrats.
The empowerment folk believe that simply setting one's mind to something and trying it is good enough, regardless of whether you accomplish anything or are even remotely qualified to even try it... like, say, being the president of a horse club, but really wanting to run a federal agency. So empowerment means you can do whatever you want regardless of your ability, desire, means, or qualifications... kind of like being above the rules. Democrats call these people Republicans.
How, you ask, does this apply at all to talk radio? Well, it seems to me that both Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'reilly are graduates of both camps. Rush was a victim when he accepted public assistance during leaner times, but an expert on fairness when he suggests cutting such "entitlement" programs now that he's rich. He was a victim of his housecleaner's unrelenting supply of Vicodin, but now he's empowered to talk about the illegality of abortion clinic funding. O'reilly is blameless when caught masturbating with tele-porn, but empowered to write a teen advice book.
Those instances, by themselves, are no more than humorous anecdotes. Pure entertainment, but Rush and Bill, like their predecessor, Paul Harvey, often blur the lines between entertaining political commentary and paid advertising. Unlike John Stewart, who cries foul whenever he hears people say they "get their news" from The Daily Show, Rush and Bill never make those pleas. They never distinguish among entertainment (what they do,) political expertise (what they and their fans claim,) and paid endorsements for products they talk about. Again, for those of us who are familiar with valid, logical arguments, the relevance of facts, and the common fallacies invoked by those with little truth on their side, this is innocent entertainment. I admire the fortune Bill and Rush have amassed with their mastery of oversimplification and false logic. And since it's only entertainment, what harm could it do?
But in the last 10 years, their oversimplification and false logic seems to sum up the way we choose political leaders. Fit it into a sound bite, take it as gospel, ignore all the contrary, obvious evidence, and go about your business. It's the empowerment argument. Then when something goes wrong, blame everyone and everything else (like partisan politics) and become a victim.
This trend really has made its way into public policy. Personal religious beliefs are being turned into laws for the greater good and protection of all mankind even though not all of mankind shares those personal religious beliefs and they offer no real protection from anything. The empowerment camp struck a victory when faith-based programs like Alcoholics Anonymous received government funding even though little or no documented evidence exists supporting those programs' success. In fact, according to Salerno, a 1995 study by Harvard Med says those NOT in AA stood a better chance of quitting drinking.
What really amazes me about this now $8.5 billion is how it defies the very trends that it replaces. Granted, business consultants preach a different brand of help, but the Continuous Improvement, Baldridge Total Quality, TQM, Value Added, whatever the hell you want to call it movement is all about measuring and tracking results and yet there is NO documented evidence that we've received anything in return for the $8.5 billion this industry has sucked out of us all. And don't think just cuz you haven't bought anything to contribute to Tony Robbins's $80 million a year income you haven't paid for some of it. Corporations shell out big bucks to hire these guys to "train" employees. Guess who ends up paying for that? Not only is there no evidence that it helps, but the growth of sales suggests we're worse off for all the crap we've already bought... we must need even MORE help as a result of it. This market is supposed to increase even more dramatically. Actually, that's about the only logical thing I see in these trends. The SHAM folks have us all convinced we're empowered enough to move up to the next level of training, or that we're victims who need their help to deal with what we deserve. Man are we idiots.
So anyway, listen to Art Garfunkel again. I hope that guy's still getting some royalty checks, cuz that's therapy that works! And like George Carlin says, "if you're readin' it in a book, it ain't SELF help, it's HELP."
Chow,
Luth
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Bush Boys Fishin' on the Gulf Coast
Yeah, it's baseless, unsupported, clearly bogus. And let's face it, these days, it doesn't take much more talent than the typical bored 8 year-old has to put together a picture like this. But darn it, it's funny! I watched the speech tonight and was mildly impressed though it did strike me as a little disingenuous that we've now pledged so much to fix what may have been prevented had the Corps of Engineers' budget not been pillaged to pay for that big 'ol tax cut.
To be fair though, Katrina was huge and we all thought we'd dodged the worst of it when it spun past New Orleans. I can't fault the president for his response. What could he have done? (I'm being serious although I know most of my friends won't believe it)
At least he still opposes abortion and we still got our guns! That'll shelter the homeless, bail the floodwaters, rebuild the cities, balance the budget, sew things up in Iraq and make us great again.
Luth,
Out.
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Daily Show Sorts Wheat from Chaff (again)
The Pledge of Allegiance
"Congress added 'under God' during the cold war when our enemies were Godless commies. These days our enemies are religious fanatics. Maybe Congress should change it to, 'under our more reasonable God." (The Daily Show's John Stewart)
It's funny cuz it's true. Stewart's lead for this fake news story was critical of the latest suit against a school district for making an atheist's son say the pledge with those words in it. It's not that Stewart didn't sympathize with the atheist, it's just that he, like most of us, knew that the suit would bring even more attention and support for those words than anything since... well, since the last time this guy brought his suit against his kid's school.
The Supreme Court dodged the bullet the first time around when it was discovered that the atheist dad didn't even have custody of the child and therefore couldn't legally bring suit on the child's behalf. But now he's got custody and now the California court has ruled. And now Stewart, once again, is dead on with his prediction. This suit is the rallying cry for zealots (only a derogatory word if you take as such) who will force their brand of faith on everyone.
The harsh reality of Stewart's joke is that what we're arguing about here is whether or not to allow schools to do what we ousted Saddam for doing - telling subjects how to worship. Granted, the generic words in question don't specify a particular faith, but they assume faith in general thereby coercing anyone without it into pretending or going along. It's clearly not as extreme as Saddam, but it is, undeniably, the same the concept. (note I said "same concept..." I am not comparing public schools who say the pledge to evil dictators)
What makes Stewart's joke and the public outcry in support of "those words" even funnier is our lack of knowledge regarding the pledge's evolution (see new link: Pledge FYI). As it turns out, the Christian, that's right, I said Christian, who wrote the pledge in 1892, never included those words. Stewart was dead on again when referring to the 1954 revision of the pledge to include those words. He should have mentioned congress's revision of the "offical stance" one assumed while reciting the pledge while he was at it as well. Turns out congress changed that in 1942 because it was "too reminiscent of the Nazi salute." We've really come a long way.
Let's face it, one great reason to say that pledge, and mean it, is the freedom to choose not only how, but whether or not to worship at all. I know... I know, I can hear the keyboards buzzing already. "But Luth, we were founded on Christian principles, our money has Christian symbols and says we trust God." Yeah, yeah I hear ya. But our money also has pagan symbols, we were founded on pagan principles too, and even atheists know that you can't trust humans. The REASON this country was founded was specifically to avoid having this fight. I have some doubts over the complete accuracy and validity of that reason too, and I suspect that speculative dreams about easy money and free land might have lured some folks to this country as well, but I guess we'll never really know.
The point is this: at work, you don't want your boss telling you how, or even if you should pray (or not pray). For school kids, school is their "work" and the prinicipal is their "boss." Only the principal is a lot scarier to most schoolkids than your boss is to you. If everyone is saying the pledge with those words in it and it's being played over the principal's PA system, then the kids ARE being coerced to say it.
No it's not necesarily harmful. No it's not necesarily too much to ask to just put up with it. Yes I believe that a public school in the U.S. should be allowed to require its students to pledge their allegiance to the nation that makes the whole situation possible. I even believe in God. But those words weren't part of the original pledge congress adopted. Those words have nothing to do with the root meaning of the pledge. And in this nation, created and populated by folks seeking refuge from a government who told them how to worship, those words are contrary to what that flag stands for. I personally don't care if we take those words out of the pledge, but unless we do, we shouldn't make people say it.
-----------------------
More praise for Stewart and his role in modern politics:
I know... I've heard him say it... "it's fake news." Stewart is the first one to say people should NOT take him seriously or even hint at the idea that The Daily Show is their source of news. (Note the vast difference between his take on his role as an ENTERTAINER and say, Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly's stance. Some of those guys think they're pretty damned important. One does not, but I digress...)
Stewart's going to have to work a lot harder at discrediting himself if he doesn't want to influence the way people see the world, especially in light of the actual events that many would never hear of were it not for the rather skewed and entertaining treatment of those events on The Daily Show. The guy had Kurt Vonnegut on last night! He's had past presidents, liberals and conservatives, wackos and respected authorities on all range of topics. Unlike mainstream press, which has bent so far backward to shed the "liberal" label that they now must find their heads in conservative asses, Stewart treats all guests the same - alternating between making them, and then him, the butt of his jokes while at the same time engaging in actual, civil discussion regardless of the topic. He makes no bones about his own liberal leanings, but unlike his conservative counterparts who claim to be fair and balanced, he treats all of his guests with the respect a fellow human deserves. (in all but the most extreme cases-hacks get skewered regardless of party affiliation too) And just when you start taking him seriously, he cuts to one of his "field correspondents." If you don't get it by then, you're a lost cause.
If you haven't seen it, you're a lost soul.
"Congress added 'under God' during the cold war when our enemies were Godless commies. These days our enemies are religious fanatics. Maybe Congress should change it to, 'under our more reasonable God." (The Daily Show's John Stewart)
It's funny cuz it's true. Stewart's lead for this fake news story was critical of the latest suit against a school district for making an atheist's son say the pledge with those words in it. It's not that Stewart didn't sympathize with the atheist, it's just that he, like most of us, knew that the suit would bring even more attention and support for those words than anything since... well, since the last time this guy brought his suit against his kid's school.
The Supreme Court dodged the bullet the first time around when it was discovered that the atheist dad didn't even have custody of the child and therefore couldn't legally bring suit on the child's behalf. But now he's got custody and now the California court has ruled. And now Stewart, once again, is dead on with his prediction. This suit is the rallying cry for zealots (only a derogatory word if you take as such) who will force their brand of faith on everyone.
The harsh reality of Stewart's joke is that what we're arguing about here is whether or not to allow schools to do what we ousted Saddam for doing - telling subjects how to worship. Granted, the generic words in question don't specify a particular faith, but they assume faith in general thereby coercing anyone without it into pretending or going along. It's clearly not as extreme as Saddam, but it is, undeniably, the same the concept. (note I said "same concept..." I am not comparing public schools who say the pledge to evil dictators)
What makes Stewart's joke and the public outcry in support of "those words" even funnier is our lack of knowledge regarding the pledge's evolution (see new link: Pledge FYI). As it turns out, the Christian, that's right, I said Christian, who wrote the pledge in 1892, never included those words. Stewart was dead on again when referring to the 1954 revision of the pledge to include those words. He should have mentioned congress's revision of the "offical stance" one assumed while reciting the pledge while he was at it as well. Turns out congress changed that in 1942 because it was "too reminiscent of the Nazi salute." We've really come a long way.
Let's face it, one great reason to say that pledge, and mean it, is the freedom to choose not only how, but whether or not to worship at all. I know... I know, I can hear the keyboards buzzing already. "But Luth, we were founded on Christian principles, our money has Christian symbols and says we trust God." Yeah, yeah I hear ya. But our money also has pagan symbols, we were founded on pagan principles too, and even atheists know that you can't trust humans. The REASON this country was founded was specifically to avoid having this fight. I have some doubts over the complete accuracy and validity of that reason too, and I suspect that speculative dreams about easy money and free land might have lured some folks to this country as well, but I guess we'll never really know.
The point is this: at work, you don't want your boss telling you how, or even if you should pray (or not pray). For school kids, school is their "work" and the prinicipal is their "boss." Only the principal is a lot scarier to most schoolkids than your boss is to you. If everyone is saying the pledge with those words in it and it's being played over the principal's PA system, then the kids ARE being coerced to say it.
No it's not necesarily harmful. No it's not necesarily too much to ask to just put up with it. Yes I believe that a public school in the U.S. should be allowed to require its students to pledge their allegiance to the nation that makes the whole situation possible. I even believe in God. But those words weren't part of the original pledge congress adopted. Those words have nothing to do with the root meaning of the pledge. And in this nation, created and populated by folks seeking refuge from a government who told them how to worship, those words are contrary to what that flag stands for. I personally don't care if we take those words out of the pledge, but unless we do, we shouldn't make people say it.
-----------------------
More praise for Stewart and his role in modern politics:
I know... I've heard him say it... "it's fake news." Stewart is the first one to say people should NOT take him seriously or even hint at the idea that The Daily Show is their source of news. (Note the vast difference between his take on his role as an ENTERTAINER and say, Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly's stance. Some of those guys think they're pretty damned important. One does not, but I digress...)
Stewart's going to have to work a lot harder at discrediting himself if he doesn't want to influence the way people see the world, especially in light of the actual events that many would never hear of were it not for the rather skewed and entertaining treatment of those events on The Daily Show. The guy had Kurt Vonnegut on last night! He's had past presidents, liberals and conservatives, wackos and respected authorities on all range of topics. Unlike mainstream press, which has bent so far backward to shed the "liberal" label that they now must find their heads in conservative asses, Stewart treats all guests the same - alternating between making them, and then him, the butt of his jokes while at the same time engaging in actual, civil discussion regardless of the topic. He makes no bones about his own liberal leanings, but unlike his conservative counterparts who claim to be fair and balanced, he treats all of his guests with the respect a fellow human deserves. (in all but the most extreme cases-hacks get skewered regardless of party affiliation too) And just when you start taking him seriously, he cuts to one of his "field correspondents." If you don't get it by then, you're a lost cause.
If you haven't seen it, you're a lost soul.
Monday, September 12, 2005
Grammar Rules!
Anyone hear anything about this book, EATS, SHOOTS AND LEAVES by Lynne Truss? (I guess it's pretty obvious somone has!) Our school librarian left a copy in my mailbox at school. Only later did I discover she'd actually signed it out in my name. I guess that's something the Patriot Act allows her to do without my consent! Anyhoo, according to the jacket, it actually made the best seller list and has enjoyed successful sales beyond anyone's dreams. The author's own mother, when first told about the book, suggested adding "For the Select Few" to the cover. The author, who knew her audience would be limited, says she was hurt by this, but still claims to be surprised by the book's success.
I'm not surprised. I've only read the Publisher's note, the jacket notes, the Foreword by Frank McCourt and the Preface by the author, but I've already achieved my monthly dose of dry wit as well as beefed up my rapidly waning knowledge of punctuation rules. Yep, I said punctuation rules and I'm an English teacher. Let me say that in another way - yep, it's a book about punctuation and it was on the best seller list!
Again, I'm not surprised. There are people out there who still have standards. Contrary to the downward spiral of personal responsibility inspired by our current leadership, there are people who appreciate achievement. We're not perfectionists, we just appreciate the attempt. Now, back to the English teacher thing... I teach English, which encompasses all manner of communication skills including, nay, featuring, reading and writing. At the high school level, this includes, nay, is based primarily on, having kids think critically, evaluate and formulate their own conclusions about what they read, develop those thoughts, and commit them to writing in a semi-intelligent manner. It doesn't matter to me, and shouldn't matter to anyone else that many of these kids can do this much better than most adults. What does matter is that they, some day, see this exercise in the basic human functions as important enough to remember and valuable enough to continue practicing.
The success of Truss's book gives me hope that some people, maybe even more than would actually go out and fork over cash (or be seen doing it) for a book about punctuation, do find these basic, core skills valuable.
These days, grammar is rarely even mentioned in the core curriculum/state standards/course of study/whatever you want to call it anymore. Even when it was an integral part of language instruction, most scoffed at it as something only English teachers ever knew or used. But with the decline of test scores, the failures in communication on a global scale, and what many feel is the general and rapidly accelerating decline of the human race, these "courtesies" suddenly seem to have a purpose again. Clear, professional communication suddenly has value again... did it ever really not? Grammar rules are and always were the basics, like spelling and even forming letters. It's not something one teacher is ever responsible for. It's just a given. YOU are just supposed to know like you know how to write your name and social security number. Whenever you ask the English major in the next cubicle how to spell something, remember that you too had the opportunity to learn how to spell and use a dictionary long before you had to declare a major. Likewise with the grammar book. You were introduced to the material at some point in your life. You either decided it was worth learning or you didn't. For many, who, as they get older, suddenly realize how much smarter their teachers were, this book is a chance at redemption wrapped up in an entertaining package. Granted, knowledge shouldn't have to be entertaining, but it sure doesn't hurt.
For me though, it's just plain entertaining. The fact that reading it makes me better at my job is just a bonus. I didn't really NEED any further grammar instruction! (yes that was an invitation for corrections)
Speaking of the need for further instruction and the Patriot Act, Sept 16 is officially "Constitution and Citizenship Day." So we'll burn another day of instruction to do Constitution and Citizenship related activities. Since I'm an English teacher, I intend to tie literary technique into the equation by debating the irony of mandatory Constitution day being imposed upon us by the same people who watered down our protection from illegal search and seizure via the Patriot Act. Should be a fun day! I still think, with all this emphasis on citizenship (which I really am all for) that we should be able to do away with the Miranda warning. Everyone in this country is provided a free education that includes government, history, and the Constitution. If you chose to ignore what your rights are, that's on you, not the cop who busts you! Same rules apply to grammar!
u herd
I'm not surprised. I've only read the Publisher's note, the jacket notes, the Foreword by Frank McCourt and the Preface by the author, but I've already achieved my monthly dose of dry wit as well as beefed up my rapidly waning knowledge of punctuation rules. Yep, I said punctuation rules and I'm an English teacher. Let me say that in another way - yep, it's a book about punctuation and it was on the best seller list!
Again, I'm not surprised. There are people out there who still have standards. Contrary to the downward spiral of personal responsibility inspired by our current leadership, there are people who appreciate achievement. We're not perfectionists, we just appreciate the attempt. Now, back to the English teacher thing... I teach English, which encompasses all manner of communication skills including, nay, featuring, reading and writing. At the high school level, this includes, nay, is based primarily on, having kids think critically, evaluate and formulate their own conclusions about what they read, develop those thoughts, and commit them to writing in a semi-intelligent manner. It doesn't matter to me, and shouldn't matter to anyone else that many of these kids can do this much better than most adults. What does matter is that they, some day, see this exercise in the basic human functions as important enough to remember and valuable enough to continue practicing.
The success of Truss's book gives me hope that some people, maybe even more than would actually go out and fork over cash (or be seen doing it) for a book about punctuation, do find these basic, core skills valuable.
These days, grammar is rarely even mentioned in the core curriculum/state standards/course of study/whatever you want to call it anymore. Even when it was an integral part of language instruction, most scoffed at it as something only English teachers ever knew or used. But with the decline of test scores, the failures in communication on a global scale, and what many feel is the general and rapidly accelerating decline of the human race, these "courtesies" suddenly seem to have a purpose again. Clear, professional communication suddenly has value again... did it ever really not? Grammar rules are and always were the basics, like spelling and even forming letters. It's not something one teacher is ever responsible for. It's just a given. YOU are just supposed to know like you know how to write your name and social security number. Whenever you ask the English major in the next cubicle how to spell something, remember that you too had the opportunity to learn how to spell and use a dictionary long before you had to declare a major. Likewise with the grammar book. You were introduced to the material at some point in your life. You either decided it was worth learning or you didn't. For many, who, as they get older, suddenly realize how much smarter their teachers were, this book is a chance at redemption wrapped up in an entertaining package. Granted, knowledge shouldn't have to be entertaining, but it sure doesn't hurt.
For me though, it's just plain entertaining. The fact that reading it makes me better at my job is just a bonus. I didn't really NEED any further grammar instruction! (yes that was an invitation for corrections)
Speaking of the need for further instruction and the Patriot Act, Sept 16 is officially "Constitution and Citizenship Day." So we'll burn another day of instruction to do Constitution and Citizenship related activities. Since I'm an English teacher, I intend to tie literary technique into the equation by debating the irony of mandatory Constitution day being imposed upon us by the same people who watered down our protection from illegal search and seizure via the Patriot Act. Should be a fun day! I still think, with all this emphasis on citizenship (which I really am all for) that we should be able to do away with the Miranda warning. Everyone in this country is provided a free education that includes government, history, and the Constitution. If you chose to ignore what your rights are, that's on you, not the cop who busts you! Same rules apply to grammar!
u herd
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
57 Questions
Laurie sent me a similar email only I think it had 79 questions. I don't pass along emails like this, but I had fun answering the questions and I haven't posted anything here in a long time so I figured it would kill both birds. It's tough to justify typing stuff here when I have neglected work like I feel I have all summer so this will have to do for a while. Later taters.
Welcome to the summer 2005 version of getting to know your friends. What you are supposed to do is copy and paste (not forward) this entire message into a new one, change all the answers so they apply to you, and send this to a whole bunch of people, including the person who sent it to you.
1. What time did you get up this morning? 6:30 (slept in a little)
2. Diamonds or pearls? Diamonds
3. What was the last film you saw at the cinema? Christmas with the Kranks but I just watched Shaun of the Dean on DVD - hilarious!
4. What's your favorite TV show? The Daily Show
5. What did you have for breakfast? Frosted Flakes, OJ, coffee, banana
6. What's your favorite cuisine? Italian
7. What foods do you dislike? I like all food, but I do kind of stay away from cold slimy stuff
8. What is your favorite chip flavor? Salt & Vinegar
9. What's your favorite CD at the moment? Delbert McClinton (the one with When Rita Leaves)
10. What kind of car do you drive? Toyota Tundra (and don't stick my flag on your foriegn car!)11. Favorite sandwich? Pizza Sub unless I have to make it, then tuna salad, celery maybe, but no other vegetables!
12. What characteristics do you despise? self righteousness
13. Favorite item of clothing? khaki work jeans
14. If you could go anywhere in the world on vacation? Italy
15. What color is your bathroom? yellow ugh
16. Favorite brand of clothing? Goodwill, but I do like Geoffrey Beene dress shirts
17. Where would you retire to? Somewhere green and warm most of the time and near water.
18. Favorite time of the day? morning
19. What was your most memorable birthday? 38th - just got home from Iraq, no "event" just family hangin out - best birthday yet.
20. Where were you born? Barberton (hospital)/Wadsworth(home), Ohio
21. Favorite sport to watch? hockey... no football, no hockey, no baseball, no women's volleyball... this is too hard
22. Who do you least expect to send this back to you? I don't intend to send it out.
23. Person you expect to send this back to you? See answer to 22
24. What fabric detergent do you use? the cheapest
25. Were you named after anyone? I have my dad's middle and last name
26. Do you wish on stars? Sometimes
27. When did you last cry? On a walk by myself in Iraq after hearing that a student had died.
28. Do you like your handwriting? I don't have "handwriting," I print, but I like that
29. What is your most embarrassing moment? "Being had" at a surprise party... how much more vulnerable could I have been!
30. If you were another person, would YOU be friends with you? Hell yeah, I'm way cool!
31. Are you a daredevil? Depends who you ask. I don't really think so.
32. Have you ever told a secret you swore not to tell? I'm sure I have.
33. Do looks matter? for what?
34. How do you release anger? Yell, throw things, write, rant.
35. Where is your second home? Mom's
36. What was your favorite toy as a child? A fire truck my dad had when he was a kid
37. What class in high school do you think was totally useless? I'd like to say something cute here, but I really don't think any of them were totally useless.
38. Do you use sarcasm a lot? me? NOOOOOO, never used it in my life.
39. What are your favorite movies? Apocalyspe Now, Ferris Beuhler's Day Off, Groundhog Day, Oh Brother Where Art Thou
40. What are your nicknames? Luther, dumbass
41. Would you bungee jump? If someone else paid for it
41. Do you untie your shoes when you take them off? Yes
42. Do you think that you are strong? sure
43. What's your favorite ice cream flavor? Mint Chocolate Chip
44. What are your favorite colors? greens and blues (didn't even have to change my wife's answer)
45. What is your least favorite thing about yourself? procrastination
46. Who do you miss the most? my dad
47. Do you want everyone you sent this to send it back? n/a
48. What color pants are you wearing? blue
49. Last thing you ate? cowboy cookie
50. Last person you talked to on the phone? My wife
51. What is the first thing you notice about the opposite sex? attitude, unless she's wearing a giant, flourescent sombrero... then I'd notice her tits, er, I mean, sombrero
52. Favorite Drink? Knob Creek Bourbon and ice (I was told you don't call it "on the rocks" when dispensed from your fridge door into a plastic stadium tumbler)
54. Favorite Day of the Year? Baseball Opening Day (spring)
55. Scary Movies or Happy Endings? Happy Endings
56. Summer or winter? Summer
57. Hugs OR Kisses? Hugs
Welcome to the summer 2005 version of getting to know your friends. What you are supposed to do is copy and paste (not forward) this entire message into a new one, change all the answers so they apply to you, and send this to a whole bunch of people, including the person who sent it to you.
1. What time did you get up this morning? 6:30 (slept in a little)
2. Diamonds or pearls? Diamonds
3. What was the last film you saw at the cinema? Christmas with the Kranks but I just watched Shaun of the Dean on DVD - hilarious!
4. What's your favorite TV show? The Daily Show
5. What did you have for breakfast? Frosted Flakes, OJ, coffee, banana
6. What's your favorite cuisine? Italian
7. What foods do you dislike? I like all food, but I do kind of stay away from cold slimy stuff
8. What is your favorite chip flavor? Salt & Vinegar
9. What's your favorite CD at the moment? Delbert McClinton (the one with When Rita Leaves)
10. What kind of car do you drive? Toyota Tundra (and don't stick my flag on your foriegn car!)11. Favorite sandwich? Pizza Sub unless I have to make it, then tuna salad, celery maybe, but no other vegetables!
12. What characteristics do you despise? self righteousness
13. Favorite item of clothing? khaki work jeans
14. If you could go anywhere in the world on vacation? Italy
15. What color is your bathroom? yellow ugh
16. Favorite brand of clothing? Goodwill, but I do like Geoffrey Beene dress shirts
17. Where would you retire to? Somewhere green and warm most of the time and near water.
18. Favorite time of the day? morning
19. What was your most memorable birthday? 38th - just got home from Iraq, no "event" just family hangin out - best birthday yet.
20. Where were you born? Barberton (hospital)/Wadsworth(home), Ohio
21. Favorite sport to watch? hockey... no football, no hockey, no baseball, no women's volleyball... this is too hard
22. Who do you least expect to send this back to you? I don't intend to send it out.
23. Person you expect to send this back to you? See answer to 22
24. What fabric detergent do you use? the cheapest
25. Were you named after anyone? I have my dad's middle and last name
26. Do you wish on stars? Sometimes
27. When did you last cry? On a walk by myself in Iraq after hearing that a student had died.
28. Do you like your handwriting? I don't have "handwriting," I print, but I like that
29. What is your most embarrassing moment? "Being had" at a surprise party... how much more vulnerable could I have been!
30. If you were another person, would YOU be friends with you? Hell yeah, I'm way cool!
31. Are you a daredevil? Depends who you ask. I don't really think so.
32. Have you ever told a secret you swore not to tell? I'm sure I have.
33. Do looks matter? for what?
34. How do you release anger? Yell, throw things, write, rant.
35. Where is your second home? Mom's
36. What was your favorite toy as a child? A fire truck my dad had when he was a kid
37. What class in high school do you think was totally useless? I'd like to say something cute here, but I really don't think any of them were totally useless.
38. Do you use sarcasm a lot? me? NOOOOOO, never used it in my life.
39. What are your favorite movies? Apocalyspe Now, Ferris Beuhler's Day Off, Groundhog Day, Oh Brother Where Art Thou
40. What are your nicknames? Luther, dumbass
41. Would you bungee jump? If someone else paid for it
41. Do you untie your shoes when you take them off? Yes
42. Do you think that you are strong? sure
43. What's your favorite ice cream flavor? Mint Chocolate Chip
44. What are your favorite colors? greens and blues (didn't even have to change my wife's answer)
45. What is your least favorite thing about yourself? procrastination
46. Who do you miss the most? my dad
47. Do you want everyone you sent this to send it back? n/a
48. What color pants are you wearing? blue
49. Last thing you ate? cowboy cookie
50. Last person you talked to on the phone? My wife
51. What is the first thing you notice about the opposite sex? attitude, unless she's wearing a giant, flourescent sombrero... then I'd notice her tits, er, I mean, sombrero
52. Favorite Drink? Knob Creek Bourbon and ice (I was told you don't call it "on the rocks" when dispensed from your fridge door into a plastic stadium tumbler)
54. Favorite Day of the Year? Baseball Opening Day (spring)
55. Scary Movies or Happy Endings? Happy Endings
56. Summer or winter? Summer
57. Hugs OR Kisses? Hugs
Saturday, August 06, 2005
Lucy, I'm home.
After an uneventful evening in Baltimore, a couple of Sam Adams pints, and a one hour flight to Dayton, all my women met me at the Dayton airport. (my wife and daughters) My father-in-law drove them and drove us back home but only after stalling at Applebee's in Troy. I had a margarita, a steak and some salmon and we all enjoyed our late lunch. Shortly thereafter I realized I'd been had. As we approached the intersection by our house, I could tell from a half mile out that there was a sign hanging on my front porch. As we got closer, I noticed there were neighbors... and family and friends and some co-workers and even a student, lined up along the road waving and yelling at us. There was even a reporter and photographer from the Sidney Daily News. It was rather embarassing after a quiet, eventless morning of travel.
The throng allowed me enough time to go in and change clothes then formed a sort of receiving line wherein I stood and awkwardly thanked everyone for embarassing me and then didn't know what else to say. I think some of them stared at my eyes to look for signs that I might have some sort of flashback (of an office?!). But most just seemed happy to be there and thus were able to fake being happy that I was there. It turned out to be rather pleasant and in about 20 minutes it was over and just about everyone left.
The next morning I drove up to the 180th Fighter Wing in Toledo to start my return paperwork. Turns out our doctors failed to complete the paperwork we did before we left Iraq (along with most other doctorly tasks) so we all had to be interviewed by a doctor in Toledo, but that was the only holdup there. I also learned that reimbursement for laundry expenses on this trip are only authorized for laundry done in the US. I guess you don't need to launder clothing in other countries?! Just when you think you've made it... and seen all the goofiness that could possibly exist, you're proven wrong again. Now that I'm home, it's comical again.
So that's it. I'm settled again. I've coached a soccer practice and watched a second graders' softball game... (only two girls cried and ran to their moms at soccer practice - I guess I am having a little trouble adjusting, or is that pretty normal for a first practice?) I've done at least 6 loads of wash, several loads of dishes, cleaned up the barn, filled the hot tub, drank a few beers, watched a movie, and burned a pile of brush. Now we're getting ready for the big camping trip and then the mad dash that is my somewhat normal life will have taken over completely.
I can't say that I miss anything about the past 6 months... except maybe the paycheck. It's kind of sad that most of the guys I worked with had trouble making the bills on their military paycheck. I, on the other hand, took home almost twice my teaching salary once all my benefits like hostile fire pay, family separation, and immediate tax refunds were added in. Too bad you have to work in a war zone to get all that! Ah well, I'd rather be poor at home than "rich" in Iraq. It's so cool to get out of bed and walk to the next room to take a leak without having to get dressed and carry a flashlight. Not to mention the stocked fridge, whole house AC, clean, comfortable vehicles at my disposal, and rain... sweet summer rain! I love this country.
Luth.
The throng allowed me enough time to go in and change clothes then formed a sort of receiving line wherein I stood and awkwardly thanked everyone for embarassing me and then didn't know what else to say. I think some of them stared at my eyes to look for signs that I might have some sort of flashback (of an office?!). But most just seemed happy to be there and thus were able to fake being happy that I was there. It turned out to be rather pleasant and in about 20 minutes it was over and just about everyone left.
The next morning I drove up to the 180th Fighter Wing in Toledo to start my return paperwork. Turns out our doctors failed to complete the paperwork we did before we left Iraq (along with most other doctorly tasks) so we all had to be interviewed by a doctor in Toledo, but that was the only holdup there. I also learned that reimbursement for laundry expenses on this trip are only authorized for laundry done in the US. I guess you don't need to launder clothing in other countries?! Just when you think you've made it... and seen all the goofiness that could possibly exist, you're proven wrong again. Now that I'm home, it's comical again.
So that's it. I'm settled again. I've coached a soccer practice and watched a second graders' softball game... (only two girls cried and ran to their moms at soccer practice - I guess I am having a little trouble adjusting, or is that pretty normal for a first practice?) I've done at least 6 loads of wash, several loads of dishes, cleaned up the barn, filled the hot tub, drank a few beers, watched a movie, and burned a pile of brush. Now we're getting ready for the big camping trip and then the mad dash that is my somewhat normal life will have taken over completely.
I can't say that I miss anything about the past 6 months... except maybe the paycheck. It's kind of sad that most of the guys I worked with had trouble making the bills on their military paycheck. I, on the other hand, took home almost twice my teaching salary once all my benefits like hostile fire pay, family separation, and immediate tax refunds were added in. Too bad you have to work in a war zone to get all that! Ah well, I'd rather be poor at home than "rich" in Iraq. It's so cool to get out of bed and walk to the next room to take a leak without having to get dressed and carry a flashlight. Not to mention the stocked fridge, whole house AC, clean, comfortable vehicles at my disposal, and rain... sweet summer rain! I love this country.
Luth.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Hot Sands
I've been here for three days now and I guess it's not as horrible as I originally thought. That first impression was tainted by a couple of factors:
1) it's still an Arab desert - the same one I remember from '02, damn that's hot!
b) we got here after midnight after 24 hours of "travelling" that consisted of a total of about 2 hours of actual flying time and 22 hours of waiting
III) the very next night another group arrived at about the same time being just as noisy as we probably were - here's an idea, why not put everyone who comes in together in the same tent?!
4) it's still an Arab desert
5) I'm not home
6) I have longer here than I'd like still
G) I miss my family still and there doesn't seem to be any real reason why I'm not moving closer to them
8) did I mention it's an Arab desert?
Anyway, now that I've been able to get to sleep at a reasonable hour, and stay asleep for more than an hour or two, things are looking a little better. The food's not bad and you get a day's worth of sun exposure just walking to get it, so I'll finally get a little bit of a tan! There are some amenities to help pass the time like this CyberCafe I'm typing in, and my days are definitely counting down to something meaningful this time. However, my iMac seems to have lost its monitor... anyone out there know any hotboot/corrective actions at startup for an iMac G3. I didn't bring my manual, and I fear someone used my briefcase as a step in the C130 on the way here, crushing the monitor... sometimes the monitor comes on long enough to show me the little countdown while booting, other times I get the little "on" chime, but no monitor at all. Any help? Anyone? I'll sure miss that little laptop if I can't get her back to life. All this time to watch movies, finish the greatest novel ever written, or dowload pictures to post here and no computer. Just my luck. It worked the day before the C130, then no longer when we got here. Ah well. I'm just sad now.
Oh, the USO put up a nice place here to just hang out out of the sun. They show movies on big screen tvs, have coffee, juice and cookies, games, a couple of computers, and a couple of phones. It's like a little oasis. If they hit you up for contributions, send 'em a couple of bucks.
All right. Nothing new to report from here. I'll probably check in one more time before I head out, but if not, I'll type at ya from the states.
Thanks for reading.
Luth
1) it's still an Arab desert - the same one I remember from '02, damn that's hot!
b) we got here after midnight after 24 hours of "travelling" that consisted of a total of about 2 hours of actual flying time and 22 hours of waiting
III) the very next night another group arrived at about the same time being just as noisy as we probably were - here's an idea, why not put everyone who comes in together in the same tent?!
4) it's still an Arab desert
5) I'm not home
6) I have longer here than I'd like still
G) I miss my family still and there doesn't seem to be any real reason why I'm not moving closer to them
8) did I mention it's an Arab desert?
Anyway, now that I've been able to get to sleep at a reasonable hour, and stay asleep for more than an hour or two, things are looking a little better. The food's not bad and you get a day's worth of sun exposure just walking to get it, so I'll finally get a little bit of a tan! There are some amenities to help pass the time like this CyberCafe I'm typing in, and my days are definitely counting down to something meaningful this time. However, my iMac seems to have lost its monitor... anyone out there know any hotboot/corrective actions at startup for an iMac G3. I didn't bring my manual, and I fear someone used my briefcase as a step in the C130 on the way here, crushing the monitor... sometimes the monitor comes on long enough to show me the little countdown while booting, other times I get the little "on" chime, but no monitor at all. Any help? Anyone? I'll sure miss that little laptop if I can't get her back to life. All this time to watch movies, finish the greatest novel ever written, or dowload pictures to post here and no computer. Just my luck. It worked the day before the C130, then no longer when we got here. Ah well. I'm just sad now.
Oh, the USO put up a nice place here to just hang out out of the sun. They show movies on big screen tvs, have coffee, juice and cookies, games, a couple of computers, and a couple of phones. It's like a little oasis. If they hit you up for contributions, send 'em a couple of bucks.
All right. Nothing new to report from here. I'll probably check in one more time before I head out, but if not, I'll type at ya from the states.
Thanks for reading.
Luth
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)