Even as a long-time vegetarian, I find that I sometimes miss the taste of meats I once associated with pleasant experiences; the smell of cooking bacon, for instance, reminds me of family camping trips. So this article from the 29 November 2009 Sunday Times on real meat that isn't the product of slaughter houses is intriguing: Scientists Grow Pork Meat in a Laboratory.
Obviously there's still need for further development (not the least being the nature of the growth medium being used with the prototype), but a source of meat free of the slaughterhouse and free of the most deleterious environmental effects of the meat industry would be very, very welcome.
30 November 2009
25 November 2009
Why I don't use FedEx
Today at about 12:30, a FedEx truck stopped in front of my house. Grown daughter was home and saw the truck. Daughter guessed that the driver was bringing our new cell phones, and waited for the doorbell. No doorbell. No knock. Truck drives off. Daughter checks the door, and finds a hanger saying nobody was home, that we can get the package by driving to their office ... about 45 minutes away ... or take a chance on their "delivering" it on another day. I come home. Daughter describes what happened. I call FedEx and complain. And maybe, maybe, it will be delivered on Friday.
Did I mention that although I don't use FedEx, Verizon does?
Did I mention that although I don't use FedEx, Verizon does?
21 November 2009
Subtle media bias on the mix of religion and politics
A recent article and headline in the New York Times well illustrates the bias prevalent in the mainstream media when they cover abortion and religion. Both the headline and the content of the article "Christian Leaders Unite on Political Issues" by Laurie Goodstein imply a unity among Christian leaders which does not exist, especially on the issues which are the central topics of the article, abortion rights and gay rights.
Although many Catholic and evangelical Protestants find the common cause reported in the article, a great many Christian churches, Christian leaders, Christian theologians and lay Christians (including many Catholics and evangelicals) take -- and advocate -- very different perspectives on these issues. Their voices should be reflected in any article and any headline which implies directly or indirectly that it is reporting on some sort of consensus within the Christian community.
Instead, the only critical comment in the article come from an individual affiliated with an academic institution rather than a religious one, implicitly a secular intellectual rather than a believer. The casual reader would wrongly infer from this that the issues involve a divide between religion and academe, but would not be aware of the substantial disagreement within the Christian community itself, as well as the broader religious world.
A more accurate headline would have been "Some Catholic and Evangelical Leaders Unite on Abortion and Gay Rights Issues," or perhaps "Christian Leaders Lack Consensus on Political Issues." A more balanced article would have mentioned some of the prominent voices within the Christian community which favor abortion rights and gay marriage, or at least oppose entangling the state in such issues.
It is also worth noting that the article cites not a single woman on the issue of abortion; all the voices quoted or referenced are men. Curious.
And this is the New York Times, supposed bastion of the effete intellectual snobs of the left.
Although many Catholic and evangelical Protestants find the common cause reported in the article, a great many Christian churches, Christian leaders, Christian theologians and lay Christians (including many Catholics and evangelicals) take -- and advocate -- very different perspectives on these issues. Their voices should be reflected in any article and any headline which implies directly or indirectly that it is reporting on some sort of consensus within the Christian community.
Instead, the only critical comment in the article come from an individual affiliated with an academic institution rather than a religious one, implicitly a secular intellectual rather than a believer. The casual reader would wrongly infer from this that the issues involve a divide between religion and academe, but would not be aware of the substantial disagreement within the Christian community itself, as well as the broader religious world.
A more accurate headline would have been "Some Catholic and Evangelical Leaders Unite on Abortion and Gay Rights Issues," or perhaps "Christian Leaders Lack Consensus on Political Issues." A more balanced article would have mentioned some of the prominent voices within the Christian community which favor abortion rights and gay marriage, or at least oppose entangling the state in such issues.
It is also worth noting that the article cites not a single woman on the issue of abortion; all the voices quoted or referenced are men. Curious.
And this is the New York Times, supposed bastion of the effete intellectual snobs of the left.
19 November 2009
He's not me
A new, young colleague hurried to two older, more experienced ones and excitedly told them she had just seen John Bolton in the halls. They questioned her, and laughed. That's not him, replied one; that's this blog's author. The other quipped that there's nobody on staff less like Bolton, in fact.
I suppose I'm flattered by the second comment.
But still, I went home and trimmed the moustache.
I suppose I'm flattered by the second comment.
But still, I went home and trimmed the moustache.
16 November 2009
Response to a response
I received a comment from Jon-Roy Sloan on a posting of mine which suggested that Congress enact an increase in the federal gasoline tax to encourage drivers to conserve fuel, and thereby mitigate several problems facing our nation. The original posting came almost a year ago, when gasoline prices had declined so far that an additional dollar per gallon would have left prices well below what they had been even a few months before. Since the comment goes far beyond that rather narrow topic, I thought it merited a separate discussion.
Here's Sloan's comment, in full, with its native grammatical blemishes:
Why do want the government to regulate every portion of our lives? Do you seriously believe what you are saying? You want government to take even more of my hard earned money and give a rebate to low-income earners? I worked hard, school, military, grad school, to get where I am and you want to take it away because you believe the sky is falling? The weatherman can't accurately predict the weather for more than 24 hours out, and they have only been able to that for the past 8-10 years and you expect me to believe in Al Gore. Apparently your not from Tennessee, there is a reason Tennesseans didn't vote for him in 2000, he is a LIAR and a CHEAT!
I find his comment of considerable interest, particularly because much of what he says isn't at all related to the posting. I'll take his comments point by point.
I was not advocating that government "regulate every portion of our lives." Indeed, quite the contrary. I feel very strongly, for instance, that government should not regulate private behavior which does not adversely affect the interests of other people. For instance, I favor the right of loving couples to marry, regardless of the race or gender(s) of the couple; I favor the right of people to hold and voice the political views they favor regardless of whether their views offend others or even call into question the political and economic policies of the nation at large, I favor the right of individuals to write and publish and read whatever they choose, and I favor the right of all of us to live free from bigotry regardless of our ethnicity, gender, religiosity, or sexual orientation. I may be making an enormously incorrect assumption about Sloan's ideology, but I wonder if he feels the same way?
Yes, I do seriously believe what I am saying. I would not have wanted to take the effort of writing if I didn't, and I think it does little for the sake of discourse to doubt the seriousness with which others propound their opinions.
I gather Sloan opposes the concept of either progressive taxation or government expenditures which do not favor the wealthy, or both. I disagree. The existence, let alone the growth, of substantial income disparities weakens the fibers holding our nation together, yet ever since the so-called "Reagan revolution" that is exactly what has been happening. Income disparities are at their greatest level since such records began to be kept over a century ago. I'm not going to go into the specifics here, as there is a lot of commentary and data supporting this assertion; highly readable collections of resources for those interested can be found in the writings of folks such as Paul Krugman and Robert Reich. Indeed, I should think that even the very wealthy would be concerned, lest the disparities spark such political turmoil as could threaten their own privileged position. Reduction of those disparities would be of common interest for this reason, if no other. But there are other reasons. A broader sharing of the nation's wealth would promote the national interest by stimulating productivity, encouraging growth, and building a richer, stronger and more cohesive nation. (You'll notice I say nothing here about the ethical implications of such disparities, but I would argue that they are of even greater moment.)
In reply to Sloan's specific complaint about using federal tax policy to transfer some of the wealth of the very affluent to the very poor, I would say "yes." We saw during the Bush years how ineffective and unjust tax policies were when they served to transfer tax burden to the working poor and lower middle class from the very wealthy, and how little those policies did to benefit the nation at large (and here I am being generous). It is time to reverse that trend, and restore some economic justice to our tax system. Frankly, for starters, I'd be happy to see it revert to the level of progressivity we saw during the Reagan years.
What I'm guessing that Sloan is missing here is any understanding of how more equitable federal tax and expenditure policy can benefit the nation at large. Higher education provides one of the most obvious examples, as expenditure and tax policies which make college more affordable for students from less affluent families not only expand the horizons of those students, but enrich the nation at large by increasing our national intellectual capital. Or take the issue that seems to stir Sloan's ire. Higher gasoline prices encourage Americans to use less fuel, either by eliminating unnecessary driving, driving more fuel efficient vehicles, using mass transit more, or biking and walking more. Each of these alternatives provide multiple benefits, among them being a reduction of American reliance on foreign oil (which benefits the economy and national security), reduction in air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions (which benefits our health, environment, and ability to deal with environmental degradation) and our quality of life (by leading to better exercise, less traffic congestion), while simultaneously providing motivation for our automobile manufacturers to become more globally competitive.
Sloan doesn't like the idea of tax rebates for the working poor, but he is ignoring (or is blind to) a basic question of equity. The working poor are the people least able to upgrade their automobile choices to more modern fuel efficient vehicles, and are most likely to be stuck with older, less efficient cars. A tax -- whether directly imposed by the government or indirectly imposed by the marketplace -- which has the effect of dissuading people from driving gas hogs hits them the hardest, but a rebate of the tax they paid can mitigate that impact, and do so in a very productive way by further encouraging them to switch to more fuel efficient transportation.
Sloan also misses a key aspect of a rebate: the rebate of gas taxes paid by poor consumers to those same consumers is not a transfer of tax revenues from the affluent driver Sloan seems to favor, but a return to the working poor of taxes the working poor have paid out of their own funds.
He also misses the sad fact that many of the working poor work hard too. They just don't have the advantages Sloan presumably has (e.g., college education, including a graduate education), so their hard work doesn't provide them with the income Sloan's hard work provides. That's testimony to a difference in opportunity, not in effort or virtue.
Despite his good education, Sloan then segues into an ignorant dismissal of issues relating to global warming, confusing the uncertainties of short-term weather forecasting with the causes, nature and consequences of global warming. And no, I don't expect Sloan to "believe in Al Gore" (whatever that means) but I do expect any educated and informed human being to be impressed by the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community regarding global warming, and to participate in a serious discussion of the issues rather than retreat into silly ad hominem attacks on a single individual, especially ones based on personal anger over matters totally unrelated to the topic nominally at issue.
Here's Sloan's comment, in full, with its native grammatical blemishes:
Why do want the government to regulate every portion of our lives? Do you seriously believe what you are saying? You want government to take even more of my hard earned money and give a rebate to low-income earners? I worked hard, school, military, grad school, to get where I am and you want to take it away because you believe the sky is falling? The weatherman can't accurately predict the weather for more than 24 hours out, and they have only been able to that for the past 8-10 years and you expect me to believe in Al Gore. Apparently your not from Tennessee, there is a reason Tennesseans didn't vote for him in 2000, he is a LIAR and a CHEAT!
I find his comment of considerable interest, particularly because much of what he says isn't at all related to the posting. I'll take his comments point by point.
I was not advocating that government "regulate every portion of our lives." Indeed, quite the contrary. I feel very strongly, for instance, that government should not regulate private behavior which does not adversely affect the interests of other people. For instance, I favor the right of loving couples to marry, regardless of the race or gender(s) of the couple; I favor the right of people to hold and voice the political views they favor regardless of whether their views offend others or even call into question the political and economic policies of the nation at large, I favor the right of individuals to write and publish and read whatever they choose, and I favor the right of all of us to live free from bigotry regardless of our ethnicity, gender, religiosity, or sexual orientation. I may be making an enormously incorrect assumption about Sloan's ideology, but I wonder if he feels the same way?
Yes, I do seriously believe what I am saying. I would not have wanted to take the effort of writing if I didn't, and I think it does little for the sake of discourse to doubt the seriousness with which others propound their opinions.
I gather Sloan opposes the concept of either progressive taxation or government expenditures which do not favor the wealthy, or both. I disagree. The existence, let alone the growth, of substantial income disparities weakens the fibers holding our nation together, yet ever since the so-called "Reagan revolution" that is exactly what has been happening. Income disparities are at their greatest level since such records began to be kept over a century ago. I'm not going to go into the specifics here, as there is a lot of commentary and data supporting this assertion; highly readable collections of resources for those interested can be found in the writings of folks such as Paul Krugman and Robert Reich. Indeed, I should think that even the very wealthy would be concerned, lest the disparities spark such political turmoil as could threaten their own privileged position. Reduction of those disparities would be of common interest for this reason, if no other. But there are other reasons. A broader sharing of the nation's wealth would promote the national interest by stimulating productivity, encouraging growth, and building a richer, stronger and more cohesive nation. (You'll notice I say nothing here about the ethical implications of such disparities, but I would argue that they are of even greater moment.)
In reply to Sloan's specific complaint about using federal tax policy to transfer some of the wealth of the very affluent to the very poor, I would say "yes." We saw during the Bush years how ineffective and unjust tax policies were when they served to transfer tax burden to the working poor and lower middle class from the very wealthy, and how little those policies did to benefit the nation at large (and here I am being generous). It is time to reverse that trend, and restore some economic justice to our tax system. Frankly, for starters, I'd be happy to see it revert to the level of progressivity we saw during the Reagan years.
What I'm guessing that Sloan is missing here is any understanding of how more equitable federal tax and expenditure policy can benefit the nation at large. Higher education provides one of the most obvious examples, as expenditure and tax policies which make college more affordable for students from less affluent families not only expand the horizons of those students, but enrich the nation at large by increasing our national intellectual capital. Or take the issue that seems to stir Sloan's ire. Higher gasoline prices encourage Americans to use less fuel, either by eliminating unnecessary driving, driving more fuel efficient vehicles, using mass transit more, or biking and walking more. Each of these alternatives provide multiple benefits, among them being a reduction of American reliance on foreign oil (which benefits the economy and national security), reduction in air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions (which benefits our health, environment, and ability to deal with environmental degradation) and our quality of life (by leading to better exercise, less traffic congestion), while simultaneously providing motivation for our automobile manufacturers to become more globally competitive.
Sloan doesn't like the idea of tax rebates for the working poor, but he is ignoring (or is blind to) a basic question of equity. The working poor are the people least able to upgrade their automobile choices to more modern fuel efficient vehicles, and are most likely to be stuck with older, less efficient cars. A tax -- whether directly imposed by the government or indirectly imposed by the marketplace -- which has the effect of dissuading people from driving gas hogs hits them the hardest, but a rebate of the tax they paid can mitigate that impact, and do so in a very productive way by further encouraging them to switch to more fuel efficient transportation.
Sloan also misses a key aspect of a rebate: the rebate of gas taxes paid by poor consumers to those same consumers is not a transfer of tax revenues from the affluent driver Sloan seems to favor, but a return to the working poor of taxes the working poor have paid out of their own funds.
He also misses the sad fact that many of the working poor work hard too. They just don't have the advantages Sloan presumably has (e.g., college education, including a graduate education), so their hard work doesn't provide them with the income Sloan's hard work provides. That's testimony to a difference in opportunity, not in effort or virtue.
Despite his good education, Sloan then segues into an ignorant dismissal of issues relating to global warming, confusing the uncertainties of short-term weather forecasting with the causes, nature and consequences of global warming. And no, I don't expect Sloan to "believe in Al Gore" (whatever that means) but I do expect any educated and informed human being to be impressed by the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community regarding global warming, and to participate in a serious discussion of the issues rather than retreat into silly ad hominem attacks on a single individual, especially ones based on personal anger over matters totally unrelated to the topic nominally at issue.
13 November 2009
The way it was
My cell phone died three weeks ago. Talked with Verizon - long story short, it doesn't make sense to get a new one until January 1. So I'm suddenly living back in 1 B.C. wondering how I can get in touch with this person or that company, or for same to get in touch with me. Not that I used it that much (he says defensively) but it's what I used.
I had fantasized about this moment ever since I got the thing, figuring that if it died I'd do fine. Would be liberating, even. Peaceful. Maybe even discontinue the service entirely.
Wrong.
Okay, maybe with time it could be. But then, maybe in time world peace will break out and hunger will be conquered.
I want my phone now!
I had fantasized about this moment ever since I got the thing, figuring that if it died I'd do fine. Would be liberating, even. Peaceful. Maybe even discontinue the service entirely.
Wrong.
Okay, maybe with time it could be. But then, maybe in time world peace will break out and hunger will be conquered.
I want my phone now!
09 November 2009
Ban them. Now.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who is struck by the tragic similarities between the murderous rampage at Ft. Hood last week, and the one at Virginia Tech last year. In both cases, innocent lives were shattered by unarticulated rage. In both cases, acts of courage, communities in shock, lingering questions about warning signs missed, of opportunities to stop the killer long before the killings occurred. And in both cases, calls for more effective ways of identifying and screening potential killers before their rage explodes.
But in both cases, there has been one glaring omission in the media coverage, in the cacophony of voices asking "how" and "why" on the morning after. Yes, it's appropriate to focus on the emotional demons that drove the murderer to kill. But shouldn't we be asking why we allow such deadly weapons to be available to them?
Both killers apparently used handguns guns capable of firing rapidly and often. And both of them appear to have legally acquired their murderous weapons. (In this most recent case, the alleged killer apparently bought an FN Herstal 5.7 mm. pistol at a local store called Guns Galore -- what a name! This particular model can handle a 30 round clip, and was unsuccessfully targeted for a federal ban in 2005.)
It should go without saying that they would have been far less effective killers if they did not have easy access to such weapons! Can anybody imagine that either killer would have been so murderously effective if he had been armed with a knife instead of a rapid-fire automatic?
This is crazy! We as a nation get all excited about killer spinach and tainted lettuce, but we freely allow our killers to buy guns. It is time -- way past time -- to stop this madness, reclaim the Second Amendment for the purpose the founders intended, and join the company of civilized nations which strictly control access to such deadly weapons.
But in both cases, there has been one glaring omission in the media coverage, in the cacophony of voices asking "how" and "why" on the morning after. Yes, it's appropriate to focus on the emotional demons that drove the murderer to kill. But shouldn't we be asking why we allow such deadly weapons to be available to them?
Both killers apparently used handguns guns capable of firing rapidly and often. And both of them appear to have legally acquired their murderous weapons. (In this most recent case, the alleged killer apparently bought an FN Herstal 5.7 mm. pistol at a local store called Guns Galore -- what a name! This particular model can handle a 30 round clip, and was unsuccessfully targeted for a federal ban in 2005.)
It should go without saying that they would have been far less effective killers if they did not have easy access to such weapons! Can anybody imagine that either killer would have been so murderously effective if he had been armed with a knife instead of a rapid-fire automatic?
This is crazy! We as a nation get all excited about killer spinach and tainted lettuce, but we freely allow our killers to buy guns. It is time -- way past time -- to stop this madness, reclaim the Second Amendment for the purpose the founders intended, and join the company of civilized nations which strictly control access to such deadly weapons.
08 November 2009
The owners are naked; I hope they freeze
A friend e-mailed me this morning to say she didn't understand why the Angels didn't play better defense in last night's American League Championship game.
Look to corporate baseball's greed, and their slavish deference to the Great God, Television.
Last night's game might be counted as an exciting game, but it wasn't a championship game -- not by any stretch of the imagination. And why? Because the game shouldn't have been played at all, and certainly shouldn't have been extended into the late innings. Infielders should never have to wear balaclavas ... especially when they interfere with their ability to hear a team-mate calling them on or off a pop-fly. Batters should never have to face inside fastballs when their hands are too cold to get around on a swing. Fielders should never lose a popfly because rain is lashing their eyes when they look up for the ball. Fielders should never have to take the time to make sure they're gripping the ball by the seams before throwing to make a close play. Pitchers should never have to forgo particular pitches because it's too cold for them to control the ball as well as they're able. It was cold, it was wet, and it was raining -- too cold, wet and rainy for baseball, but the game went on.
The question is, why did the game go on? Because it "had" to be played, and played to its finish. Baseball owners have tied their bank accounts to the dictates of television -- play on the date and times scheduled for the convenience of television, and players, fans and the very quality of the game be damned.
Angels' defense? How about the Yankees' defense? It wasn't just Izturis's error in the 13th; Jeter erred in the 8th, and Cano in the 13th. Beyond that, the play was sloppy on both sides. Why? Not because the players are sloppy players -- far from it! Those are championship-quality players, all of them. It was because of the rain, and the cold. That wasn't a championship game; it was a game of errors, sloppy defense, sloppy pitching, sloppy batting, and sloppy baserunning -- all because the game should never have been played in those conditions. Never.
Why not play in the afternoon, when it was marginally warmer? Because of television -- God forbid they should conflict with televised college football games. Why won't today's Dodgers/Phillies game be played in the afternoon, when it will be warmer? God forbid they should run afoul of NFL viewership!
And they'll be playing into November anyway. That's a travesty, especially if the World Series is between New York and Philadelphia -- not because I have anything against New York (okay, maybe I do) or Philadelphia, but because November in the northeast is much too late for baseball, especially night baseball. And not just the northeast -- look at the ridiculous conditions the Phillies and Rockies faced in Denver.
A radical proposal: baseball should be played in warm weather, or covered stadiums. I mean, why do we call them the "Boys of Summer"? Baseball should be played in dry conditions. There's a reason games used to be postponed because of rain. But no, you can't postpone a playoff game, or call it in mid-game to be continued on a better day, because television won't permit it.
In my estimation, no game should be played in rain, no game should be played in temperatures more appropriate to ice hockey, and no game should be played in November ... unless the World Series is permanently moved to Puerto Rico.
If baseball insists on early winter playoff games, they should all be scheduled in sun-belt cities, regardless of the teams involved. And if corporate baseball doesn't want to do that, they should shorten the season -- either by reducing the number of games or bringing back the old doubleheader ... but heaven forfend; they'd lose revenue!
I'm not upset at my friend for her question; I'm upset at baseball owners, and the media commentators who won't report the emperor's nudity.
Bah, humbug!
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 18 October 2009
Look to corporate baseball's greed, and their slavish deference to the Great God, Television.
Last night's game might be counted as an exciting game, but it wasn't a championship game -- not by any stretch of the imagination. And why? Because the game shouldn't have been played at all, and certainly shouldn't have been extended into the late innings. Infielders should never have to wear balaclavas ... especially when they interfere with their ability to hear a team-mate calling them on or off a pop-fly. Batters should never have to face inside fastballs when their hands are too cold to get around on a swing. Fielders should never lose a popfly because rain is lashing their eyes when they look up for the ball. Fielders should never have to take the time to make sure they're gripping the ball by the seams before throwing to make a close play. Pitchers should never have to forgo particular pitches because it's too cold for them to control the ball as well as they're able. It was cold, it was wet, and it was raining -- too cold, wet and rainy for baseball, but the game went on.
The question is, why did the game go on? Because it "had" to be played, and played to its finish. Baseball owners have tied their bank accounts to the dictates of television -- play on the date and times scheduled for the convenience of television, and players, fans and the very quality of the game be damned.
Angels' defense? How about the Yankees' defense? It wasn't just Izturis's error in the 13th; Jeter erred in the 8th, and Cano in the 13th. Beyond that, the play was sloppy on both sides. Why? Not because the players are sloppy players -- far from it! Those are championship-quality players, all of them. It was because of the rain, and the cold. That wasn't a championship game; it was a game of errors, sloppy defense, sloppy pitching, sloppy batting, and sloppy baserunning -- all because the game should never have been played in those conditions. Never.
Why not play in the afternoon, when it was marginally warmer? Because of television -- God forbid they should conflict with televised college football games. Why won't today's Dodgers/Phillies game be played in the afternoon, when it will be warmer? God forbid they should run afoul of NFL viewership!
And they'll be playing into November anyway. That's a travesty, especially if the World Series is between New York and Philadelphia -- not because I have anything against New York (okay, maybe I do) or Philadelphia, but because November in the northeast is much too late for baseball, especially night baseball. And not just the northeast -- look at the ridiculous conditions the Phillies and Rockies faced in Denver.
A radical proposal: baseball should be played in warm weather, or covered stadiums. I mean, why do we call them the "Boys of Summer"? Baseball should be played in dry conditions. There's a reason games used to be postponed because of rain. But no, you can't postpone a playoff game, or call it in mid-game to be continued on a better day, because television won't permit it.
In my estimation, no game should be played in rain, no game should be played in temperatures more appropriate to ice hockey, and no game should be played in November ... unless the World Series is permanently moved to Puerto Rico.
If baseball insists on early winter playoff games, they should all be scheduled in sun-belt cities, regardless of the teams involved. And if corporate baseball doesn't want to do that, they should shorten the season -- either by reducing the number of games or bringing back the old doubleheader ... but heaven forfend; they'd lose revenue!
I'm not upset at my friend for her question; I'm upset at baseball owners, and the media commentators who won't report the emperor's nudity.
Bah, humbug!
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 18 October 2009
Casey's bummed
Good news. The Orioles just officially announced that they traded their 27 year old ace, Eric Bedard, for 5 players.
Let's see, Bedard was 13-5 last year, with 221 strikeouts and a 3.16 ERA. Despite his shortened season, he tied Roy Halladay, Johan Santana and Justin Verlander in the Cy Young voting last year. Here's what they got for him:
George Sherrill, a pretty good 30 year-old reliever who went 2-0 with 3 saves and a 2.36 ERA for Seattle.
Adam Jones, a pretty good 22 year-old Class AAA minor league outfielder with a .314 average at Tacoma last year.
Chris Tillman, a 19 year-old Class A pitcher with a 4.84 ERA and a 7-11 record last year.
Kam Mickolio, a 23 year old minor league reliever with a 2.68 ERA at Class AA and AAA ball last year.
Tony Butler, a 20 year old minor league pitcher with a 4.75 ERA and a 4-7 record in Class A ball.
I'm impressed. Bet the Red Sox are worried.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 10 February 2008
Let's see, Bedard was 13-5 last year, with 221 strikeouts and a 3.16 ERA. Despite his shortened season, he tied Roy Halladay, Johan Santana and Justin Verlander in the Cy Young voting last year. Here's what they got for him:
George Sherrill, a pretty good 30 year-old reliever who went 2-0 with 3 saves and a 2.36 ERA for Seattle.
Adam Jones, a pretty good 22 year-old Class AAA minor league outfielder with a .314 average at Tacoma last year.
Chris Tillman, a 19 year-old Class A pitcher with a 4.84 ERA and a 7-11 record last year.
Kam Mickolio, a 23 year old minor league reliever with a 2.68 ERA at Class AA and AAA ball last year.
Tony Butler, a 20 year old minor league pitcher with a 4.75 ERA and a 4-7 record in Class A ball.
I'm impressed. Bet the Red Sox are worried.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 10 February 2008
America's un-American capital
Never mind Iraq, ignore S-Chip, pay no attention to global warming. We have a crisis which surpasses all the others. Washington, D.C. is the nation's capital and baseball is the national pastime, so why can't a baseball fan in the Washington metropolitan area listen to the World Series? I live in Arlington, Virginia which until it was retroceded to the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1846 was actually part of the District of Columbia. Yet there's not a D.C. area radio station carrying the World Series with a signal strong enough to cross the Potomac. It's an outrage!
Can anybody imagine that the Nationals will fare any better than the lamented and lamentable Senators in a city of such philistines?
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 24 October 2007
Can anybody imagine that the Nationals will fare any better than the lamented and lamentable Senators in a city of such philistines?
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 24 October 2007
Mortification at the heart of the evil empire
Spectator sports bore me. Or worse. Basketball's presumed attractions mystify me; abnormally tall people running back and forth throwing a ball in the hoop. Who cares? I mean, beyond those tens of millions who succumb to March madness? Hockey is basketball played on skates, with alarming assaults and flailing sticks thrown in. Football, as we Americans so chauvinistically call it, is incomprehensible to the uninitiated and so brutal that that victory seems to go to the teams with the fewest injured. I loved playing real football -- as the world knows it -- but watching a game is a personal cure for insomnia ... although, it must be admitted, 99.44% of the world clearly disagrees with me. But there you have it.
But baseball! There's a game! One to be savored, full of intricacies and fascinations for the most discerning of fans. Well, okay, maybe not, but still, I confess to an inordinate fondness for the sport. But even there, the political influences; a populist heart must lead any conscientious fan to an intractable antipathy for the New York Yankees. Save for those few benighted souls who hail from Gotham, how could anybody respect a team which so perfectly exemplifies the arrogance of wealth?
Over the past 13 seasons, the Yankees have lavished nearly $1.6 billion on their players, an amount far in excess of any other team. The imbalance is so severe that just one Yankee pinch hitter from Thursday's game (he didn't even play yesterday) is paid nearly a third of the combined salary for the opposing team.
Yet here's the rub: the Yankees barely reached the playoffs this year, and have done about as poorly for the past two years. As I write, they trail their comparatively impoverished (stress the word "comparatively" -- no contemporary major leaguer has any grounds for financial complaint!) two games to none in the first round of the playoffs despite a payroll over three times their opponent's, and stand in danger of being ignominiously dispatched tomorrow night into the netherworld of the off-season.
Better, it's not just the Yankees this year. Which populist amongst us cannot be smiling because not only is the team ranked 22nd in payroll (Cleveland) leading the team ranked first, but the team ranked 23rd (Arizona) is leading a team with a payroll 62% greater (Chicago) and the team ranked 26th (Colorado) is leading a team paid 66% more (Philadelphia) ... and in all three cases, the David is leading its Goliath two games to none (Colorado and Arizona have subsequently swept the Phillies and Cubs).
Baseball. There's a sport.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 7 October 2007
But baseball! There's a game! One to be savored, full of intricacies and fascinations for the most discerning of fans. Well, okay, maybe not, but still, I confess to an inordinate fondness for the sport. But even there, the political influences; a populist heart must lead any conscientious fan to an intractable antipathy for the New York Yankees. Save for those few benighted souls who hail from Gotham, how could anybody respect a team which so perfectly exemplifies the arrogance of wealth?
Over the past 13 seasons, the Yankees have lavished nearly $1.6 billion on their players, an amount far in excess of any other team. The imbalance is so severe that just one Yankee pinch hitter from Thursday's game (he didn't even play yesterday) is paid nearly a third of the combined salary for the opposing team.
Yet here's the rub: the Yankees barely reached the playoffs this year, and have done about as poorly for the past two years. As I write, they trail their comparatively impoverished (stress the word "comparatively" -- no contemporary major leaguer has any grounds for financial complaint!) two games to none in the first round of the playoffs despite a payroll over three times their opponent's, and stand in danger of being ignominiously dispatched tomorrow night into the netherworld of the off-season.
Better, it's not just the Yankees this year. Which populist amongst us cannot be smiling because not only is the team ranked 22nd in payroll (Cleveland) leading the team ranked first, but the team ranked 23rd (Arizona) is leading a team with a payroll 62% greater (Chicago) and the team ranked 26th (Colorado) is leading a team paid 66% more (Philadelphia) ... and in all three cases, the David is leading its Goliath two games to none (Colorado and Arizona have subsequently swept the Phillies and Cubs).
Baseball. There's a sport.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 7 October 2007
Whirling peas day
Today, October 15, is Conflict Resolution Day, which is celebrated internationally to promote the peaceful resolution of conflict. At the United States Institute of Peace it was celebrated by, uh, doing nothing. No celebration, no acknowledgment, nothing on the home page.
Guess they forgot.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 15 October 2009
Guess they forgot.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 15 October 2009
The new orthodoxy?
Of late, when I close down Word, it reassures me with this line:
I am so relieved.
Update: More recently, it has started asking me if I want to save normal. Such a burden of responsibility!
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 1 October 2009
Word is saving normal
I am so relieved.
Update: More recently, it has started asking me if I want to save normal. Such a burden of responsibility!
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 1 October 2009
Unreported elephant in the room
Today a few thousand demonstrators came to Washington to demonstrate against something. It's not clear from listening to them what that "something" is, but nominally, the unifying complaint dealt with high taxes and/or high deficits.
Practically, it can't be either of those. Taxes are no higher now than they have been for several years and there aren't any indications that Congress is moving to increase them. And these people sure didn't show up when George W. Bush was busy turning Bill Clinton's surpluses into huge deficits. I didn't notice any of them joining the multitudes protesting Bush's wars, complaining about the hundreds of billions he was adding to the deficit.
But maybe that's not why they came. Maybe they came to protest the socialistic -- or is it communistic? -- tide sweeping across America in the form of, uh, what? Public funding of fire-fighting? Our nationalized military? Tax-supported schools? Federalized air traffic control? State-owned streets and highways? Social Security and Medicare? (Maybe these people are a little slow?) Uh, no, maybe it's a health care reform proposal which is built around, uh, privately owned insurance companies?
Nope. They may be making the noise, but socialism's surge isn't exactly lapping against these shores yet.
Nor was it about patriotism -- not with all those Confederate flags floating around.
Ah yes, they're upset about President Obama trashing the Constitution. I'm not quite sure how he's supposed to be doing that, but isn't it odd how they weren't here to protest George W. Bush's many transgressions in that regard? Y'know, I doubt many of them could tell you anything about the 14th Amendment; or Article 1, section 8, clause 11; or that pesky little clause in the middle of the Second. Nope, it's not about the Constitution.
Or maybe there's another reason. A reason not mentioned in any of the news coverage I've heard or read about these demonstrations, but apparent when one looks -- really looks -- at the photos of the the demonstrators. All white. I looked through every photo of the demo I could find on the web, and not one -- NOT ONE -- non-white face.
Maybe, just maybe, they're upset that Barack Obama, native of Hawai'i, resident of Illinois, did intentionally move into the White House knowing full well that he is of African ancestry.
Let's face it. Race is the unreported unifying factor among the demonstrators. Race -- or diversity -- is the one theme unifying their anger. These people aren't angry about socialism or deficits or health care or the Constitution. They're angry about the reality that America is a very diverse place, with citizens of differing skin colors, differing religions, differing sexual orientations, differing understandings of what America is. They're angry because President Obama's very existence threatens their fantasy about what America is.
Personally, I'm angry that the media don't delve beyond counting the numbers or parroting the slogans, and examine the real reasons why these people came to Washington. Racism is the elephant in the room, but none of the major media are willing to see it.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 12 September 2009
Practically, it can't be either of those. Taxes are no higher now than they have been for several years and there aren't any indications that Congress is moving to increase them. And these people sure didn't show up when George W. Bush was busy turning Bill Clinton's surpluses into huge deficits. I didn't notice any of them joining the multitudes protesting Bush's wars, complaining about the hundreds of billions he was adding to the deficit.
But maybe that's not why they came. Maybe they came to protest the socialistic -- or is it communistic? -- tide sweeping across America in the form of, uh, what? Public funding of fire-fighting? Our nationalized military? Tax-supported schools? Federalized air traffic control? State-owned streets and highways? Social Security and Medicare? (Maybe these people are a little slow?) Uh, no, maybe it's a health care reform proposal which is built around, uh, privately owned insurance companies?
Nope. They may be making the noise, but socialism's surge isn't exactly lapping against these shores yet.
Nor was it about patriotism -- not with all those Confederate flags floating around.
Ah yes, they're upset about President Obama trashing the Constitution. I'm not quite sure how he's supposed to be doing that, but isn't it odd how they weren't here to protest George W. Bush's many transgressions in that regard? Y'know, I doubt many of them could tell you anything about the 14th Amendment; or Article 1, section 8, clause 11; or that pesky little clause in the middle of the Second. Nope, it's not about the Constitution.
Or maybe there's another reason. A reason not mentioned in any of the news coverage I've heard or read about these demonstrations, but apparent when one looks -- really looks -- at the photos of the the demonstrators. All white. I looked through every photo of the demo I could find on the web, and not one -- NOT ONE -- non-white face.
Maybe, just maybe, they're upset that Barack Obama, native of Hawai'i, resident of Illinois, did intentionally move into the White House knowing full well that he is of African ancestry.
Let's face it. Race is the unreported unifying factor among the demonstrators. Race -- or diversity -- is the one theme unifying their anger. These people aren't angry about socialism or deficits or health care or the Constitution. They're angry about the reality that America is a very diverse place, with citizens of differing skin colors, differing religions, differing sexual orientations, differing understandings of what America is. They're angry because President Obama's very existence threatens their fantasy about what America is.
Personally, I'm angry that the media don't delve beyond counting the numbers or parroting the slogans, and examine the real reasons why these people came to Washington. Racism is the elephant in the room, but none of the major media are willing to see it.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 12 September 2009
Letter to the leaders: health care reform
Sent this to President Obama, the legislative leadership and my Congressional representatives. It's something all of us who support national health care reform should do; we need to push back against the right-wing demagogues and their lies.
--------------
It might seem I would have little interest in supporting or funding national health care reform. I have good health care coverage coverage through my employer, in six years I will be eligible for Medicare, and my family income is about $200,000 so the sort of tax increases which might become necessary would hit me fairly significantly.
Far more important, however, I am a citizen who cares about his fellow Americans, tens of millions of whom lack health insurance, tens of millions more of whom lack truly adequate coverage. This is appalling. The United States is the richest country in the world, yet we are the only affluent nation which does not insure that its citizens have proper health care. The consequence is that most of our key health indicators compare unfavorably to those of other modern nations, and that translates out into shorter lives and lower quality of life for millions of Americans. We should be ashamed! Ironically, it also means that our national health care costs are significantly higher than in countries which provide a humane level of care.
We need health care reform. And a key part of the necessary reform is what is commonly being called the "public option." The public option will insure coverage at reasonable rates for all Americans, will bring health care costs down, will improve our quality of life, and will keep insurance plans competitive.
Of course, one must be concerned about costs. Yet good health care reform, which must include the public option, will go a long way towards constraining costs. Better health care, and especially more effective early intervention and preventative health care, will improve American productivity, making us an even richer nation ... with higher tax receipts. If funding cuts elsewhere need to be made, winding down our futile war in Afghanistan and accelerating our withdrawal from Iraq would provide billions in savings. And if higher taxes on the affluent are necessary, so be it; I am more than willing to see my tax bill go up if if means that all of my fellow citizens will have ready access to the health care they need.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 5 September 2009
--------------
It might seem I would have little interest in supporting or funding national health care reform. I have good health care coverage coverage through my employer, in six years I will be eligible for Medicare, and my family income is about $200,000 so the sort of tax increases which might become necessary would hit me fairly significantly.
Far more important, however, I am a citizen who cares about his fellow Americans, tens of millions of whom lack health insurance, tens of millions more of whom lack truly adequate coverage. This is appalling. The United States is the richest country in the world, yet we are the only affluent nation which does not insure that its citizens have proper health care. The consequence is that most of our key health indicators compare unfavorably to those of other modern nations, and that translates out into shorter lives and lower quality of life for millions of Americans. We should be ashamed! Ironically, it also means that our national health care costs are significantly higher than in countries which provide a humane level of care.
We need health care reform. And a key part of the necessary reform is what is commonly being called the "public option." The public option will insure coverage at reasonable rates for all Americans, will bring health care costs down, will improve our quality of life, and will keep insurance plans competitive.
Of course, one must be concerned about costs. Yet good health care reform, which must include the public option, will go a long way towards constraining costs. Better health care, and especially more effective early intervention and preventative health care, will improve American productivity, making us an even richer nation ... with higher tax receipts. If funding cuts elsewhere need to be made, winding down our futile war in Afghanistan and accelerating our withdrawal from Iraq would provide billions in savings. And if higher taxes on the affluent are necessary, so be it; I am more than willing to see my tax bill go up if if means that all of my fellow citizens will have ready access to the health care they need.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 5 September 2009
Unsociable networks?
Two social network "friends" have recently been adding material that stretch the concept of social networking well beyond norms which seem reasonable to me.One plasters angry, even vicious political screeds, replete with ad hominem attacks and hostile non sequiturs, on to the walls of his social network "friends," many of whom are his co-workers. Okay, my friends include a lot of political junkies and policy wonks and our walls display a lot of political content but generally the discourse is quite civil, the norm seeming to be that if you don't agree, you either don't say anything at all, or you politely disagree. But this guy just slams people on the other side.
I mean, the reason they're called "social networks" is that we're 'sposed to be sociable, right? Suffice it to say, said "friend" is no longer on my list of network friends. Come to think of it, he's no longer on my list of workplace friends, either.
Then there's the "friend" who is apparently desperate to get pregnant, and fills her postings with no end of detailed -- and I mean, detailed! -- descriptions of her gynecological problems and the medical attempts to deal with them. Were we close friends, perhaps I'd understand, but we're merely professional colleagues and the intended father of her child is definitely not me.
I suppose I'm hopeful that she gets to have the kid she wants, yet aren't we better off leaving more of the process to our imaginations?
Call me old fashioned, but aren't there some things better left unsaid, at least in public?
Note: this was originally posted to ketches, yaks & hawks 1 September 2009
Tragic, futile milestone
The results are in: more allied troops have died in Afghanistan this year than in any year since the war began. An "improvised explosive device" killed four American troops today, raising the total of allied dead to 295 for the year, one more than last year's record total. Since the war began, 1,340 have been killed. Of those, 802 have been Americans, including 172 this year.
Update: As of 8 Nov. 2009 it's 466, for a total of 1,513; 916 have been Americans.
Many, many more Afghans have died too, although our news media seem far less interested in them; I suppose they're just part of the scenery although to their families I'm sure their deaths are very real, indeed.
In the meantime, George W. Bush's ill-considered war has morphed into Barack Obama's, and as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs noted on Sunday, the situation is "deteriorating." How many more allied soldiers will die before President Obama decides it's time to stumble to the exit? How many more Afghan civilians?
And what will be left? Another failed state, slipping back into anarchy, chaos and oppression? A destabilized, nuclear Pakistan? An American colossus, further hobbled by debt and weakened by our reckless intrusion into the historical tangle of Afghanistan? There is no good answer, no sure solution. But what seems certain is that this war will end badly, whether it ends soon, or drags on for decades.
Our president is a learned, thoughtful person; he needs to heed the lessons of history, both Afghan and American. We need a credible exit strategy now. We need to do what we can to help Pakistan stabilize. We need to focus our resources on our own problems at home. And we need to staunch the flow of blood and treasure into the rugged soil of Afghanistan.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 25 August 2009
Update: As of 8 Nov. 2009 it's 466, for a total of 1,513; 916 have been Americans.
Many, many more Afghans have died too, although our news media seem far less interested in them; I suppose they're just part of the scenery although to their families I'm sure their deaths are very real, indeed.
In the meantime, George W. Bush's ill-considered war has morphed into Barack Obama's, and as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs noted on Sunday, the situation is "deteriorating." How many more allied soldiers will die before President Obama decides it's time to stumble to the exit? How many more Afghan civilians?
And what will be left? Another failed state, slipping back into anarchy, chaos and oppression? A destabilized, nuclear Pakistan? An American colossus, further hobbled by debt and weakened by our reckless intrusion into the historical tangle of Afghanistan? There is no good answer, no sure solution. But what seems certain is that this war will end badly, whether it ends soon, or drags on for decades.
Our president is a learned, thoughtful person; he needs to heed the lessons of history, both Afghan and American. We need a credible exit strategy now. We need to do what we can to help Pakistan stabilize. We need to focus our resources on our own problems at home. And we need to staunch the flow of blood and treasure into the rugged soil of Afghanistan.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 25 August 2009
This is what our soldiers are fighting for?
News item, as reported by BBC:
"An Afghan bill allowing a husband to starve his wife if she refuses to have sex has been published in the official gazette and become law .... It allows a man to withhold food from his wife if she refuses his sexual demands .... [The] bill has passed quietly into law with the apparent approval of President Karzai."
Point of reference: 1,315 allied soldiers, 782 of them from the U.S., have died to create and protect the government that just enacted this barbaric law.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 17 August 2009
"An Afghan bill allowing a husband to starve his wife if she refuses to have sex has been published in the official gazette and become law .... It allows a man to withhold food from his wife if she refuses his sexual demands .... [The] bill has passed quietly into law with the apparent approval of President Karzai."
Point of reference: 1,315 allied soldiers, 782 of them from the U.S., have died to create and protect the government that just enacted this barbaric law.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 17 August 2009
Summer evening, eastern seaboard
Humid and warm, not quite sultry, a heavy feel to the air. Big old oak trees block half the sky, lightning bugs flickering underneath. Massive clouds overhead, eerily visible in momentary flashes, backlit by sheet lightning, shape and depth and color momentarily revealed, again and again, each time different, each time fantastic. Forgotten in the beauty is the oppressive heat of the day: summer in the east at its best.
Oh yes, and bats, flying through the dusk in eternal herky jerky pursuit of insects.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 26 June 2009
Oh yes, and bats, flying through the dusk in eternal herky jerky pursuit of insects.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 26 June 2009
Pop quiz
1. Which of the following countries held presidential elections within the last decade which were marred by such widespread cheating and voting irregularities that the results were fraudulent?
a. Iran
b. Ukraine
c. United States
d. All of the above
2. The citizens of which of the following countries took to the streets in protest and severely disrupted or even shut down their government?
a. Iran
b. Ukraine
c. United States
d. Iran and Ukraine
3. The citizens of which of the following countries forced their governments to annul the fraudulent elections and hold new, fair elections?
a. Iran
b. Ukraine
c. United States
4. The citizens of which of the following countries reacted to the fraudulent presidential election by sitting on their hands, only to watch their unelected leader drag their country into illegal and ruinous war?
a. Iran
b. Ukraine
c. United States
5. Which of the following countries routinely lectures the world on the importance of democracy?
a. Iran
b. Ukraine
c. United States
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 23 June 2009
a. Iran
b. Ukraine
c. United States
d. All of the above
2. The citizens of which of the following countries took to the streets in protest and severely disrupted or even shut down their government?
a. Iran
b. Ukraine
c. United States
d. Iran and Ukraine
3. The citizens of which of the following countries forced their governments to annul the fraudulent elections and hold new, fair elections?
a. Iran
b. Ukraine
c. United States
4. The citizens of which of the following countries reacted to the fraudulent presidential election by sitting on their hands, only to watch their unelected leader drag their country into illegal and ruinous war?
a. Iran
b. Ukraine
c. United States
5. Which of the following countries routinely lectures the world on the importance of democracy?
a. Iran
b. Ukraine
c. United States
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 23 June 2009
A virtue of pacifism
I won't go postal.
I won't go postal.
I won't go postal.
I won't go postal.
I won't go postal.
I won't go postal.
No matter how well justified it would be.
I won't go postal.
Really. I won't go postal.
I won't go postal.
Note: originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 30 March 2009
I won't go postal.
I won't go postal.
I won't go postal.
I won't go postal.
I won't go postal.
No matter how well justified it would be.
I won't go postal.
Really. I won't go postal.
I won't go postal.
Note: originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 30 March 2009
Moving day approaches
Update on the move. Learned on Thursday that we vacate on tax day, which seems appropriate since moving is a very taxing process. Still don't know how much collection space we have, but I'm savaging the reference collection in anticipation. Still don't know if I get an office, or am consigned to an intern's working space. Still don't know if we have movers who know what they're doing. The thought of a refreshing game 15,000 card pick-up almost makes me want to volunteer for the job. (As the day draws closer, I probably will).
One constant remains: Fearless Leader continues to hoard information.
Am desperately hoping the escape route opens on Friday ....
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 22 March 2009
One constant remains: Fearless Leader continues to hoard information.
Am desperately hoping the escape route opens on Friday ....
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 22 March 2009
Mushroom
Looked up from my desk yesterday as Mr. Anti Social, the facilities manager, led two strangers through, muttering something about replacing the carpet. No surprise, but Mr. Social didn't deign to explain what they were up to, so I quietly reflected on what changing a wall-to-wall carpet means in a library of 15,000 volumes.
This morning Mr. Social and his new friends reappeared. Snippets overheard included mention that the strangers would need carts on which they could hold the books for a couple of days. Sounded ominous. The strangers didn't sound like library people, and there's little librarians dread more than having their collection moved by warehouse men who know nothing of call numbers. (Ever play 52-card pickup? Try it with 15,000 scrambled cards, ur, books.)
Around noon, an officious brown dress suit appeared, photographing and measuring everything in sight -- windows, door frames, office widths, electrical outlets. Asked what she was doing; was told "Measuring everything." Duh. Okay, says I, "Why?" "I was tasked to do it." Illuminating response, thought I, as dread forebodings became more prominent.
Late afternoon, the house carpenter came in. He's a good guy, so I got to talking, and espied the plan he was working on. Clearly our space, but no longer a library; the collection spaces were carved up into what looked like training rooms. Very ominous.
Very late afternoon, one of the Powers That Be came around. Oh yes, we were brightly told, the library is moving to another floor. Did Fearless Leader, renowned for reveling in cluelessness and keeping her staff in ignorance, but who was out of the office today, know? I wondered. So I asked. Oh no, not yet, I was told.
Forget that libraries aren't easily moved. Forget that when they are moved, the movers need to understand how libraries are organized if chaos is to be avoided. (Yes, it DOES matter what order those books are in!) Forget that floor loading needs to be carefully considered. Forget that the public, who are allowed to use the library, aren't allowed on the intended floor. Forget to wonder, even, about how much space we'll have. Just focus on what this suggests about the respect and esteem with which Powers That Be view the library and its drones. Makes one feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Well, actually, makes one wish the job market looked more promising ....
Oh yes, did I mention that the organization is one nominally dedicated to the prevention and peaceful resolution of conflict? How wonderfully ironic!
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 5 March 2009
This morning Mr. Social and his new friends reappeared. Snippets overheard included mention that the strangers would need carts on which they could hold the books for a couple of days. Sounded ominous. The strangers didn't sound like library people, and there's little librarians dread more than having their collection moved by warehouse men who know nothing of call numbers. (Ever play 52-card pickup? Try it with 15,000 scrambled cards, ur, books.)
Around noon, an officious brown dress suit appeared, photographing and measuring everything in sight -- windows, door frames, office widths, electrical outlets. Asked what she was doing; was told "Measuring everything." Duh. Okay, says I, "Why?" "I was tasked to do it." Illuminating response, thought I, as dread forebodings became more prominent.
Late afternoon, the house carpenter came in. He's a good guy, so I got to talking, and espied the plan he was working on. Clearly our space, but no longer a library; the collection spaces were carved up into what looked like training rooms. Very ominous.
Very late afternoon, one of the Powers That Be came around. Oh yes, we were brightly told, the library is moving to another floor. Did Fearless Leader, renowned for reveling in cluelessness and keeping her staff in ignorance, but who was out of the office today, know? I wondered. So I asked. Oh no, not yet, I was told.
Forget that libraries aren't easily moved. Forget that when they are moved, the movers need to understand how libraries are organized if chaos is to be avoided. (Yes, it DOES matter what order those books are in!) Forget that floor loading needs to be carefully considered. Forget that the public, who are allowed to use the library, aren't allowed on the intended floor. Forget to wonder, even, about how much space we'll have. Just focus on what this suggests about the respect and esteem with which Powers That Be view the library and its drones. Makes one feel all warm and fuzzy inside.Well, actually, makes one wish the job market looked more promising ....
Oh yes, did I mention that the organization is one nominally dedicated to the prevention and peaceful resolution of conflict? How wonderfully ironic!
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 5 March 2009
07 November 2009
Dittoheading themselves to irrelevance
Michael Steele, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, was reportedly upset when a CNN reporter referred to Rush Limbaugh as the de facto leader of the party. “No he’s not,” Steele is said to have replied. “I’m the de facto leader of the Republican Party. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer; Rush Limbaugh, the whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it’s incendiary. Yes, it’s ugly.”
Aha, for a moment we could harbor some respect for Steele; he certainly caught the essence of the neocons' favorite drug abuser.
But no. Rush didn't like what Steele had to say, so he blasted him. Did Steele stand up to the demagogue? Did other Republican leaders back Steele?
Nope. Steele called Limbaugh to apologize. “My intent was not to go after Rush," he is reported to have said, "I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh.”
That's right, Dittoheads. The Republican Party has "enormous respect" for Limbaugh. The Grand Old Party has melded with him; the two are one, and it's Rush who seems to be calling the shots. Great. The party has seemed intent on marginalizing itself for some time now, and this should finish them off. The party will remain enormously strong with its Dittohead constituency, and totally irrelevant to the rest of America.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 4 March 2009
Aha, for a moment we could harbor some respect for Steele; he certainly caught the essence of the neocons' favorite drug abuser.
But no. Rush didn't like what Steele had to say, so he blasted him. Did Steele stand up to the demagogue? Did other Republican leaders back Steele?
Nope. Steele called Limbaugh to apologize. “My intent was not to go after Rush," he is reported to have said, "I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh.”
That's right, Dittoheads. The Republican Party has "enormous respect" for Limbaugh. The Grand Old Party has melded with him; the two are one, and it's Rush who seems to be calling the shots. Great. The party has seemed intent on marginalizing itself for some time now, and this should finish them off. The party will remain enormously strong with its Dittohead constituency, and totally irrelevant to the rest of America.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 4 March 2009
'Nuff said
I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.
This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."
And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.
Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!
Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!
Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!
But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!
Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!
Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"
(click here to watch video of entire "I have a dream" speech)
Note: this originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 19 January 2009
05 November 2009
Will there be future Miracles on the Hudson?
As nearly everybody seems to know by now, in what New York's governor David Patterson termed a miracle on the Hudson, the flight crew of US Air flight 1549 successfully ditched their mortally damaged Airbus A320, saving the lives of all 156 aboard.
By all accounts, it was a feat requiring tremendous skill, quick thinking and steady nerves, reinforced by countless hours of training and years of experience. When one reporter asked the pilot of a similar airliner how he would characterize losing both engines shortly after takeoff as flight 1549 did, his answer was simple: "Catastrophic."
Pilot Chesley B. Sullenberger III and first officer Jeffrey B. Skiles are heroes. So are the flight attendants who successfully and quickly evacuated the plane's 150 passengers. The passengers of flight 1549 have to be thankful, indeed, that their fates were entrusted to such a highly competent air crew. So, too, do the people of New York City, who were spared the horror of a fully loaded airliner crashing into their city.
There's an interesting lesson in this which nobody seems to be noticing, but which bears attention. The airline industry has been financially troubled for some time now, and has been desperately seeking means of cutting costs. One of the industry's favorite targets is employee salaries, and most companies have been trying to force pilots and flight attendants to accept significant pay cuts. Despite resistance by the Airline Pilots Association and the other employee unions, the pay cuts have been significant.
It used to be the airline pilot pay was quite good. It isn't anymore. Top pilots are paid less than many other professions, and junior pilots are paid quite a lot less. A recent report found that beginning pilots with one of the major airlines makes just $21,000 per year, while the same airline's most senior pilots with decades of experience top out around $150,000.
Okay, most of the time, even many airline pilots will admit that they really don't earn their pay. I've heard some self-deprecating pilots liken flying airliners to driving a bus. It's easy to understand the pressure to cut their salaries.
But when flight 1549 lost its engines moments after takeoff, or Aloha Airlines flight 243 suffered an in-flight explosive decompression that ripped huge pieces of fuselage away, or United flight 811 flying over the open ocean lost a cargo door that then shredded much of the fuselage, or United flight 232 lost an engine plus the hydraulic system needed to control the plane and could only be steered by using the throttles of the two remaining engines, their pilots earned every penny of their salaries, and more. Altogether, their skill saved 780 lives which would have been lost had the pilots not be extraordinary.
What are the implications? If airlines keep trying to weaken their unions, and keep trying to cut flight crew and maintenance salaries, will they be able to attract the quality of pilots that the public deserves, and the airlines need? Will the Chesley B. Sullenbergers, Robert Schornstheimers, Mimi Tompkins, David Cronins and Alfred. C. Haymes of the future still be attracted to commercial flying if this trend continues? Will the flying public be able to retain their confidence in the skill of their flight crews?
Airlines understandably seek to manage costs and operate as efficiently as possible, but it is a false economy to seek savings which could over the long term dilute the quality of the flight crews upon whom so much depends.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 18 January 2009
04 November 2009
Hypocrites, stimulus and the nuclear option
Back in 2005, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and the Senate Republicans considered confirmation of some of George W. Bush's ill-considered judicial nominees so important that they threatened Democrats with the "nuclear option." The threat was to abolish the centuries old Senate tactic of filibustering, so small majorities -- and that's all the Republicans had, small majorities -- could ram partisan preferences through the Senate.
Back then the issue was partisan advantage. Today, the issue is the nation's economic health ... and the nation's economy is very, very sick. The country is entering a frightening recession and hovers on the brink of another Great Depression. We have a President (not Mr. AWOL, but the guy who will be sworn in just nine days from now) who is proposing a massive stimulus package to pull us back from the brink.
And the tables are turned now. Democrats control the Senate with a large majority, almost but not quite large enough to invoke cloture. However, the current Republican leaders of the Senate are threatening to stall (read: filibuster) the stimulus package because it includes too much red ink.
Yes, these are the same folks who didn't blink an eye when their party controlled both Congress and the White House. They didn't stall for a moment when the Bush administration started pouring red ink and red blood into the Iraqi desert.
But wasting a trillion is okay to them, apparently, as long as it's wasted in the Middle East. Using a trillion to help America is beyond the pale, however.
Okay, to be honest, it isn't just their concern about red ink. They also want tax breaks for corporate America and for America's wealthy. Never mind that these tax breaks won't do anything to pull us out of the recession or forestall a real depression. They will help the Republicans' key constituency, and that's all that matters.
In 2005 all that was at risk was partisan advantage. In 2009, it's America's economy, America's jobs, America's people, America's very well-being. Yet the Republicans are threatening a filibuster.
It's time for Senator Reid to revive Bill Frist's threat. Bring back the "nuclear option." No filibustering the stimulus package. The issue is far, far more important than the petty squabble of 2005, and if the Republicans don't like it, Senator Reid can send them each a dictionary so they can look up the word "hypocrite."
The time to enact a real economic stimulus package is now. The Republicans can either support the effort, or be shoved out of the way.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 11 January 2009
Back then the issue was partisan advantage. Today, the issue is the nation's economic health ... and the nation's economy is very, very sick. The country is entering a frightening recession and hovers on the brink of another Great Depression. We have a President (not Mr. AWOL, but the guy who will be sworn in just nine days from now) who is proposing a massive stimulus package to pull us back from the brink.
And the tables are turned now. Democrats control the Senate with a large majority, almost but not quite large enough to invoke cloture. However, the current Republican leaders of the Senate are threatening to stall (read: filibuster) the stimulus package because it includes too much red ink.
Yes, these are the same folks who didn't blink an eye when their party controlled both Congress and the White House. They didn't stall for a moment when the Bush administration started pouring red ink and red blood into the Iraqi desert.
But wasting a trillion is okay to them, apparently, as long as it's wasted in the Middle East. Using a trillion to help America is beyond the pale, however.
Okay, to be honest, it isn't just their concern about red ink. They also want tax breaks for corporate America and for America's wealthy. Never mind that these tax breaks won't do anything to pull us out of the recession or forestall a real depression. They will help the Republicans' key constituency, and that's all that matters.
In 2005 all that was at risk was partisan advantage. In 2009, it's America's economy, America's jobs, America's people, America's very well-being. Yet the Republicans are threatening a filibuster.
It's time for Senator Reid to revive Bill Frist's threat. Bring back the "nuclear option." No filibustering the stimulus package. The issue is far, far more important than the petty squabble of 2005, and if the Republicans don't like it, Senator Reid can send them each a dictionary so they can look up the word "hypocrite."
The time to enact a real economic stimulus package is now. The Republicans can either support the effort, or be shoved out of the way.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 11 January 2009
Gerontological Old Party
A friend wrote to me recently, wondering if we're starting to see another historic partisan realignment, as when the Whigs disintegrated and former Whigs united with Free Soil Democrats to form the Republican Party. He said he can't see moderate Republicans ever wresting control of the GOP, and suggests that they will leave to form a new party.
I think that on the narrower question he's wrong, but on the larger question he could be correct. This is only surmise, but the early evidence seems to me to support the likelihood of a lasting and significant partisan shift occurring.
In my estimation, President Obama has both the opportunity and the inclination to drive a wedge between the more moderate and the more extreme Republicans. He appears to clearly favor communication, compromise and reconciliation, so he has a natural inclination to reach out to the more centrist Republicans. He has already shown this in his selection of his cabinet, naming a significant number of Republicans and centrist Democrats, and very few from the more progressive portion of the Democrats.
Plus he's going to be pushing some major issues that are not going to be easy to duck for the moderate Republicans, such as the forthcoming stimulus. Since he may need the help of a few moderate Republicans, especially in the Senate, in order to accomplish much, he's really got an incentive to do that, anyway. Bear in mind, too, that the stimulus package will inevitably and unavoidably be, in effect, a gigantic constituent bill (watch the right wing media portray it as a humongous piece of pork barrel legislation), so fairly centrist members of Congress will have enormous incentives to be on board, regardless of party affiliation. At the same time, he seems to be shying away from the sorts of policies the more progressive of his supporters want.
Add all this together, and he's perfectly positioned to drive a wedge through the Republican Party, peel off the more moderates AND reward them ... and to tell the unreconstructed conservatives to get lost.
George W. Bush (Remember him? He's AWOL now, but he used to live in the White House) has made such a hash of his presidency that right-wing Republicans have little else left other than their traditional weapon, the race card. However, this past November's election shows that in a nation that is becoming increasingly comfortable with its diversity, the race card doesn't play so well any more. Moreover, President Obama is perfectly positioned to further defuse its political utility for the Republicans,
Combine this with the economic meltdown and we have a political opportunity not unlike the one FDR had in '33. So, if I am reading all of this correctly, and Obama manages to pull it off, we could indeed be seeing the beginning of a major and lasting shift.
However, I cannot see the GOP disintegrating. During the realignment of the 1850s, the new Republican Party drew not only from the disintegrating Whigs, but from the more progressive, northern segments of the badly fractured Democrats. Today the Republicans may be fragmented, but the Democrats are not (well, they always are, of course, but even Will Rogers would see them as more unified than usual), so there really isn't anywhere for moderate Republicans to go to form a successful new party.
In other words, any major partisan shift will play out within the context of the existing two-party system, with the GOP ending up more like what it was during the Eisenhower era but with the seeds of Goldwater/Reagan reactionary politics still intact within an at least temporarily marginalized right wing of the party.
And if the Republican right-wing controls enough of the party to run Palin in '12 they seal their doom, at least for a generation.
Note: this originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 2 January 2009
I think that on the narrower question he's wrong, but on the larger question he could be correct. This is only surmise, but the early evidence seems to me to support the likelihood of a lasting and significant partisan shift occurring.
In my estimation, President Obama has both the opportunity and the inclination to drive a wedge between the more moderate and the more extreme Republicans. He appears to clearly favor communication, compromise and reconciliation, so he has a natural inclination to reach out to the more centrist Republicans. He has already shown this in his selection of his cabinet, naming a significant number of Republicans and centrist Democrats, and very few from the more progressive portion of the Democrats.
Plus he's going to be pushing some major issues that are not going to be easy to duck for the moderate Republicans, such as the forthcoming stimulus. Since he may need the help of a few moderate Republicans, especially in the Senate, in order to accomplish much, he's really got an incentive to do that, anyway. Bear in mind, too, that the stimulus package will inevitably and unavoidably be, in effect, a gigantic constituent bill (watch the right wing media portray it as a humongous piece of pork barrel legislation), so fairly centrist members of Congress will have enormous incentives to be on board, regardless of party affiliation. At the same time, he seems to be shying away from the sorts of policies the more progressive of his supporters want.
Add all this together, and he's perfectly positioned to drive a wedge through the Republican Party, peel off the more moderates AND reward them ... and to tell the unreconstructed conservatives to get lost.
George W. Bush (Remember him? He's AWOL now, but he used to live in the White House) has made such a hash of his presidency that right-wing Republicans have little else left other than their traditional weapon, the race card. However, this past November's election shows that in a nation that is becoming increasingly comfortable with its diversity, the race card doesn't play so well any more. Moreover, President Obama is perfectly positioned to further defuse its political utility for the Republicans,
Combine this with the economic meltdown and we have a political opportunity not unlike the one FDR had in '33. So, if I am reading all of this correctly, and Obama manages to pull it off, we could indeed be seeing the beginning of a major and lasting shift.
However, I cannot see the GOP disintegrating. During the realignment of the 1850s, the new Republican Party drew not only from the disintegrating Whigs, but from the more progressive, northern segments of the badly fractured Democrats. Today the Republicans may be fragmented, but the Democrats are not (well, they always are, of course, but even Will Rogers would see them as more unified than usual), so there really isn't anywhere for moderate Republicans to go to form a successful new party.
In other words, any major partisan shift will play out within the context of the existing two-party system, with the GOP ending up more like what it was during the Eisenhower era but with the seeds of Goldwater/Reagan reactionary politics still intact within an at least temporarily marginalized right wing of the party.
And if the Republican right-wing controls enough of the party to run Palin in '12 they seal their doom, at least for a generation.
Note: this originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 2 January 2009
03 November 2009
Disposable toys?
Every once in a while I drive up past the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, and being something of a maritime history aficionado I always check out the decommissioned warships docked and moored there. In the not so distant past it was home to an amazing collection of World War II era Essex and Independence carriers, cruisers and Fletcher destroyers. Those are all gone now (to the scrap yard or sunk as targets, unfortunately; it seems almost criminal that the more historic weren't preserved), to be replaced in the mothball fleet by much more modern ships.
Among the ships floating there now are three Aegis missile cruisers. I didn't expect any ship so modern to be languishing there, awaiting the scrapper's torch or the ignominy of being sunk as a target, so I did a little research, and saw that the first five of the Aegis cruisers have been stricken, including the U.S.S. Vincennes, a ship infamous for shooting down an Iranian airliner and killing all 290 people aboard. One of the five has already being "expended" as a target. Two of them (Valley Forge and Thomas Gates) had served only 18 years old when decommissioned, and the oldest of the five (Ticonderoga, the name ship of the class, was only 21).
From what I learned, the "Tico" class ships cost about a billion dollars each in 1980 dollars, which is the equivalent of about $2.75 billion today, and were planned to have a 35 year service life. That means their cost is being amortized over just half the time, effectively doubling the cost of the ships.Indeed, this seems to be typical of an accelerating and exceedingly expensive trend. The first Spruance class destroyers lasted 30 years but many of the later ones were in service for only 18. Indeed, a large number of several comparatively short-lived classes were decommissioned during the administration of George W. Bush.
Warships are basically platforms for weapon and electronic systems, and should be rather durable. The systems may change, but the basic ship remains essentially the same over time. Some of the Essex and Midway class carriers built in World War II were modified time and time again, with service lives of thirty and even forty years, despite the profound changes in aircraft technology over that period. The post-World War II carriers such as the Forestall, Kitty Hawk and Enterprise classes have had similarly long lives. Even the Iowa class battleships, already dinosaurs when first commissioned, served from Franklin Roosevelt's administration until Bill Clinton's.
This accelerating rate of decommissioning and scraping seems to run counter to trends seen in other services. The Air Force keeps its designs in service for an astonishingly long time, compared to the Navy. The various models of the B-52 bomber have been in service since 1955, and the youngest, which is still a front line combat airplane, is 47 years old. The F-4 Phantom II of Viet Nam fame served for 38 years. The F-16, still a front line fighter and fighter bomber, entered service thirty years ago. Another front-line Air Force fighter, the F-15, has been in service for 32 years. Variants of the M-1 Abrams tank have been in service for 28 years. If anything, one would think modern naval ships would have longer service lives than modern aircraft or tanks.
One is lead to wonder why these modern and very expensive ships are being retired so early. Are they poor designs? Are they poorly built? I've not seen any reports that suggest they are. Is their retirement being driven by military considerations? It's hard to think so, since the military is still happily building F-22 and A-35 aircraft and littoral combat ships and both Arleigh Burke and Zumwalt destroyers, and planning a "CD/X" cruiser, which suggests the Pentagon sees a continuing need for high-cost, hi-tech weapon platforms. Meanwhile, the Bush administration has never lost its enthusiasm of all things military, nor relaxed its view that the world is an exceedingly dangerous place.
Then why are we scrapping all these expensive ships before their time? If the ships aren't defective, and the Navy still thinks it needs ships, and the Bush White House still wants to lavish money on the military, one is left inferring that the driving force is political or economic. Scrapping good ships and building new ones may not be about defense, but about pleasing lawmakers and the defense industry. In short, it may be nothing more than pork barrel politics and corporate welfare.
Compared to the rest of the mess the Bush administration is leaving for Barack Obama, this issue is small potatoes, but one hopes the new administration will take a look to see whether the money being poured into naval construction is money well spent.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 2 January 2009
02 November 2009
Tax now
Bought gas the other day. Back on June 28, I paid $4.06.9/gallon. This past Wednesday it was $1.59.9. Pretty good, huh?
I don't think so. The last thing we need is to once again be lulled into complacency about energy costs and revert to our taste for gas-guzzlers and gas-guzzling ways. Already the fevered calls for energy efficiency are dying away, and one suspects that sales will soon be picking up for SUVs, big pickups and other super-sized low-efficiency vehicles.
Let's not fool ourselves. The cost of fuel has plummeted because the economy has plummeted. Once the economy gets rolling again, fuel prices will rise again, and we will be staring at $4.00 gas and worse, probably much worse. There aren't any major new sources of oil out there. We simply cannot drill our way out of the inevitable crunch. It is not be possible to drive down the road to our future in gas guzzlers.
Nor do we want to. Global warming is real, and really dangerous. We must do whatever we can to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and one of the best ways is to wean ourselves from our addiction to fossil fuels. We may already be out of time; at the very least, we're running out of time.
Many options are before us; some focus on conservation, others on developing alternatives. Both basic approaches must be employed, but one of the simplest, quickest and most effective was demonstrated pretty convincingly when consumers reacted to the skyrocketing gas prices last spring by curtailing their driving and shifting towards more fuel-efficient vehicles; sharp increases in energy costs promote conservation effectively and quickly. To put it crudely, we need high fuel costs to break our addiction to gasoline.
Right now, gas prices are low. This is the time to bite the bullet and increase gas taxes. Nobody likes taxes, but backtracking to wasteful driving habits would be worse. Even a dollar per gallon tax would not bring prices at the pump back to the levels we've seen over the past year and a half, but it would ensure that real incentives to conserve would remain in place.
One of best the arguments against such an increase is that it would disproportionately affect low-income drivers who need their cars to get to work but cannot afford modern, fuel-efficient vehicles. However, there is a way around that dilemma: a targeted tax rebate to low-income wage earners to offset the cost of the new tax. Even better, such a rebate would encourage further conservation, because eligible taxpayers would qualify even if they changed to more efficient forms of transportation.
The time to enact this tax is now, while the cost of gas is abnormally low. The initial adverse impact on family budgets would be small, and consumers would have time to adjust their habits by the time prices reach for the sky again. If we let this moment pass, it will be much harder to do in the future ... and for the sake of our future we cannot afford to delay any longer.
Sixty-seven years ago we were complacent as Japanese bombers approached Pearl Harbor. This time the danger is even greater, our adversary is fully apparent, and there is far less excuse for complacency.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 7 December 2008
I don't think so. The last thing we need is to once again be lulled into complacency about energy costs and revert to our taste for gas-guzzlers and gas-guzzling ways. Already the fevered calls for energy efficiency are dying away, and one suspects that sales will soon be picking up for SUVs, big pickups and other super-sized low-efficiency vehicles.
Let's not fool ourselves. The cost of fuel has plummeted because the economy has plummeted. Once the economy gets rolling again, fuel prices will rise again, and we will be staring at $4.00 gas and worse, probably much worse. There aren't any major new sources of oil out there. We simply cannot drill our way out of the inevitable crunch. It is not be possible to drive down the road to our future in gas guzzlers.
Nor do we want to. Global warming is real, and really dangerous. We must do whatever we can to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and one of the best ways is to wean ourselves from our addiction to fossil fuels. We may already be out of time; at the very least, we're running out of time.
Many options are before us; some focus on conservation, others on developing alternatives. Both basic approaches must be employed, but one of the simplest, quickest and most effective was demonstrated pretty convincingly when consumers reacted to the skyrocketing gas prices last spring by curtailing their driving and shifting towards more fuel-efficient vehicles; sharp increases in energy costs promote conservation effectively and quickly. To put it crudely, we need high fuel costs to break our addiction to gasoline.
Right now, gas prices are low. This is the time to bite the bullet and increase gas taxes. Nobody likes taxes, but backtracking to wasteful driving habits would be worse. Even a dollar per gallon tax would not bring prices at the pump back to the levels we've seen over the past year and a half, but it would ensure that real incentives to conserve would remain in place.
One of best the arguments against such an increase is that it would disproportionately affect low-income drivers who need their cars to get to work but cannot afford modern, fuel-efficient vehicles. However, there is a way around that dilemma: a targeted tax rebate to low-income wage earners to offset the cost of the new tax. Even better, such a rebate would encourage further conservation, because eligible taxpayers would qualify even if they changed to more efficient forms of transportation.
The time to enact this tax is now, while the cost of gas is abnormally low. The initial adverse impact on family budgets would be small, and consumers would have time to adjust their habits by the time prices reach for the sky again. If we let this moment pass, it will be much harder to do in the future ... and for the sake of our future we cannot afford to delay any longer.
Sixty-seven years ago we were complacent as Japanese bombers approached Pearl Harbor. This time the danger is even greater, our adversary is fully apparent, and there is far less excuse for complacency.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 7 December 2008
Grounding
A relaxed lunch in a comfy little restaurant, a friend with whom one can discuss anything. No pressure, no time, just conversation.
Note: first posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 2 December 2008
Note: first posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 2 December 2008
Don't kick the dog
Whenever large corporations totter on the edge of bankruptcy, the first reaction of most corporate leaders and most pundits is to recommend forcing labor to bear the lion's share of the burden, usually in the form of reduced wages, reduced pensions, and reduced benefits, as well as the more easily justified layoffs. Perhaps that may be necessary, but before we advocate punishing workers for GM's problems, we should remember several key principles:
1) Labor did not create GM's problems; management did. The workers did not design a product line manifestly unsuited to the needs of consumers and unable to compete with the likes of Honda and Toyota. When GM was producing vehicles consumers were buying, the company was profitable and workers were doing well. GM's workers can still build vehicles; the problem is that the vehicles they are building are not the vehicles consumers are buying. The fundamental problem at GM, Ford and Chrysler is a product line unsuited to the times and a corporate inability to respond quickly to the changing needs of consumers. We should not punish labor for management's mistakes.
2) Retirees in particular shouldn't be punished. They played by the rules all their working lives, producing cars for consumers and profits for the company. Now they're old, they deserve the retirement they've earned, and they're vulnerable to cynical efforts at post hoc rule changes. So the solution should be to turn on them now, changing the rules when they're too old to adapt? I hope not! That would be an enormous injustice.
3) Domestic car manufacturers operate at one significant and substantial disadvantage compared to imports. In the rest of the industrialized world, worker health care, like everybody's health care, is provided through a national health care system. That puts foreign car makers at a considerable competitive advantage over domestics; some estimate the difference can amount to $1500 per vehicle. The answer isn't cutting health benefits for American workers and retirees, however. The answer is nationalizing health care costs, so every American is guaranteed quality health care while American manufacturers are operating on a much more level international playing field. Strangely, this issue isn't getting much attention, but it should, and not just in the automobile industry.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 25 November 2008
1) Labor did not create GM's problems; management did. The workers did not design a product line manifestly unsuited to the needs of consumers and unable to compete with the likes of Honda and Toyota. When GM was producing vehicles consumers were buying, the company was profitable and workers were doing well. GM's workers can still build vehicles; the problem is that the vehicles they are building are not the vehicles consumers are buying. The fundamental problem at GM, Ford and Chrysler is a product line unsuited to the times and a corporate inability to respond quickly to the changing needs of consumers. We should not punish labor for management's mistakes.
2) Retirees in particular shouldn't be punished. They played by the rules all their working lives, producing cars for consumers and profits for the company. Now they're old, they deserve the retirement they've earned, and they're vulnerable to cynical efforts at post hoc rule changes. So the solution should be to turn on them now, changing the rules when they're too old to adapt? I hope not! That would be an enormous injustice.
3) Domestic car manufacturers operate at one significant and substantial disadvantage compared to imports. In the rest of the industrialized world, worker health care, like everybody's health care, is provided through a national health care system. That puts foreign car makers at a considerable competitive advantage over domestics; some estimate the difference can amount to $1500 per vehicle. The answer isn't cutting health benefits for American workers and retirees, however. The answer is nationalizing health care costs, so every American is guaranteed quality health care while American manufacturers are operating on a much more level international playing field. Strangely, this issue isn't getting much attention, but it should, and not just in the automobile industry.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 25 November 2008
Who do you call when the fire station is burning?
Patron requests arrive via an automated HelpDesk ticket system. Said system was down this morning. Our library tech went to glorious leader to inform her of the problem. Her response: "Send a HelpDesk ticket."
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 17 November 2008
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 17 November 2008
November 4 changed everything
I realized as I was walking to work today that there was a lightness to my step, that I was feeling prouder of my country than I think I ever have been before. And I sensed from the many smiles I saw this morning and the many conversations I heard and overheard today that I am not alone in feeling this new pride.
I thought -- no, I hoped -- that Barack Obama would win, but I also thought that it would be pretty close and that there would be serious efforts made to undermine or directly sabotage the election. Instead, he won pretty much around the country -- the Northeast, major portions of the South, the upper Midwest, the Rocky Mountain States, the Far West, including both traditionally Democrat and traditionally Republican states. He won with a convincing majority -- bigger than any Democrat since Lyndon Johnson's landslide victory over Barry Goldwater. He won with solid numbers across nearly every demographic group, and even economic group. Did you know that he won in that portion of the electorate that reports a family income above $200,000 as well as that portion below $100,000? I thought that racism would rear its ugly head and be decisive, or nearly so -- and that was clearly the hope of many of the Republicans -- but even more clearly, Americans by in large were much bigger than that.
It's as if we emerged from a long national nightmare that climaxed during the past eight years but stretched back 38 years to Ronald Reagan, and realized that instead of waking up fearful and confused, we awakened to a remembrance of Martin Luther King's dream, and smiled.
I am certain that future historians will recognize this election as one of the defining moments of America. We have always been a diverse country, but the mythologies we've created have denied that diversity for nearly all of our existence. Last night, we embraced it, and in embracing it, we moved into our common future, a future that can be far more hopeful, far less fearful, and far more progressive than any part of our history we have ever seen. This will indelibly alter -- and alter in the best of ways -- the way we see ourselves, and the way we see our nation. Pundits like to say that September 11 "changed everything." I think that is mistaken. But I think that November 4 changed everything.
Note: this originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 5 November 2008
Are we panicking yet?
The Dow Industrials have surged well past 10,000 as I write this -- it's now at 9,786 and falling precipitously, already down 5.22% for the day. In exactly one year, it has fallen 4,492 points, or 31.5%. The story is essentially the same in markets around the world. And credit is freezing up everywhere. Where's the slide going to stop? More to the point, what will the landscape look like when it does?
Several conclusions seem obvious.
We're heading into a recession, quite possibly a deep and long one. Yet another legacy of the Bush years, another consequence of Ralph Nader, a few dozen hanging chads, a twisted Supreme Court decision, and popular indifference to the suborning of the republic. Elections do matter.
McCain's chances, and the Republicans' generally, look dismal. It's an ill wind that blows no good, one is tempted to say, except that it's hard to envy President Obama and the new Congress for the tasks awaiting them. The ability of the federal government to mitigate the effects of the looming recession, let alone prepare for the future and deal with such major problems as alternative energy development and global warming, are hamstrung by three decades of neocon domination of our government and especially by the current administration's mammoth deficits and ruinous Middle Eastern wars.
The fatal weakness inherent in the drive to privatize Social Security lies exposed for all to see. It's bad enough the retirees with 401(k) and similar "defined contribution" retirement plans are watching their income evaporate, but think what would be happening to them if Social Security was tied to the market. At least Bush was stymied on this.
Workers who have watched -- largely indifferently, and largely in ignorance -- as defined contribution plans have been substituted for the defined benefit plans their parents knew are now looking at their own old age with growing alarm and even fear. Workers whose employers eviscerated their traditional pension programs with the willing acquiescence of successive right-wing governments should be especially angry, although they have not as yet created the political tsunami that this connivance of capitalists and neocons should have produced. Score this as the next wave of voter anger, a grey wave which has to potential to reshape the shoreline of our political continents.
Hold on, folks, this ride is only going to get scarier.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 7 October 2008
Several conclusions seem obvious.
We're heading into a recession, quite possibly a deep and long one. Yet another legacy of the Bush years, another consequence of Ralph Nader, a few dozen hanging chads, a twisted Supreme Court decision, and popular indifference to the suborning of the republic. Elections do matter.
McCain's chances, and the Republicans' generally, look dismal. It's an ill wind that blows no good, one is tempted to say, except that it's hard to envy President Obama and the new Congress for the tasks awaiting them. The ability of the federal government to mitigate the effects of the looming recession, let alone prepare for the future and deal with such major problems as alternative energy development and global warming, are hamstrung by three decades of neocon domination of our government and especially by the current administration's mammoth deficits and ruinous Middle Eastern wars.
The fatal weakness inherent in the drive to privatize Social Security lies exposed for all to see. It's bad enough the retirees with 401(k) and similar "defined contribution" retirement plans are watching their income evaporate, but think what would be happening to them if Social Security was tied to the market. At least Bush was stymied on this.
Workers who have watched -- largely indifferently, and largely in ignorance -- as defined contribution plans have been substituted for the defined benefit plans their parents knew are now looking at their own old age with growing alarm and even fear. Workers whose employers eviscerated their traditional pension programs with the willing acquiescence of successive right-wing governments should be especially angry, although they have not as yet created the political tsunami that this connivance of capitalists and neocons should have produced. Score this as the next wave of voter anger, a grey wave which has to potential to reshape the shoreline of our political continents.
Hold on, folks, this ride is only going to get scarier.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 7 October 2008
The proposed bail-out plan needs to be fixed
The proposed financial bail-out plan is a bad deal for American taxpayers and should be opposed unless several changes are made to protect the taxpayers' interests and the well-being of ordinary Americans.
The financial assistance should take the form of an equity interest in the distressed companies. This is essentially the same approach taken to the bailout-out of AIG, and other bail-outs before then. Why change the model now? The current plan apparently envisions federal purchase of toxic debts at prices high enough to bail out those companies, but that will likely result in the federal government -- the taxpayer -- paying too much for them, and getting gouged in the end. An equity interest would inject the necessary capital while giving the federal government a realistic chance to recoup the taxpayers money. It would also give the federal government greater say in guiding the behavior of the companies that got us into this mess. After the economy has recovered, the equity interests could be sold at a profit for the taxpayer.
Any financial assistance provided to the companies which spawned these toxic mortgages and the ensuing crisis should include relief for the millions of Americans facing foreclosure. At the very least, bankruptcy judges should have the power to modify the terms of their mortgages. This power exists in most forms of corporate bankruptcy; why not extend the same principle to ordinary citizens?
Financial corporations should be required to pay into an insurance system to protect us against any recurrence of such problems in the future.
Any bailout should not go forward unless it has true bipartisan support. Conservative Republicans will otherwise use this hugely unpopular measure to castigate Democrats who are, after all, going to provide most of the "heavy lifting" on this bill. In particular, the Democrats should make the whole-hearted support of the package by Senator McCain a requirement for passage.
Yes, this approach would be a high-stakes gamble. But this crisis is the product of the very people now resisting its resolution, and they should be forced to become part of the solution as well.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 29 September 2008
The financial assistance should take the form of an equity interest in the distressed companies. This is essentially the same approach taken to the bailout-out of AIG, and other bail-outs before then. Why change the model now? The current plan apparently envisions federal purchase of toxic debts at prices high enough to bail out those companies, but that will likely result in the federal government -- the taxpayer -- paying too much for them, and getting gouged in the end. An equity interest would inject the necessary capital while giving the federal government a realistic chance to recoup the taxpayers money. It would also give the federal government greater say in guiding the behavior of the companies that got us into this mess. After the economy has recovered, the equity interests could be sold at a profit for the taxpayer.
Any financial assistance provided to the companies which spawned these toxic mortgages and the ensuing crisis should include relief for the millions of Americans facing foreclosure. At the very least, bankruptcy judges should have the power to modify the terms of their mortgages. This power exists in most forms of corporate bankruptcy; why not extend the same principle to ordinary citizens?
Financial corporations should be required to pay into an insurance system to protect us against any recurrence of such problems in the future.
Any bailout should not go forward unless it has true bipartisan support. Conservative Republicans will otherwise use this hugely unpopular measure to castigate Democrats who are, after all, going to provide most of the "heavy lifting" on this bill. In particular, the Democrats should make the whole-hearted support of the package by Senator McCain a requirement for passage.
Yes, this approach would be a high-stakes gamble. But this crisis is the product of the very people now resisting its resolution, and they should be forced to become part of the solution as well.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 29 September 2008
Delegation
Fearless Leader returned from fact-finding, having found that penurious budgets exist elsewhere, too. Useful information, that. And surprising.
Whereupon Fearless Leader decided her plate was too full, so the task of setting up new vendor contracts including serials (nonlibrarians are excused for tuning out; librarians for shuddering) should be transferred to moi. Sure, why not? Two days still remain until the new fiscal year, and reassignment of the tasks is yet to be accompanied by transference of the necessary information.
To compensate, I was relieved of a task that takes 30 seconds per day, and two of the four functions I had which I still enjoyed.
That decision having been made, F.L. retired to the staff kitchen for nearly an hour of serious schmoozing, followed by a "meeting" that consisted mostly of small talk and laughter (the walls are thin) that lasted almost to the end of the day.
More hard work, but that's why she gets the big bucks.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 27 September 2008
Whereupon Fearless Leader decided her plate was too full, so the task of setting up new vendor contracts including serials (nonlibrarians are excused for tuning out; librarians for shuddering) should be transferred to moi. Sure, why not? Two days still remain until the new fiscal year, and reassignment of the tasks is yet to be accompanied by transference of the necessary information.
To compensate, I was relieved of a task that takes 30 seconds per day, and two of the four functions I had which I still enjoyed.
That decision having been made, F.L. retired to the staff kitchen for nearly an hour of serious schmoozing, followed by a "meeting" that consisted mostly of small talk and laughter (the walls are thin) that lasted almost to the end of the day.
More hard work, but that's why she gets the big bucks.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 27 September 2008
How does one spell "junket"?
Fearless Leader is off next week on a four day fact-finding trip to a distant metropolis (where, coincidentally, she has family and friends) to meet with librarians at four universities to learn how libraries serve the needs of graduate programs. Apparently there are no libraries serving graduate programs in our own metropolitan region, AND her phone is broken. Hard work, but somebody's got to do it.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 18 September 2008
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 18 September 2008
Buddy, can you spare me a dime?
Sixty thousand of them, in fact.
You ought to.
You just loaned Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG that much. Each of you did. So did all your friends and neighbors and family and fellow citizens. So why not me? I've got bills to pay and I'm just as deserving. C'mon, pony up; I'm waiting. I'm sure America doesn't want me to renege on my debts, either ....
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 17 September 2008
You ought to.
You just loaned Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG that much. Each of you did. So did all your friends and neighbors and family and fellow citizens. So why not me? I've got bills to pay and I'm just as deserving. C'mon, pony up; I'm waiting. I'm sure America doesn't want me to renege on my debts, either ....
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 17 September 2008
Worse than a hypocrite
John McCain is a stupid hypocrite. Hasn't he ever heard of YouTube? Politicians who make fools of themselves seem to wind up there pretty quickly these days ....
As we all know by now, John McCain's campaign called Barack Obama's "lipstick" metaphor -- which Obama used to describe specious claims by McCain -- as a sexist, offensive and disgraceful put-down of Gov. Palin and said Obama owes her an apology.
But wait! What metaphor did John McCain use last October to describe Senator Hillary Clinton and her health care proposal? He said "I think [Sen. Clinton] put some lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." Don't believe he could be so stupid as to criticize Obama for something he's been doing himself? Well, here's the proof: John McCain likes "Lipstick on a Pig" references too.
So, uh, did John McCain ever apologize to Hillary for being so sexist, offensive and disgraceful? I don't think so!
Sheesh! Not only is McCain a hypocrite who's lost at sea in the YouTube era, but he can't even "Swift boat" effectively. The big question is whether the media will roll over and let him get away with it.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 10 September 2008
As we all know by now, John McCain's campaign called Barack Obama's "lipstick" metaphor -- which Obama used to describe specious claims by McCain -- as a sexist, offensive and disgraceful put-down of Gov. Palin and said Obama owes her an apology.
But wait! What metaphor did John McCain use last October to describe Senator Hillary Clinton and her health care proposal? He said "I think [Sen. Clinton] put some lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." Don't believe he could be so stupid as to criticize Obama for something he's been doing himself? Well, here's the proof: John McCain likes "Lipstick on a Pig" references too.
So, uh, did John McCain ever apologize to Hillary for being so sexist, offensive and disgraceful? I don't think so!
Sheesh! Not only is McCain a hypocrite who's lost at sea in the YouTube era, but he can't even "Swift boat" effectively. The big question is whether the media will roll over and let him get away with it.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 10 September 2008
Palin's right
Sarah Palin wants to take on the entrenched Washington elite, and more power to her!
The Republicans have held the White House for all of the last 8 years, 20 of the last 28, and 28 of the last 40. Let's take Palin's advice, and throw them out.
Republican appointees have controlled the bureaucracy just as long. Let's break their stranglehold on their "permanent political establishment."
Republicans have controlled the Senate for 11 of the last 14 years, and the House of Representatives for 12 of the last 14. Let's ensure that their brand of "politics as usual" doesn't return.
All of the last 4 Chief Justices of the Supreme Court and 7 of the current members of that Court have been appointed by Republicans. Talk about a permanent elite!
So yes, let's follow Palin's logic. It's time for a change in Washington; it's time to get rid of the entrenched, corrupt political Republican elites who have been running this country for their own enrichment, and give the country back to the people who have made it great.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 4 September 2008
The Republicans have held the White House for all of the last 8 years, 20 of the last 28, and 28 of the last 40. Let's take Palin's advice, and throw them out.
Republican appointees have controlled the bureaucracy just as long. Let's break their stranglehold on their "permanent political establishment."
Republicans have controlled the Senate for 11 of the last 14 years, and the House of Representatives for 12 of the last 14. Let's ensure that their brand of "politics as usual" doesn't return.
All of the last 4 Chief Justices of the Supreme Court and 7 of the current members of that Court have been appointed by Republicans. Talk about a permanent elite!
So yes, let's follow Palin's logic. It's time for a change in Washington; it's time to get rid of the entrenched, corrupt political Republican elites who have been running this country for their own enrichment, and give the country back to the people who have made it great.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 4 September 2008
Sexism?
If criticizing Sarah Palin is sexist, why is it that the most vociferous critics of her nomination among the people I know are women? And that none of the women I know support her? And that their criticisms all deal with her policy perspectives, her actions in government, and her hypocrisy?
Doesn't sound like sexism to me.
Sounds instead like the neocons are just dusting off the same old tactics they have been using for a generation: if they lie often enough and loudly enough, the media end up reporting what they're saying as if it has merit, and some voters may be sufficiently confused to put them back in the driver's seat. You know, it's no coincidence that her most vocal supporters are the same folks who have worked against women's interests every step of the way.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 3 September 2008
Doesn't sound like sexism to me.
Sounds instead like the neocons are just dusting off the same old tactics they have been using for a generation: if they lie often enough and loudly enough, the media end up reporting what they're saying as if it has merit, and some voters may be sufficiently confused to put them back in the driver's seat. You know, it's no coincidence that her most vocal supporters are the same folks who have worked against women's interests every step of the way.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 3 September 2008
01 November 2009
Splitting hairs, hypocritically
John McCain tells us* that Barack Obama favors "surrender" in Iraq. Barack Obama tells us that he wants American troops to be phased out of Iraq by the summer of 2010, with a residual force left there to train Iraqis and deal with terrorists. The Bush administration now tells Iraq that U.S. forces will leave Iraq by the end of 2011.
So, are we to believe that the difference between victory and surrender is whether or not we keep U.S. troops there for an extra 15 months? Or are we to believe that John McCain will attack Barack Obama's patriotism and character any way he can, as long as it may help McCain reach the White House?
* This post originally linked to the McCain statement, but it has been removed from the Web
Note: this was originally posted to ketches, yaks & hawks 22 August 2008
So, are we to believe that the difference between victory and surrender is whether or not we keep U.S. troops there for an extra 15 months? Or are we to believe that John McCain will attack Barack Obama's patriotism and character any way he can, as long as it may help McCain reach the White House?
* This post originally linked to the McCain statement, but it has been removed from the Web
Note: this was originally posted to ketches, yaks & hawks 22 August 2008
Who now the price of his dear blood doth owe?
This is no defense of Russia's actions in Georgia. Would that they had used methods other than massive, deadly force. And there's probably truth to the contention that they were spoiling for an opportunity to chasten Georgia's president, Mikheil Saakashvili.
But as much as the American political leadership and news media try to ignore or obfuscate the facts, the Russians engaged the Georgians in force only after Georgia had launched a massive assault on the the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali. As BBC reports, on August 7, Georgian forces and separatists in South Ossetia agreed to observe a ceasefire and hold Russian-mediated talks to end their long-simmering conflict. Hours later, however, Georgian forces launched a surprise attack, sending a large invasion force against South Ossetia and reaching the capital Tskhinvali, devastating that city and killing and maiming thousands of civilians. On August 8, Russia came to South Ossetia's aid and engaged the Georgian military. The rest we know.
Even though Georgia started this month's bloody conflict, our media and our leaders depict Russia as the aggressor, condemn Russia as the violator of peace and international law, and issue denunciations of Russia which are as hypocritical as they are severe.
Imagine the shoe on the other foot. Imagine that in 2005, six years after the United States and other Western nations intervened in Kosovo, Serbia had launched a surprise invasion of Pristina, Kosovo's capital. Imagine that the NATO allies serving as peacekeepers in Kosovo counterattacked, blasting military bases across Serbia and driving the Serbian invaders back, deep into Serbia. Imagine that the Russians had then termed the NATO forces the aggressors and darkly hinted at reprisals. What would Americans have thought of the Russian charges?
So, how is South Ossetia's case that different from Kosovo's, except that Serbia didn't launch that attack in 2005?
But George W. Bush doesn't care who started the war. His is the focus of on unreconstructed Cold Warrior stuck in the 20th Century. Forget the facts, he seems to say; Russia is bad. AS quoted in a White House news release of 15 August, he said "The world has watched with alarm as Russia invaded a sovereign neighboring state and threatened a democratic government elected by its people. This act is completely unacceptable to the free nations of the world."
The United States sided with Kosovo both because of Serbian outrages against Kosovo, and because we sympathized with the Kosovars' thirst for freedom and autonomy. In short, we supported the separatists of Kosovo, and we still do.
The opposite is occurring in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. George W. Bush decries Russian support for the irredentist movements in Georgia, asserting that those restive provinces must be considered part of Georgia and that no country has the right to challenge Georgian sovereignty there. "There's no room for debate on this matter; we will continue to insist that Georgia's sovereignty and independence and territorial integrity be respected," he states (quoted in a White House press release of 16 August).
As with Georgia and South Ossetia, Serbia and the world used to consider Kosovo to be part of Serbia. Yet when Kosovar separatists fought for independence, the United States and other Western nations ultimately sided with Kosovo and attacked Serbia. Years later, when Kosovo asserted its legal independence, the Bush administration championed their cause rather than acknowledge Serbian sovereignty. This is not a defense of Serbia oppression of Kosovars or outrages against them, nor is it a condemnation of Kosovo's independence, but it is a fact. It is a fact, a precedent, which diametrically opposes to the principle the Bush administration is now espousing in South Ossetia.
Perhaps the best - or worst - chestnut comes from John McCain, however, when he assets in a press release of his own that "Russian actions, in clear violation of international law, have no place in 21st century Europe. We must remind Russia's leaders that the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world require their respect for the values, stability and peace of that world."
Clear violation of international law?
Clear violation of international law???
Recent Republican administrations have a very clear record on international law, but it's not a good one. Ronald Reagan invaded the sovereign nation of Grenada on a pretext, in "clear violation of international law." George H.W. Bush invaded the sovereign nation of Panama on a pretext, in "clear violation of international law." George W. Bush invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq on many pretexts, in "clear violation of international law." Candidate McCain has supported all these clear violations of international law, and darkly threatens Iran with a similar fate should he take the White House.
One word describes the United States response to the recent conflict in Georgia: hypocritical.
Why does this matter? After all, Georgia is far away, and the United States does not appear likely to get caught up in the fighting there.
But what if we had a treaty obligation requiring the U.S. to go to Georgia's defense, requiring us in this case to get into a shooting war with Russia? Yet that is exactly what George W. Bush and the Republican right-wing want to do.
Caught in the trap of their Cold War mentality, they want to extend NATO membership to Georgia and other small countries formerly in the Soviet orbit, building a network of interlocking military commitments encircling the right-wing's old nemesis, Russia.
Folly!
That is how World War I started; a cascade of interlocking defense agreements led from a relatively minor act of terrorism in a remote corner of Europe to a war that engulfed the entire world. Do we want to do that again? Can we allow ourselves to be blinded by hypocritical propaganda, acquiesce to a perilously ill-advised military alliance with countries like Georgia, and link our fate to their pursuit of their own dangerous agendas?
I think not!
As for Georgia, Russia and all who would use war to settle disputes, I quote stout Mercutio: a plague o' both your houses!
ADDENDUM: Michael Dobbs, former Moscow bureau chief for the Washington Post, has a good column on the topic.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 17 August 2008; it has been revised slightly because some of the original documents to which it linked have been removed from the Web.
But as much as the American political leadership and news media try to ignore or obfuscate the facts, the Russians engaged the Georgians in force only after Georgia had launched a massive assault on the the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali. As BBC reports, on August 7, Georgian forces and separatists in South Ossetia agreed to observe a ceasefire and hold Russian-mediated talks to end their long-simmering conflict. Hours later, however, Georgian forces launched a surprise attack, sending a large invasion force against South Ossetia and reaching the capital Tskhinvali, devastating that city and killing and maiming thousands of civilians. On August 8, Russia came to South Ossetia's aid and engaged the Georgian military. The rest we know.
Even though Georgia started this month's bloody conflict, our media and our leaders depict Russia as the aggressor, condemn Russia as the violator of peace and international law, and issue denunciations of Russia which are as hypocritical as they are severe.
Imagine the shoe on the other foot. Imagine that in 2005, six years after the United States and other Western nations intervened in Kosovo, Serbia had launched a surprise invasion of Pristina, Kosovo's capital. Imagine that the NATO allies serving as peacekeepers in Kosovo counterattacked, blasting military bases across Serbia and driving the Serbian invaders back, deep into Serbia. Imagine that the Russians had then termed the NATO forces the aggressors and darkly hinted at reprisals. What would Americans have thought of the Russian charges?
So, how is South Ossetia's case that different from Kosovo's, except that Serbia didn't launch that attack in 2005?
But George W. Bush doesn't care who started the war. His is the focus of on unreconstructed Cold Warrior stuck in the 20th Century. Forget the facts, he seems to say; Russia is bad. AS quoted in a White House news release of 15 August, he said "The world has watched with alarm as Russia invaded a sovereign neighboring state and threatened a democratic government elected by its people. This act is completely unacceptable to the free nations of the world."
The United States sided with Kosovo both because of Serbian outrages against Kosovo, and because we sympathized with the Kosovars' thirst for freedom and autonomy. In short, we supported the separatists of Kosovo, and we still do.
The opposite is occurring in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. George W. Bush decries Russian support for the irredentist movements in Georgia, asserting that those restive provinces must be considered part of Georgia and that no country has the right to challenge Georgian sovereignty there. "There's no room for debate on this matter; we will continue to insist that Georgia's sovereignty and independence and territorial integrity be respected," he states (quoted in a White House press release of 16 August).
As with Georgia and South Ossetia, Serbia and the world used to consider Kosovo to be part of Serbia. Yet when Kosovar separatists fought for independence, the United States and other Western nations ultimately sided with Kosovo and attacked Serbia. Years later, when Kosovo asserted its legal independence, the Bush administration championed their cause rather than acknowledge Serbian sovereignty. This is not a defense of Serbia oppression of Kosovars or outrages against them, nor is it a condemnation of Kosovo's independence, but it is a fact. It is a fact, a precedent, which diametrically opposes to the principle the Bush administration is now espousing in South Ossetia.
Perhaps the best - or worst - chestnut comes from John McCain, however, when he assets in a press release of his own that "Russian actions, in clear violation of international law, have no place in 21st century Europe. We must remind Russia's leaders that the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world require their respect for the values, stability and peace of that world."
Clear violation of international law?
Clear violation of international law???
Recent Republican administrations have a very clear record on international law, but it's not a good one. Ronald Reagan invaded the sovereign nation of Grenada on a pretext, in "clear violation of international law." George H.W. Bush invaded the sovereign nation of Panama on a pretext, in "clear violation of international law." George W. Bush invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq on many pretexts, in "clear violation of international law." Candidate McCain has supported all these clear violations of international law, and darkly threatens Iran with a similar fate should he take the White House.
One word describes the United States response to the recent conflict in Georgia: hypocritical.
Why does this matter? After all, Georgia is far away, and the United States does not appear likely to get caught up in the fighting there.
But what if we had a treaty obligation requiring the U.S. to go to Georgia's defense, requiring us in this case to get into a shooting war with Russia? Yet that is exactly what George W. Bush and the Republican right-wing want to do.
Caught in the trap of their Cold War mentality, they want to extend NATO membership to Georgia and other small countries formerly in the Soviet orbit, building a network of interlocking military commitments encircling the right-wing's old nemesis, Russia.
Folly!
That is how World War I started; a cascade of interlocking defense agreements led from a relatively minor act of terrorism in a remote corner of Europe to a war that engulfed the entire world. Do we want to do that again? Can we allow ourselves to be blinded by hypocritical propaganda, acquiesce to a perilously ill-advised military alliance with countries like Georgia, and link our fate to their pursuit of their own dangerous agendas?
I think not!
As for Georgia, Russia and all who would use war to settle disputes, I quote stout Mercutio: a plague o' both your houses!
ADDENDUM: Michael Dobbs, former Moscow bureau chief for the Washington Post, has a good column on the topic.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 17 August 2008; it has been revised slightly because some of the original documents to which it linked have been removed from the Web.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
