Today is Kevin’s Birthday
September 23rd, 2005
Happy Birthday, my love. You’re the best.
Categories: I do too have a life | 8 Comments
Bush: “Vote For Me or Kill Your Own Children”
August 11th, 2004
In a desperation bid, Bush is now running what can only be called “The Sophie’s Choice Ad” - a TV spot in which he implies that voting for Kerry will force parents to “make a decision about which child to pick up first” in a terrorist attack.
I’m George W. Bush and I approve this message. My most solemn duty is to lead our nation to protect ourselves. I can’t imagine the great agony of a mom or a dad having to make the decision about which child to pick up first on September the 11th. We cannot hesitate, we cannot yield, we must do everything in our power to bring an enemy to justice before they hurt us again.
The ad’s complete lack of content other than its bizarre imagery, and its dissociation from anything of relevance (who suggested we should “hesitate” or “yield” to terrorists?; did any parent actually choose between children on 9/11?) make clear how little Bush has to offer. It has been commented widely that Bush is focusing on terrorism because it is the only issue on which he polls well. This ad takes that focus to its absurd extreme: we should vote for Bush because terrorism is bad. He says nothing about his actual anti-terrorism policies; he doesn’t even bother to claim that his administration offers any hope against terrorism. He just thinks it’s bad, and that’s a reason to vote for him.
The implication that not voting for Bush will force parents to choose which of their children should die is vile. The rest is just stupid. Can we please be rid of him now?
Categories: Politics, Terrorism | 9 Comments
Born in the Muck
August 10th, 2004
Does being a Republican make you a dishonest dirtbag, or does being a dirtbag make you a Republican? Apparently it’s the latter: US Representative Rodney Alexander of Louisiana, one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress, switched parties last week, beginning his (likely short-lived) career as a Republican with one of the most dishonest tricks ever seen.
Alexander had been flirting with changing parties for months, but had assured his colleagues he would remain with the Democrats. (Even as a worthless “Blue Dog” Dem, his presence in the party gives them numerical weight that corresponds to committee seats.) He filed for re-election on the Democratic ticket, and as an incumbent was facing no serious challenge. Then, fifteen minutes before the closing deadline last Friday, he re-filed as a Republican. He now faces no Democratic opposition - because he himself had held the Democratic line on the ballot - and no one can file to challenge him.
As Steny Hoyer put it:
“I cannot recall a more deceitful, more calculated, more treacherous violation of trust, which Congressman Alexander sought and which he received, than what he has done over the past few days and months,” the No. 2 Democrat in the House, Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, said. “Congressman Alexander has solicited and has received thousands of votes and thousands of dollars based upon his representation that he was a Democrat; that he intended to serve as a Democrat; and, that he would stay a Democrat. Those representations were fraudulent.”
Some good news: Alexander’s entire office staff resigned in protest Monday morning. Dem-supporting bloggers are encouraging the DNC to find jobs to reward them for their courage. The DCCC is also demanding the return of Democratic-party funds provided to Alexander, and orchestrating demands by donors that he return their contributions as well.
Link via DailyKos, Bad Attitudes, and Atrios, who are all over this story like stink on a Republican.
Categories: Politics | 3 Comments
Fresh Voice, Old Politics, and Some Brand New Funk!
August 9th, 2004
Marianne Ilaw - a columnist for the Metro paper, says it right in today’s issue. (The Metro is kind of an odd paper - it’s distributed free in major cities around the world, and prides itself on being readable in 20 minutes or less. It’s basically USA Today for people with even shorter attention spans, if that’s possible. They also don’t have linkable articles. You can download the entire paper as a PDF, however, here. Her column is on page 10.)
Proud to be a Yellow Dog DemocratI am a Yellow Dog Democrat. You know, if the only candidate running on the Democratic ticket were a scraggly yellow pooch, he’d get my vote. As a pro-choice woman of color who was raised in a union household and supports stem-cell research and equal rights for all, it’s a no-brainer. Admittedly, the Democrats aren’t perfect, but where else can I turn? Most of the people who look like me at Republican fundraisers are wielding trays and uncorking bottles.
The Democrats advocate social justice, free speech, easy access to health care, family-friendly workplaces, civil rights, job creation and war only as a measure of last resort. And these are the issues I worry about. Truthfully, the Democratic Party is not the egalitarian vanguard some pretend it is. I suspect that many privileged Dems embrace the sly maxim, “Live Republican, Vote Democrat.” Doesn’t matter — I’m cuddling that canine.
That pretty much says it for me, too (except for the “woman of color” bit, that is). There’s just no choice. We care about the Democratic candidate and his policies, but it hardly matters. It’s hard to think of a worse alternative than Bush.
Ilaw has a flair for a phrase, too:
“Yellow Dogs inhaled [Democratic] convention coverage like coke fiends at Studio 54.”“Hell, I wouldn’t vote Republican if Lil’ Kim and James Brown were on the ticket.”
“My fellow Democrats, stand up and be counted. Let’s ride that funky donkey all the way to Pennsylvania Avenue.”
She also provides a first-hand look at black Republican sellouts and how shamelessly they are bought off:
As a young newspaper reporter during the Reagan administration — never mind which one — I was approached by a group of wealthy (duhh!) Black Republicans. Earnestly, they presented their quandary. The GOP was seeking bright young minorities to climb aboard the elephant. Problem was, they weren’t getting many takers. (See definition of “bright.”) They stated unequivocally that if I switched parties, they would find a place for me in the White House Press Office.
(She said no. But you knew that.)
I’m with her. Let’s ride that funky donkey!
Categories: Culture, Politics | 2 Comments
Pointless Exercise in Grandstanding and Vengeance: Terry Nichols Sentenced to the Sentence He’s Already Serving
August 9th, 2004
Terry Nichols - co-conspirator in the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995 - was convicted on federal charges in 1998; he was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole plus 8 concurrent sentences of 48 years (he was 43 years old at the time). His appeals failed, and he was fated for a life in federal prison with no hope of release. He wasn’t going nowhere.
That wasn’t enough, somehow. The state of Oklahoma retried him, at a cost of millions of dollars, for the sole practical purpose of seeking the death penalty. Another cited justification was to “honor” the Oklahoma residents who died in the bombing (160 victims were civilians, 8 were federal employees, thus he was tried for only the 8 federal victims at the federal level). In other words, the state of Oklahoma tried an already-convicted criminal, who had no chance of posing any further danger, simply to make a point and to take a chance that they would be allowed to kill him . . . just because they wanted to.
He was already sentenced to 9 terms, any one of which would keep him jailed for the rest of his life. There was absolutely nothing, in any practical sense, to be gained from seeking further sentences. There was nothing in the way of public safety to be gained from seeking a death sentence. They just wanted to kill him, and used the criminal justice system to satisfy their bloodlust.
Along the way, they managed to slip in a bit more grandstanding and point-scoring. One of the charges against Nichols was for the death of an unborn fetus carried by one of the victims. (The parents of the victim had also petitioned to have the fetus listed as an “official” victim on the memorial plaque.) The statute allowing criminal charges for the death of the fetus (an increasingly common tactic by anti-choice activists to slip fetal “personhood” into the law) does not allow for the death penalty. However, the 160 murder charges for the actual persons killed carried a choice of death or life without parole (and, obviously, the charge for killing the fetus would only stick if the charge for killing the pregnant woman also stuck). In other words, the fetal-murder charge added nothing at all to the sentencing - the maximum sentence on that charge was equivalent to the minimum sentence on all the other charges, so a conviction on that charge would be meaningless at least, and unnecessary at most. They simply threw it in to make an anti-abortion statement simultaneously with their pro-execution statements.
And the results? A complete waste of effort. The jury found Nichols guilty on every charge (there was never any question he was guilty), but could not decide on the death penalty, so he was sentenced to 161 life terms served concurrently. That is, the state of Oklahoma spent years of effort, and millions of dollars, sentencing Terry Nichols to the sentence he was already serving nine times over. The reason? Because it “honors” the victims to have a pointless sentence handed down in their name, because it gives anti-abortion activists some minor political points on their pet cause, and because it gave the prosecutors the outside chance that they’d get to kill somebody to show how much they hate killing people.
Nice going.
UPDATE:
My mistake. The judge ordered Nichols’s 161 life sentences to be served consecutively. That’s tellin’ him!
Categories: Culture, Legal Issues, Politics | 5 Comments
“God Speaks Through Me” - Bush
August 8th, 2004
Bush reached new heights of arrogance and frighteningly delusional religious fanaticism in a recent campaign appearance - but almost nobody noticed because the press weren’t even there.
In an unscheduled appearance with a group of Old Order Amish in mid-July, Bush bumbled, shook hands, played the fool, and then declared that “God speaks through me.” The campaign press weren’t present, and the event was only reported by a local Pennsylvania newspaper columnist who got the story from an Amish man who was present.
An Amish woman who lives on a farm across Witmer Road from Lapp Electric [where Bush was making a campaign appearance] that morning had presented a quilt to the president with a card thanking him for his leadership of the country.Bush said he would like to talk to the quilter and her family.
So the Secret Service invited the family to meet the president. Friends wanted to come along, and the entire assembly eventually numbered about 60. They were evenly divided between adults and children of all ages. . . .
The president . . . shook hands all around, asking the names of all. He especially thanked the “quilt frau,’’ who operates her own business selling quilts and crafts.
“He seemed relaxed and just like an old neighbor,’’ says Stoltzfus [the Amish man who told the story to the reporter].
Bush said he had never met any Amish before and was curious about why the men were wearing straw hats rather than black wool hats. The Amish explained that they wear cooler straw in summer. Bush tried on a hat.
Given a chance to behave like a doofus, you can count on Bush. But it’s when he gets a chance to slip into religious visionary mode that things get really scary.
The Amish told the president that not all members of the church vote but they would pray for him.Bush had tears in his eyes when he replied. He said the president needs their prayers. He also said that having a strong belief in God is the only way he can do his job. . . .
At the end of the session, Bush reportedly told the group, “I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job.”
Some of us might consider that, on those grounds, he should resign, since, as he says, he can only do his job if God does it for him and he is obviously the most godforsaken asshole in this hemisphere, at least.
But stop for a minute and consider the staggering conceit of such a delusion: “I trust God speaks through me.” Most people at least pretend to be a bit more humble in the face of their god. (It’s only safe.) The few who have the arrogance to proclaim that they are personally directed by God are rightly regarded as fanatics. And here we have the most divisive - and most religiously fanatical - President in history declaring explicitly that he is certain he is God’s personal instrument and mouthpiece.
It’s been reported before that Bush harbors the delusion that God chose him to be President, but I haven’t seen a quote in which he said it in so many words. Now he’s said it. Can we afford to have a religious psychotic in the White House any longer?
Link via South Knox Bubba and LibertyPost, who deserve kudos for catching the story.
Categories: Church & State, Culture, Politics, Religion | 13 Comments
Backing the Right Horse
August 8th, 2004
Bush’s handpicked Iraqi stooge, Ahmad Chalabi - source of the fraudulent “WMD” claims and who, some say, snookered Bush into the Iraqi war as his stooge in a bid for the throne - is the target of an arrest warrant issued by the government Bush had originally appointed Chalabi to run. Another US-appointed official - Chalabi’s nephew - is also targeted for arrest.
Iraq has issued arrest warrants for Ahmad Chalabi, a former Governing Council member with strong U.S. ties, on counterfeiting charges, and for his nephew Salem Chalabi — head of the tribunal trying Saddam Hussein — on murder charges, Iraq’s chief investigating judge said Sunday.The warrant was the latest strike against Ahmad Chalabi in his removal from the centers of power. A longtime Iraqi exile opposition leader, he had been a favorite of many in the Pentagon but fell out with the Americans in the weeks before the U.S. occupation ended in June.
Both men denied the charges, dismissing them as part of a political conspiracy against them and their family.
Salem Chalabi [was] named as a suspect in the June murder of Haithem Fadhil, director general of the finance ministry . . . .
The warrants, issued Saturday, accused Ahmad Chalabi of counterfeiting old Iraqi dinars, which were removed from circulation after the ouster of Saddam’s regime last year.
Iraqi police backed by U.S. troops found counterfeit money along with old dinars during a raid on Chalabi’s house in Baghdad in May, al-Maliky said. He apparently was mixing counterfeit and real money and changing them into new dinars on the street, the judge said.
The accusation is not Ahmad Chalabi’s first brush with legal problems. He is wanted in Jordan for a 1991 conviction in absentia for fraud in a banking scandal. He was sentenced to 22 years in jail, but has denied all allegations.
Another triumph for Bush’s post-war planning.
Categories: Iraq, Politics | No Comments
Breaking a Few Eggs
August 8th, 2004
The Bush campaign has a simple solution to the lack of decent jobs in Bush’s economy.
“Why don’t they get new jobs if they’re unhappy — or go on Prozac?” said Susan Sheybani, an assistant to Bush campaign spokesman Terry Holt.
Compassionate conservatism.
Link via South Knox Bubba.
Categories: Culture, Economics, Politics | 4 Comments
Priorities
August 7th, 2004
Today’s New York Post carries two stories about recent sentencings in criminal cases, one military and one civilian. They say much about how we run our military, how we account for its misdeeds, and how we are handling the situation in Iraq.
There’s this:
A U.S. soldier who shot a handcuffed Iraqi in the back of the head has been convicted of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to three years in prison, officials said yesterdayPfc. Edward Richmond, 20, of Gonzales, La., was [also] given a dishonorable discharge from the Army for shooting the man on Feb. 28 near the village of Taal Al Jai.
And there’s this:
A Queens man [who committed] a 2003 bank robbery [in which there was no violence] got a stiff 10-year sentence yesterday.Abraham Aessa, 24, faced a minimum of five years and a maximum of 25 years for first-degree robbery. . . .
He was found guilty of making off with $3,100 cash . . . .
I guess he should have found an Arab in the bank and shot them. Would have cut his sentence by 70%.
Categories: Culture, Legal Issues, Politics, Terrorism | 3 Comments
Anti-Choice Activist Deceives and Manipulates Women Seeking Abortions, Forces Them to Carry Unwanted Pregnancies
August 5th, 2004
I suppose that after years of clinic bombings, murders, blockades, anthrax threats, and personal harrassment, nothing the anti-choicers do should seem surprising - but this is unbelievable.
This asshole fraudulently advertised himself as an abortion service provider and offered abortions at lower cost than local clinics. He also told women who called him that the other clinics were dangerous, and they should deal with him instead. He then systematically misled those women into waiting for an abortion appointment at his “clinic” - which didn’t actually exist - making appointments and then canceling them, telling them repeated lies, and continually discouraging them from going to another provider, until they had gotten so far into their pregnancies that they could not afford a (more-expensive) late-term abortion and were forced to carry the pregnancy to term against their will.
To the panicked women who called the number for the Causeway Center for Women, listed in the phone book under “abortion services,” William A. Graham was a soothing voice on the other end of the line.What he offered sounded much better than an abortion clinic: a Saturday appointment with a private physician, in a hospital, at a bargain price. Besides, he warned them, abortion clinics regularly botched procedures and left women sterile.
But the women found it difficult to pin Mr. Graham down to a day and time. Week after week, they say, he would cancel their appointments, always reassuring them with calm explanations.
In a federal lawsuit, seven women now charge that Mr. Graham never intended to refer them for an abortion at all, but was merely stalling until it was too late.
On Wednesday, Judge Stanwood R. Duval Jr. of United States District Court ordered Mr. Graham to disconnect his phone because he had caused “irreparable harm” to the women and to Causeway Medical Clinic, an abortion provider that is also suing Mr. Graham. The lawsuit accuses Mr. Graham, who has operated the phone service since 1993, of false advertising, fraud and trademark infringement.
Unknown to the women, said officials of Planned Parenthood of Louisiana and the Mississippi Delta, Mr. Graham is a vigorous opponent of abortion who has picketed doctors’ officers and videotaped people attending events for Planned Parenthood, which supports abortion rights. . . .
In 2002, Mr. Graham [also] enrolled in the state’s anti-AIDS condom distribution program, picked up 30,000 free condoms and discarded them. He pleaded guilty to theft and is on probation.
His lies and manipulation not only caused women to undergo unwanted pregnancies and deliveries, but stole their personal liberty and demolished their ability to plan for and deal with other difficulties they faced.
Five of the women who sued Mr. Graham said in court affidavits that his tactics had forced them to carry their pregnancies to term, either because they had passed the legal time limit for abortions - generally at the end of the second trimester - or they could no longer afford an abortion, which tends to cost more later in a pregnancy.One of the women already had a child with hemophilia who required constant care. Now she has two. “I also did not want to bring another severely ill child into this world or be in the position where I am unable to give my children the full care and attention they need,” she wrote in an affidavit under the name Jane Doe No. 4. . . .
With no job, no high school diploma, a boyfriend in jail and a mother who is terminally ill, Mary Schloegel, 19, says she is in no position to raise a child. Mr. Graham promised her an abortion for $125, she said in an interview at her home in Metairie, a New Orleans suburb. (The typical cost is about $300 in the first trimester to about $2,000 at 24 weeks.) He would give her a Saturday afternoon appointment, she said, and promised to call shortly before to tell her where to go. But the call never came.
His explanations seemed reasonable: The doctors worked on their own time so no one would know they performed abortions. He could not reveal the name of the doctor or hospital in advance for security reasons. When he failed to call, he would explain later that the doctor had had an emergency, or had been too busy that day. This went on, Ms. Schloegel said, week after agonizing week. Mr. Graham also told her to drink milk and stop smoking, she said.
One day Ms. Schloegel’s mother, Elizabeth Nette, tried to call Mr. Graham but dialed Causeway Medical Clinic by mistake. That is when the family learned that he was, as Ms. Schloegel put it, “a fake.” But they could not afford the $600 it would cost for an abortion at that late date. Ms. Schloegel, now eight months’ pregnant, said Mr. Graham robbed her of her right to make a choice.
In the past, physicians who improperly intervened in a woman’s decision about her pregnancy (by simply not providing fetal diagnostic tests) have been held responsible for the cost of raising the child. This shitbag should be jailed, and his assets and future income should be seized to partially reimburse the costs of raising the children he forced these women to bear. (Massive punitive damages should follow if there’s anything left over.)
The gall of anti-choice harrassers knows no bounds. It’s time to put some bounds on them.
Categories: Culture, Legal Issues, Politics, Privacy, Religion | 13 Comments
Talk Wif Your Mouf
August 5th, 2004
Bruce Springsteen has a certain kind of eloquence, beyond question. It’s just not the kind you normally associate with New York Times Op-Eds. Yet The Boss has an opinion piece in today’s paper, describing his gradual shift from a non-partisan, generally populist/liberal stance to one of unambiguous opposition to the Bush Administration, and his decision to participate in the MoveOn-supported rockers’ tour for Kerry this fall. He makes good points about fundamental American values, the obligations of government and citizens to support the most threatened or weakest among us, and the travesties of the Bush administration.
Over the years I’ve tried to think long and hard about what it means to be American: about the distinctive identity and position we have in the world, and how that position is best carried. I’ve tried to write songs that speak to our pride and criticize our failures.These questions are at the heart of this election: who we are, what we stand for, why we fight. Personally, for the last 25 years I have always stayed one step away from partisan politics. Instead, I have been partisan about a set of ideals: economic justice, civil rights, a humane foreign policy, freedom and a decent life for all of our citizens. This year, however, for many of us the stakes have risen too high to sit this election out.
Through my work, I’ve always tried to ask hard questions. Why is it that the wealthiest nation in the world finds it so hard to keep its promise and faith with its weakest citizens? Why do we continue to find it so difficult to see beyond the veil of race? How do we conduct ourselves during difficult times without killing the things we hold dear? Why does the fulfillment of our promise as a people always seem to be just within grasp yet forever out of reach?. . .
Like many others, in the aftermath of 9/11, I felt the country’s unity. I don’t remember anything quite like it. I supported the decision to enter Afghanistan and I hoped that the seriousness of the times would bring forth strength, humility and wisdom in our leaders. Instead, we dived headlong into an unnecessary war in Iraq, offering up the lives of our young men and women under circumstances that are now discredited. We ran record deficits, while simultaneously cutting and squeezing services like afterschool programs. We granted tax cuts to the richest 1 percent (corporate bigwigs, well-to-do guitar players), increasing the division of wealth that threatens to destroy our social contract with one another and render mute the promise of “one nation indivisible.”
It’s just hard to grasp that the man who wrote that also wrote:
Madman drummers bummers and Indians in the summer with a teenage diplomat
In the dumps with the mumps as the adolescent pumps his way into his hat
With a boulder on my shoulder feelin’ kinda older I tripped the merry-go-round
With this very unpleasing sneezing and wheezing the calliope crashed to the ground
Some all-hot half-shot was headin’ for the hot spot snappin’ his fingers clappin’ his hands
And some fleshpot mascot was tied into a lover’s knot with a whatnot in her hand
And now young Scott with a slingshot finally found a tender spot and throws his lover in the sand
And some bloodshot forget-me-not whispers daddy’s within earshot save the buckshot turn up the band
Still, we all have our moments. Here’s another one:
It is through the truthful exercising of the best of human qualities - respect for others, honesty about ourselves, faith in our ideals - that we come to life in God’s eyes. It is how our soul, as a nation and as individuals, is revealed. Our American government has strayed too far from American values. It is time to move forward. The country we carry in our hearts is waiting.
Yeah, the boy can write.
UPDATE:
From the AP:
GOP Gov. Heartbroken Over Boss’ PoliticsRepublican Gov. [of Minnesota] Tim Pawlenty said he’s “heartbroken” that Bruce Springsteen plans to rock against President Bush. Opening his weekly radio show Friday with “Born to Run,” the 43-year-old Pawlenty called Springsteen one of his musical idols.
Categories: Culture, Politics, Writing | 4 Comments
Worst Headline Ever
August 3rd, 2004
TOM CRUISE READY FOR LOVE AGAIN
Who gives a fuck?!
Sounds like Tom’s definitely got spring fever, though:
Despite some disappointments, Tom Cruise is not giving up on love and marriage. “I will never be down with love. Ever. I’m the guy who loves relationships. I love women,” the 42-year-old star was quoted as saying . . .“I’m the guy who’s going to get married again. I’m not going to give up on that. I really love that kind of friendship and intimacy”. . .
“I know I’ll get married again one day. I know I’ll meet someone sometime and I’ll have another go at it.”
How is it that the fact this clown is “not going to give up on love” is headline news? You mean he doesn’t even have to do anything to make the news - his general mental states are reported in the press? (”FLASH!: Tom Cruise ‘feels kind of hungry’!”) Why don’t we just stick a Bluetooth colonoscope up him and monitor his asshole on a streaming-video Web site?
On the plus side, it’s gratifying to know that my level of desperation over relationships is equal to that of Tom Cruise. I’ve never been this successful before!
FURTHER: Note the ethnic bifurcation of the meaning of “down with”. In the black community, it means “approving of” or “dedicated to”. (”I’m down with Obama!”) In the white Hollywood community, it has come to mean “disapproving of” - I think as a result of the movie “Down With Love!”, where the title was a catch-phrase used by a woman who claimed to reject romantic relationships. As a usage note, in the latter case “down with” was an imperative command. (”Down with love!” “Down with Big Brother!” You see my point.) In the black sense, “down with” is a report of one’s emotional state. (”I am down with love!”) Thus, one declares “Down with love!” as a condemnation, but “I am down with love!” as an endorsement.
Cruise, interestingly, screwed it up by saying “I will never be down with love” - using the phrase to report his (presumed future) emotional state, not to issue a command. Within the accepted usages, he was saying: “I am a black man who rejects love”, which is not, presumably, what he intended.
Categories: Culture, I do too have a life | 2 Comments
Best Headline Ever
August 3rd, 2004
GEORGIA MAN’S PANTS EXPLODE
Fox News reports on hidden dangers of the illegal drug-production trade:
A Georgia man’s experience only goes to prove what most people take as common sense: Don’t try to mix dangerous chemicals in your pants.According to newspaper reports, three Walker County social workers were visiting Daniel Gabriel Doyle, 39, of LaFayette, last Tuesday. As he sat in their car filling out paperwork, his pants exploded.
“He kept fiddling with his front right pants pocket,” Patrick Stanfield, commander of the Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit Drug Task Force, told the Walker County Messenger. “All of a sudden, a loud bang happened, and fire shot from his pocket. It damaged the inside of the state vehicle and burned clothing on the case workers.”
Apparently, Doyle had combined red phosphorus and iodine, two chemicals used to make methamphetamine, in a film canister. He then stuck the canister in his pocket when the social workers showed up.
“He didn’t know what he was doing, and it started boiling on his leg,” Stanfield said. . . .
The case workers were treated for minor injuries in LaFayette. Doyle was taken to Erlanger Medical Center (search) in nearby Chattanooga, Tenn., with second- and third-degree burns to his testicles and leg.
By Friday he was in the Walker County Jail, charged with manufacture and possession of methamphetamine.
Sounds to me like he’s suffered enough.
Categories: I do too have a life | 2 Comments
Jacobsen’s Disease: It’s Spreading
August 2nd, 2004
This story - by Bruce Schneier, who does a creditable job on the security beat - reports a flight attendant who must have been reading Annie Jacobsen’s hysterical natterings and picked up the symptoms by osmosis.
Ninety minutes after taking off from Sydney Airport, a flight attendant on a United Airlines flight bound for Los Angeles found an airsickness bag - presumably unused - in a lavatory with the letters “BOB” written on it.The flight attendant decided that the letters stood for “Bomb On Board” and immediately alerted the captain, who decided the risk was serious enough to turn the plane around and land back in Sydney.
Who are these morons? What possible rational process produced that conclusion?
Schneier runs through a number of more-reasonable explanations, including that it was “common flight attendant jargon” for “Babe On Board,” or that - most obviously - it was someone’s name. It’s not obvious why anyone would write anything on an air-sickness bag and leave it in the lavatory, but it’s not obvious why most people do most things. As Annie Jacobsen usefully proved, most of the “suspicious” things most people do are actually quite benign.
One problem with hysterical idiocy is that the world offers too many opportunities for panic. Anything that catches your attention is a potential disaster, and anything that doesn’t look like a disaster is an even more certain disaster (”It’s always the quiet ones . . .”). If you’re working up bizarre acronyms for explosive devices (yeah, right . . . terrorists put bombs on planes, then mark them with cryptic signs written on airsick bags and left lying around . . . this is about the equivalent of the burglar who wears a black-and-white striped shirt and black eyemask and carries a big bag marked “SWAG”), you could interpret any three letters as a sign of the apocalypse. (”ABC”: “Assembled Bomb in Cockpit”; “DEF”: “Deadly Explosives Finalized”; “GHI”: “Great Hot Incendiaries”; “JKL”: “Just Kill on Landing”; “MNO”: “Much Nitroglycerine Onboard”; “PQR”: “Placed Quantity of RDX”; “STU”: “Shock The Unbelievers”; “VWX”: “Vast Weapons of . . . um, X-something”; “YZ”: “You’re Zapped!”) The point to security is not to identify anything that could be dangerous (that includes anyone and anything, explaining why the Annie Jacobsens of the world are afraid of everyone and everything); it’s to identify what is (or, is even probably) dangerous. That doesn’t include vomit bags with the word “Bob” on them.
As Schneier put it:
Why in the world would someone decide that out of all the possible meanings that “BOB” scribbled on an airsickness bag could have, its presence on this particular airsickness bag on this particular flight must mean “Bomb On Board”?And why would the captain concur? . . .
The flight attendant who discovered the airsickness bag didn’t react from reason, but from fear. And that fear was transferred to the captain, who made a bad decision.
Fear won’t make anyone more secure. It causes overreactions to false alarms. It entices us to spend ever-increasing amounts of money, and give away ever-increasing civil liberties, while receiving no security in return. It blinds us to the real threats.
Speaking about the person who wrote those three fateful letters on the airsickness bag, Transport Minister John Anderson called him “irresponsible at the least and horrendously selfish and stupid at the worst.” Irresponsible for what? For writing his name? For perpetuating common flight-attendant slang? It wasn’t the writer who did anything wrong; it was those who reacted to the writing.
We live in scary times, and it’s easy to let fear overtake our powers of reason. But precisely because these are scary times, it’s important that we not let them.
Prime Minister John Howard praised the crew for their quick reactions, diligence, and observation skills. I’m sorry, but I see no evidence of any of that. All I see are people who have been thrust into an important security role reacting from fear, because they have not been properly trained in how to sensibly evaluate security situations: the risks, the countermeasures, and the trade-offs. Were cooler and more sensible heads in the cockpit, this story would have had a different ending.
Unfortunately, fear begets more fear, and creates a climate where we terrorise ourselves. Now every wacko in the world knows that all he needs to do to ground an international flight is to write “BOB” on an airsickness bag. Somehow, I don’t think that’s the outcome any of us wanted.
Categories: Culture, Politics, Terrorism | 3 Comments
Lean Left Kevins Take Manhattan By [In A] Storm
July 29th, 2004
A Lean Left gathering (of sorts) took place in New York City yesterday. For the first time, the Lean Left Northern Contingent met one of the founders of this blog. A milestone was thus achieved.
With Kevin (i.e., “Just” Kevin) in town for some sort of professional convention that involved databases, a meetup with local Kevin (i.e., “Kevin T. Keith”) was obviously in order, if only so we could each verify that the other actually existed. I spoke to Kevin on the phone to arrange a rendezvous, and noted at that time that his voice sounded exactly like that of a former coworker of mine. From this evidence, I immediately concluded he looked like that coworker as well - a short, dumpy guy with a little Hercule Poirot mustache - and showed up at Kevin’s hotel looking for someone by that description. I was momentarily disoriented when the guy in Kevin’s hotel room wasn’t short, dumpy, or sporting a Hercule Poirot mustache, but I (perhaps unwarily) took his word for it that he was (the other) Kevin, and we headed out to the bright lights of the big city. For reasons of corporate solidarity, we picked up his charming colleague, Leslie, on the way, and then the night was on!
Categories: I do too have a life | 8 Comments
Why It Matters
July 28th, 2004
Republicans have been complaining that Democrats filibustered 7 judicial appointments in the past four years, while confirming close to 200 others. (By contrast, Republicans began a deliberate slowdown of court hearings after achieving a Senate majority in 1995 that even prompted William Rehnquist to object; in his last two years in office, 20% of Clinton’s nominees were blocked entirely and less than half were confirmed.) Democrats have countered that the unconfirmed judges were extremists and inappropriate appointees. In response, Bush has appointed two judges to federal courts during Congressional recesses, bypassing the Senate. The extremist chickens are already coming home to roost.
The Human Rights Campaign reports:
With a majority needed to grant a hearing on Florida’s discriminatory gay adoption ban, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an appeal challenging the law in a 6-6 decision. Judge William Pryor — who was opposed by the U.S. Senate and recently appointed by President Bush during a congressional recess — voted to deny the rehearing.
Bush’s unconfirmable appointee was the deciding vote in an ugly act of bigotry that will result in fewer children in Florida being adopted who are otherwise wanted. Among so many good reasons, this is just one more why we cannot let this schmuck and his party of hatred remain in power.
As Al Gore put it:
Let’s make sure that . . . this president is not the one who picks the next Supreme Court. . . .[T]hose who supported a third party candidate in 2000. I urge you to ask yourselves this question: Do you still believe that there was no difference between the candidates?
Link via AmericaBlog.
Categories: Culture, Legal Issues, Politics | 4 Comments
Reaching Out
July 28th, 2004
John Aravosis of “AmericaBlog” has a good take on Bush’s appeal to black voters:
6. 3/5ths a man, phooey. We’ll give you 4/5ths!
5. Slavery’s cool
4. Come home to the big house
3. Vote Republican, or don’t vote at all
2. Tired of too much freedom?
1. At least we hate Muslims and gays more than you
Pretty much sums it up.
Categories: Culture, Politics | No Comments
Voice of Decency
July 28th, 2004
I just read Ron Reagan’s speech about stem-cell research at the Dem convention. What a magnificent, eloquent statement! I am really impressed.
Read the whole thing: it’s short, it’s dignified, it’s compelling, it’s moving, and it’s here. But for now, here’s a few titbits (mostly because I just like saying “titbits”):
A few of you may be surprised to see someone with my last name showing up to speak at a Democratic convention. Let me assure you, I am not here to make a political speech, and the topic at hand should notmust norhave anything to do with partisanship.I am here tonight to talk about the issue of research into what may be the greatest medical breakthrough in our or in any lifetime: the use of embryonic stem cells — cells created using the material of our own bodies — to cure a wide range of fatal and debilitating illnesses: Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, lymphoma, spinal cord injuries, and much more. . . .
[T]here are those who would stand in the way of this remarkable future, who would deny the federal funding so crucial to basic research. They argue that interfering with the development of even the earliest stage embryo, even one that will never he implanted in a womb and will never develop into an actual fetus, is tantamount to murder. A few of these folks, needless to say, are just grinding a political axe and they should he ashamed of themselves. But many are well-meaning and sincere. Their belief is just that, an article of faith, and they are entitled to it.
But it does not follow that the theology of a few should be allowed to forestall the health and well-being of the many. And how can we affirm life if we abandon those whose own lives are so desperately at risk?
It is a hallmark of human intelligence that we are able to make distinctions. Yes, these cells could theoretically have the potential, under very different circumstances, to develop into human beings — that potential is where their magic lies. But they are not, in and of themselves, human beings. They have no fingers and toes, no brain or spinal cord. They have no thoughts, no fears. They feel no pain. Surely we can distinguish between these undifferentiated cells multiplying in a tissue culture and a living, breathing person — parent, a spouse, a child. . . .
[He tells a story of a 13-year-old with diabetes, who might conceivably be cured with stem-cell therapy.]
What excuse will we offer this young woman should we fail her now? What might we tell her children? Or the millions of others who suffer? That when given an opportunity to help, we turned away? That facing political opposition, we lost our nerve? That even though we knew better, we did nothing?
And, should we fail, how will we feel if, a few years from now, a more enlightened generation should fulfill the promise of embryonic stem cell therapy? Imagine what they would say of us who lacked the will.
No, we owe this young woman and all those who suffer — we owe ourselves — better than that. We are better than that. A wiser people, a finer nation. And for all of us in this fight, let me say: we will prevail.
The tide of history is with us. Like all generations who have come before ours, we are motivated by a thirst for knowledge and compelled to see others in need as fellow angels on an often difficult path, deserving of our compassion.
In a few months, we will face a choice. Yes, between two candidates and two parties, but more than that. We have a chance to take a giant stride forward for the good of all humanity. We can choose between the future and the past, between reason and ignorance, between true compassion and mere ideology. This is our moment, and we must not falter.
Whatever else you do come November 2nd, I urge you, please, cast a vote for embryonic stem cell research.
I was surprised that he didn’t mention his father and his Alzheimer’s disease; maybe he thought everyone would already know the story, or maybe he thought it would sound like special pleading. I’m also disappointed that he didn’t reprise his all-time remark about Bush: “My father was a man. That’s the difference between him and Bush. To paraphrase Jack Palance: My father crapped bigger ones than George W. Bush.”
Some really good stuff in that speech. By acknowledging the beliefs of embryo-fetishists, but refusing to be constrained by them, he puts the issue in proper context and neatly sidelines the religious fight some have made out of it. And - though this clearly wasn’t his point, it can’t be avoided - by stating a commonsense view of the zygote in plain and appealing language (”they are not, in and of themselves, human beings. They have no fingers and toes, no brain or spinal cord. They have no thoughts, no fears. They feel no pain. Surely we can distinguish between these undifferentiated cells multiplying in a tissue culture and a living, breathing person”), he makes the standard case for both stem cell research and abortion, in terms most people will find perfectly natural. The final call for a “vote for stem cells” is a masterly non-partisan endorsement of Kerry.
I think Ronnie did a lot of good last night. Hope it works.
Categories: Church & State, Culture, Politics, Religion, Science | 5 Comments
Voice of Reason
July 28th, 2004
Ann Coulter, continuing her streak of getting fired by conservative publications for being too crazy even for the right wing, was hired as a commentator on the Democratic convention by USA Today (in an act of bilateral shit-stirring, they’ve hired Michael Moore to comment on the Republican convention) but had her first column spiked as “unusable” and “not funny.” How could that be? Maybe it had something to do with this:
Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston, conservatives are deploying a series of covert signals to identify one another, much like gay men do. . . . [A]s always, the pretty girls and cops are on my side, most of them barely able to conceal their eye-rolling. . . .My pretty-girl allies stick out like a sore thumb amongst the corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie-chick pie wagons they call “women” at the Democratic National Convention. . . .
The fact that Carter is now their most respectable speaker tells you where that party is today. Maybe they just want to remind Americans who got us into this Middle East mess in the first place. We’ve got millions of fanatical Muslims trying to slaughter Americans while shouting “Allah Akbar!”
(Interestingly, Coulter now admits that the rising Muslim resentment against America has to do with Israel. She’d better check back in at NeoCon Central for reprogramming.)
After being dropped by National Review for her immediate-post-9/11 columns calling on the US to “invade [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity” and to round up all “swarthy males,” she has now lost her second gig in less than 3 years. Her response was: “Apparently no one at USA Today had ever read Ann Coulter before!”
You mean - she knows she’s insane and just expects other people to put up with it? (And that creepy Republican thing of referring to yourself in the third person . . . Nixon did that, too. It’s weird. “Only Ann Coulter could go to Boston!” “Ann Coulter just spouts sexist, racist crap - don’t they know that?” “I am not a crank!”) Time for that pretty girl to be put away someplace safe, where she can get the help she needs without hurting anybody.
Categories: Culture, Politics | 11 Comments
VICTORY!!!!
July 27th, 2004
I am officially 40 cents up on the vending machine at work!
It had sucked two of my quarters into oblivion, but gave one of them back when Stephen Hawking proved that black holes return information previously thought lost. That left me 25 cents down.
Today, feeling a bit peckish and wanting to maximize my calories-per-dollar efficiency, I went to the machine. Scanning the horrible, zit-producing crap it contains, I noticed there was a junk food item precariously balanced on the lip of the one of the vending slots. Someone had obviously tried to buy it and the machine had pushed it just to the lip of the slot but it didn’t fall out. However . . . I immediately recognized that if I purchased the item directly behind it, they would both be pushed over the edge (or, at least, I would certainly get the first one and probably get the second one - you have to discount your expected outcomes heavily with this particular machine).
So I did it. I paid 65 cents for one candy bar, and watched in glee as both it and the trapped one on the edge came off and plopped into the slot below. That means I got a market value of 65 cents (actual value, 3 cents) worth of sugar and waxy chocolate as a bonus, wiping out my 25 cent credit owing and putting me way farther ahead of the game than you can typically hope to be with one of these little bastards.
Of course, I could only achieve this by purchasing that particular item, foregoing the marginally-more-healthy items in the other slots. But since this fortuitously forces me to eat the sugary sticky crap I would actually have preferred to eat rather than the granola I was telling myself I should eat, it’s not clear this counts as a disadvantage. Also, of course, I could only have gotten my benefit by taking advantage of the obvious loss by someone else of the item they had paid for - putting them at least 65 cents down, though not by my direct action. It’s not clear that this counts as a disadvantage, either.
Categories: I do too have a life | 2 Comments
