Oxymoronic Philosopher

A Simple Question

2009-01-30T13:50:00.002-05:00

Do conservatives not realize that they lost the election on the economy? Apparently the answer is "no," as we see this from WaPo today:

"A group of us Republican senators are working on coming up with an alternative package that I would hope would have some elements to it that Americans would support," said McCain, who lost the November 4 U.S. election to Obama, a Democrat.

The voters don't think you're ideas will work to fix the economy, stop pushing the ideology and let those who won the election go to work.

As for negotiating the bailout package...this is a debate over two very different economic theories; a stimulus package that is a patchwork of both serves no one well except Republicans who can hang on to their economic ideology for a little while longer.

The Grad Student Job Search

2008-08-04T13:37:00.002-04:00

So it's been well over a month since I last posted, and even then I'm not sure if there were any readers still left in these parts, but I figured I'd give this a shot anyways. I'm in need of some sage guidance, or at least some new ideas or funny stories, so if you've got anything at all to say, please pipe in.

Here I sit with under a month before the new semester kicks off, and I'm still not sure where I'm going to be working through the school year. Last year I was able to continue working with the company I'm currently employed by - where I've been for well over 2 years now - and this worked out with only a few kinks. They allowed me great flexibility in my schedule with the single requirement that I work at least 32 hours per week. This was fairly manageable with my course load of 6 credits first semester and a 10-ish hour per week research assistantship. Second semester proved more difficult as a was continuing the assistantship and 32 hours weeks with a 9 credit load. I managed to get by, but feel that I could have gotten much more out of my classes and research had I been able to devote more hours to them and not to the humdrum of daily work-related tasks.

Thus, my current position. I'm headed into another 9 credit semester, 3 of those being devoted to thesis research and writing, and 3 of them at another DC area institution where I really want to make a good impression (with hopes of applying to their PhD program). It's pretty clear to me that I won't be able to keep up a 32 hour a week work schedule, 10 hr RA, and 9 hours of course work throughout this coming year and achieve what I've set out to achieve in the academic realm. Beyond that, our little company has gone through a merger in the last year and corporate culture here is changing in ways that make it, for me at least, a less and less pleasant place to be.

Hence, I've been on the hunt for a new position. I've already been passed over for two 20hr GA positions in student life, which I may or may not have been well qualified for, and I've currently got applications in for 2 other university positions - one in the library at yet another DC school and one in an admin position in a human rights group associated with one of the area law schools - and a handful of part time non-profit jobs. At this point, however, I'm feeling that I'm down to the wire, and I'm just slightly freaked out by the prospect of either 1) remaining in my current position for the coming year or 2) being jobless as the semester starts (an option I don't think is really an option at all).

So, my remaining (if there are any) wise and worldly readers (to borrow from turn of phrase from Dean Dad), any advise or at least a story? What did you all do during grad school, if you went. How did those jobs work out? What types of jobs would you suggest looking for...keeping in mind that I have no retail or serving experience besides being a pro-shop attendant and bartender at a tiny golf club.

A Sad, Sad Day

2008-06-23T22:20:00.003-04:00

SteveG says it better than I'd ever be able to.

For my part, I'll just say that I'm definitely going to miss his incredibly intelligent, absolutely hilarious commentary on American life. The first real exposure to Carlin I can recall is on a field trip to Chicago in 8th grade where my roommates and I sat up until 3 or 4 in the morning watching a marathon of Carlin specials on HBO...quite possibly the beginning of my love of stand-up comedy. I had the chance about two years ago to see the master at work at Warner Theater here in DC, and I'm glad that wasn't an opportunity missed. George, we'll miss you.

Just Scattered Thoughts

2008-06-20T15:32:00.005-04:00

Nothing coherent to say today, but there are some interesting things floating around in cyberworld that have got my mind churning:

This morning on NPR, there was a piece on "no email Fridays," which has sent the tone for today's thoughts about our "connectedness" and what this might mean for epistemological inquiry.

Following this same line of thought is a piece in a new-ish blog called The Scholarly Kitchen linked to by Inside Higher Ed. Philip Davis ponders whether or not Google is making him more stupid and concludes that it has, to the contrary, made him smarter by giving him more connections to "more documents, artifacts, and people" that, in turn, have an influence on his thinking and writing.

The post is in response to another very interesting article in Atlantic Monthly titled "Is Google Making Us Stupid?". Nicholas Carr, the author of this article, reaches a different conclusion from Davis, claiming that "the Net" has led us away from deep thinking and brought about a sort of attention deficit disorder in us all. My favorite line: "My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles. Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski."

Finally, Piss Poor Prof at Burnt Out Adjunct connects to this theme with thoughts on an Inside Higher Ed story about "Googling" and undergrad research: "Google is not research."

I can't pretend to tie all this together in a coherent way, but, for my benefit more than yours (whoever you are) here are some questions I see lurking that I might pursue further down the line:

Does the old definition of knowledge (some variation on "justified true belief") still work in the internet paradigm? Knowledge in this way assumes an individual knower, but there seems to be a vast resource of social knowledge that is literally at our fingertips. When I'm asked "Do you know X?," I no longer need to answer "No, I don't know," now I can answer "I'll Google (or Wikipedia) it." Is this different than being able to recall from one's memory? When information is accessed instantaneously on a laptop or BlackBerry, it seems much closer to memory than to a book found in the library stacks. What kind of work are social epistemologists doing here?

What's the difference between knowledge and information? Is it the structure, the undergirding? Is it that knowledge is believed or justified that sets it apart? We can believe information or disbelieve it. Information can be true or false. But it does seem to have justification (or warrant, or something of this sort).

What's the difference between knowing and understanding? I know the equation for energy (energy=mass x the square of the speed of light), but I don't really understand how/why that equation works. Do know things that I access online as soon as I access them if I'm warranted in believing them? Even if I don't understand them?

How are all of these questions touched by the vast amounts of information we can access at a moment's notice on the internet?

Taxation and Republican Talking Points

2008-06-17T19:49:00.003-04:00

On her show yesterday morning, Diane Rehm had a conversation with Rep. Tom Cole (R - Oklahoma), the current Deputy Whip and Chair of the NRCC. As expected, he stuck to the talking points without the slightest deviation. The one that caught my attention this go-round was his insistence that American voters have a simple decision to make when it comes to tax policy and the presidential election. I won't deny that in my mind this decision is fairly simple, but I do question his framing of the discussion. According to Cole:

Option 1: A vote for Barack Obama amounts to a vote to raise the aggregate tax burden on the tax-paying population. Irrespective of the portion of the population that is asked to bear this burden, Cole claims, increased taxes will stagnate economic growth.

Option 2: A vote for John McCain amounts to a vote for lower the tax burden across the board. This move stimulates consumption in the lower-to-middle income brackets and investment in the upper income brackets thus stimulating economic growth.

The gist of it is something like this: Obama = higher total tax burden = slow down; McCain = lower total tax burden = growth. The problem here is with the middle term, a total or aggregate tax burden really doesn't tell us much about possibilities for economic growth. On the surface, it assumes that the burden is evenly distributed (or, maybe equitably distributed) and that more money in consumer/investor pockets means higher consumption/investment and economic growth.

Digging a little deeper, though, there's a further assumption in the Republican rhetoric that really drives this type of tax policy. This is the assumption that it's really the upper echelon of income earners who drive the economy. Their investment leads to job growth and rising incomes across the board. If this is the case, a lower tax burden on them will mean that they have more money to invest which will spur economic growth. This is supply side economics.

The trouble is that effective demand, not supply, drives the markets. Greater investment in times of economic slowdown would be an irrational investment strategy. Investors can't expect returns on their investments, and, if they did invest and supply did rise, there would be a glut of overproduction and a downward economic spiral would ensue. Cutting taxes on the rich in an economic downturn doesn't spur the economy, it just makes them richer. They won't invest in projects that spur the economy or innovation (they know it's irrational), instead they'll save (effectively, by investing in government securities and other stable assets).

Raising the aggregate tax burden by targeting taxes at the wealthy will not harm economic growth, but lower taxes on the middle and lower classes (as well as better government services) made up for by higher taxes on the richest of the rich will increase effective demand and ease an economy out of recession. Rehm tried to say something like this to Cole, but being a Party loyalist, he didn't budge and continued to insist that aggregate tax burdens have some meaning beyond rhetoric. He's wrong.

A Little Meta-Philosophy

2008-06-11T16:50:00.007-04:00

Brian Leiter links to an interesting Eurozine article entitled "Modes of Philosophizing: A Round Table Debate." The article portrays a Q&A between Cogito (apparently Eurozines in-house philosopher extraordinaire) and Raymond Geuss (Cambridge), Jonathan Barnes (emeritus Paris-Sorbonne), Myles Burnyeat (Cambridge/emeritus Oxford), and Barry Stroud (Berkeley). The answers are fairly interesting all around, though, as Leiter points out, a few are dismissive (he thinks appropriately so, I think not). In any case, I don't want to take issue here with what was said by these respected Professors and Emeruti. Instead, I'd like to put my novice skills to use and see if a newbie like myself can say anything interesting in response to these questions:

Question one:

Do you think that philosophy as pursued by philosophers has something to say which is, or should be, of some relevance to the way non-philosophers think about the world and their life? Is it desirable that philosophers make an effort to make those aspects of philosophy which are relevant in this way available to non-philosophers?

The short answer: Yes and yes. But it's more complicated than that. (We're philosophers, why wouldn't it be?) We must first clarify just who these non-philosophers are. There are some who have much to learn from philosophy in their professional lives: lawyers, judges, research scientists, doctors, legislators...all of these professions - just to name a few - can take something away from studies in different areas of philosophy. Philosophy of science, philosophy of law, ethics...the way philosophers go about doing work in these fields sheds light on questions that are very pertinent in some professional endeavors. I have a hunch, though, that this isn't what the question is really asking.

Now, if we're talking about whether philosophy has something to offer outside of certain professional endeavors the answers get a bit murky, and one's definition of philosophy has much to do with it. Logic chopping and exegesis on arcane texts has little if any value to non-philosopher folks. It seems that sometimes we work ourselves into tight little corners where we ourselves have trouble seeing the relevance of the work we're doing. But this isn't all that there is to academic philosophy, there are also those working in fields that do address (directly or indirectly) the "big questions" about life, god, etc, that we all - human beings, not just philosophers - come to wonder about from time to time. Philosophers and the work we do can, I think, provide new and interesting ways for everyone to approach these ponderings. And, of course, there's also critical race theory, feminist theory, queer theory, successor system theory, deconstructionism, etc, that all have strong philosophical theory underpinning them which find mainstream popularity and are useful when accompanied by real-world practice.

As for the second part...OF COURSE! All philosophy should be made accessible to non-philosophers. All information of this sort should be made accessible...and free.

Question two:

Should philosophy be pursued only by those trained in philosophy? Are there clear criteria that have to be observed and respected by anyone outside the academic institutions who wants to claim that he/she is engaged in doing philosophy?

Again, this is going to hinge on our definition of philosophy. If we define it only as the academic endeavor of reading, studying, contemplating, writing, and getting published...well, it's hard to do that if you're untrained in the field. You're also likely to re-invent the wheel...or, you know, something more philosophically useful than a wheel, hopefully...if you're not familiar with the field. However, if we go broader and think of philosophy as the love of wisdom as the word's etymology would have us do, then anyone who's struck by the profundity and baffled by the complexity of life's great questions can be engaged in a philosophical endeavor. Why should we be so elitist? Many of the greatest among philosophers weren't trained in the field: Socrates and Wittgenstein to name a couple.

Question three:

Should academic teachers of philosophy consider themselves philosophers in virtue of the fact that they teach philosophy? Or should we reserve the title of a philosopher only for Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Wittgenstein, and the like?

Those who teach philosophy are likely much better at teaching it if they are actively engaged in it (and, please, tell me how they got a job if they're not). How is one to get students engaged if you yourself are not interested and working on answering some questions. If we restate the question and ask whether all of those who do think of themselves as philosophers (those who are teaching, publishing, engaged in the dialog, etc.) actually are philosophers we might have a more interesting discussion.

One way to think about this restated question is in reference to Kuhn's paradigm shift theory of scientific progress. Plato, Kant, Wittgenstein, and the rest of those big names where doing what we might call revolutionary philosophy (though it's obviously up for debate how revolutionary any of them really were) much like the revolutionary science of a Newton or Einstein. This doesn't mean that the rest of us poor schmucks aren't doing philosophy at all. They've set the paradigms, we're solving the puzzles in them...doing "normal philosophy," if you will. Now, I'm sure some would disagree with this analogy, but there are other ways to think through this and still come up with the answer that, of course, philosophy profs (and grad students?) are philosophers, too.

Question four:

"Although the history of philosophy – despite what many historians like to say – is no more a part of philosophy than the history of mathematics is a part of mathematics, nonetheless you can't do anything much in the history of a subject without having some sort of acquaintance with the subject itself." (J. Barnes) Do you agree?

Are historians of philosophy philosophers, too? Sure they are. I agree with Barnes that to do history of philosophy (or any subject, for that matter) one must be at least somewhat familiar and skilled with philosophy itself. One needs to understand the questions being asked in order to understand the history of their asking.

Question five:

What about the reverse? Can one do anything much in philosophy without having some sort of acquaintance with its history?

One can, most can't. There are those brilliant few who can just see the logical structure of a language, perceive the misunderstandings in a theory, or grasp what knowledge is without doing the difficult work of figuring out what everyone before her thought, but there are many of those. Even they will, at some point, need to acquaint themselves with some of the history if they want to be at all sure that their brilliant breakthrough wasn't accomplished 200 years prior.
The rest of us, we don't stand a chance without learning a good deal of the history.

Question six:

Many philosophers nowadays work in particular areas of philosophy without taking an active interest, or without being interested at all in others. To make it clearer, philosophers working on ethics or political philosophy often do not concern themselves with, or even express an aversion to, areas of philosophy such as philosophy of logic or language, and the other way around. What do you think about this compartmentalization of philosophy?

In one respect, compartmentalization is unavoidable. There's simply too much literature out there and too much new stuff being produced for one person to keep up on the whole of philosophy. One needs to keep a keen eye on one's areas of specialization in order to be able to contribute to the discussion. It's understandable that one would then not keep on top of developments in other areas, as there are only 24 hours in a day.

On the other hand, it's important to not lose sight of the forest for the trees, as they say. Developments in other areas may be of interest in one's own, and even if they are not, some are of enough general interest that one ought to be aware of them (if not well-read on them). I think that we all have a lot to learn from each other, and to spurn an entire branch of the field is to preempt the opportunity for possible fruitful developments. You'll also be better at small talk at the APA.

Question seven:

During the last decades there has been a debate, sometimes quite polemical, between the so-called "analytical" and "continental" philosophers. Should one say that the representatives of the one or the other tradition are not philosophers at all, or do they represent different modes of philosophizing?

I'm not sure I know what "modes of philosophizing" means. Continentals and analytics tend to approach the world in different ways, but let's not get confused, both are doing something called philosophy. I can look at a ball and call it red, you can look at it and call it round...we've both had a sense experience of the ball. The world's a tricky thing to observe and grasp, and no one can say that their way is the absolute only way to do it. Until one can, then we're all doing philosophy. Again, we have a lot to learn from each other.

And the finale:

Throughout the history of philosophy philosophers have used different forms of expressing their views such as dialogues, letters, poems, questions and answers, commentaries, aphorisms. It seems that we have long stopped experimenting in this area and most philosophers choose to write articles and books of a standard form. Does this standardization involve a loss?

Whether or not standardization involves a loss in the sense of meaningful philosophical inquiry is a question far beyond my reach, but I do think that we've lost some style, some panache, if you will. Philosophy, like all academic disciplines, has had to fall in line with the capitalistic paradigm of be productive or be gone. For the philosopher it's a matter of publish or perish, and no journals are publishing poems these days. In my opinion, the discipline has become to corporate, all of academia has. But I don't know if that involves a meaningful loss of content.

State Games: An Incredible Experience

2008-06-09T17:43:00.003-04:00

KM and I made the trip this weekend up to State College, PA, to see her sister play and her parents coach at the Pennsylvania Special Olympics State Games. KM's an old pro at these events, but I was a first timer for something of this size and caliber. I've volunteered at a basketball event before and a few weekly bowling practices, but I've never before had the privelage of being surrounded by so many amazing athletes and volunteers. The atmosphere, the competition, the sportsmanship, and so many other aspects just blew me away.

KM's little sister, CM, is the catcher for our hometown's softball team (her Dad's the coach), and when we arrived just after the start of the first game, CM and the team were excited to see us. Most of the athletes already new KM and a few recognized me, but we both got a warm welcome even though they were in the heat of competition with the team recognized as one of the best in the state. CM's team, unfortunately, lost this game, but they'd won two on Friday. Their 2-2 record was enough to get them the Silver Medal this year, but this weekend wasn't just about winning.

I work in a strange amorphous area between the for-profit and non-profit sectors, so I spend a good portion of my day dealing with and thinking about charitable organizations. I'd come to believe that the gifts that do the greatest good are the gifts that produce tangible benefit for the greatest number of individuals in need, but after this weekend's experiences I have a newfound appreciation for the amazing work that organizations can do in making what look to be small differences in a few people's lives. Special Olympics is one of these organizations. They don't build homes, help disaster victims, or feed the hungry, but they make a significant and incredible contribution to the wellbeing of both the individuals who get a chance to compete and the coaches and families who are priveleged to be a part of the experience.

Special Olympics athletes get more out of competing (on a team or as individuals) than just the thrill of a victory. These athletes get to be a part of something in a way that they don't normally get to experience. They are the in-crowd for a few days, the centers of attention in a very meaningful way. Coaches and families witness a personality change when these athletes take the field. They become competitive, but at the same time they look out for one another and pick eachother up. They cheer on their teammates and they cheer on those with whom they're competing - even if it means a run is going to be scored against them. Some of them take leadership roles: they keep up team morale, help coaches keep the team organized, pick up teammates after a tough play and congratulate them after a great one. These athletes don't have this opportunity anywhere else in their lives, and the responsibility that comes with being a leader shows through in their held-high heads and light-up the room smiles. They thrive - like so many of us do - on being the go-to-person.

Not everyone's a leader, though. Those that aren't still support their teammates and fellow competitors and play just as hard. We saw a few homeruns and some great catches made that become the talk of the rest of the afternoon - proud smiles and high fives all around. These athletes gain self-esteem, learn to cope with losses and be humble in victory, learn to be good sports and work their hardest for the win and for eachother. These are life lessons that many of us who have played a sport take for granted, but lessons many of these amazing athletes never had the chance to learn. Special Olympics gives them that.

Beyond the field of competition, there's also an incredible comradery that arises among these athletes. Most of them compete year after year and shouted "Hello"s and big hugs abound around the Olympic Village. Some incredible benefactors provide all sorts of games, prizes, and free food and drinks for the athletes as they hang out and spend time with their friends. There was even a dunking booth and karaoke - there was no shyness here as some of the athletes belted out their favorite 80s rock tunes.

All in all, I'm so glad that KM and I were able to make the trip. CM and her teammates appreciated having us there, but I also gained a new appreciation and respect for the organization, the hundreds of volunteers and coaches, and the many benefactors who make this type of event a possibility. No, they're not building houses or handing out food, but they're building self-esteem, strengthening personalities, providing an athletic outlet, and providing an incredible form of positive feedback for individuals who wouldn't ordinarily have this opportunity. The Special Olympics is an amazing organization.

We Are Creatures of Habit

2008-06-05T17:36:00.003-04:00

Honestely, what did they expect to find? Of course people travel the same routes day after day, frequent the same locations, and communicate with many of the same people. Habit seems too simplistic a term to describe what's happening here, however. Social relations seem to be one place to turn for an explanation, but digging deeper, economics is what these researchers are really observing.

Why do people travel the same route fairly consistently? Well, as my friend aptly put it: "I go home because that's where my stuff is. I go to work so I can buy more stuff." What's important to realize, however, is that though this is a charecteristic pattern that's likely to emerge to some degree in any economic system (that is, we are likely to still travel within a fairly limited degree of variation) it's one that is exaggerated in the capitalist economic order by a number of factors:

1) Capitalism requires long working hours that decrease "leisure" time in which we might travel or veer from our normal patterns.

2) We are typically confined to working in a specialized job with little chance for learning new skills or variation in our days.

3) We are constrained by the need to always be productive in order to provide for basic needs of survival. This decreases "leisure" time and also dictates the patterns in which we travel: work, home, work, home, etc.

There are many other factors at play here, of course, but Marx envisioned a socialist working environment that allowed for flexibility (a laborer might fish in the morning, weave baskets in the afternoon, and write a book in the evening...of course, update this for today's technology, but you get the picture) that capitalism simply cannot facilitate.

Just something to ponder...the patterns of our lives are governed by economic principles, i.e., capitalist economic principles.

Loyalty in Politics

2008-06-03T16:33:00.002-04:00

A friend said something along these lines in a conversation today: ideals such as loyalty and truth have no place in American politics.

Thinking about this sentiment, I question whether loyalty ever really has (or ought to have) a place in politics (where politics is the work of governing and legislating, not simply running for office). Loyalty, it seems, is the quality of being in some way devoted to the well-being/good of another person or persons. This is not some mysterious quality, though, that is hidden from our view. We recognize it through certain characteristics that are outwardly observable. That is, we call someone loyal when she has demonstrated her loyalty to another in some real situation. It makes no sense, then, to talk of loyalty as if it is some indwelling or inherent quality of a person; some constituent of a virtuous character. Loyalty lies in the act of being loyal to someone or something.

It seems that talk of a "loyal person" is confused and misleading for that person is loyaly only when loyalty is directed at someone or something. "She is loyal to...", etc. But not simply "she is loyal." A loyal person may be labelled as such when she is loyal to me, or loyal to her friends, loyal to her country, or loyal to the crown, but she cannot just be loyal.

But, then, why oughtn't loyalty be a political virtue? Do we not desire those in office to be devoted to the good and well-being of some other? ...These are the wrong questions, I think. Instead, ask to whom or what politicians ought to display this devotion. Should a politician be loyal to her constituents? To those who gave large donations and supported her campaign? To those who have voted with her in the past? To her party? To her family? To her own ideals? To her country as an idea? To the country's citizenry as a whole? When we ask the question this way, it becomes clear that loyalty to one might very well be inimical to loyalty to another. The interests of all of these factions do not often align, yet each seems to have a claim to the politician's loyalty for some legitimite reasons.

Loyalty seems to be the wrong virtue here, as it must always be directed at someone or something and in being such, it must always be directed at the expense of someone or something else. Loyalty might actually be a political vice in this light. There are many other virtues we might ask of our politicians: honesty, commitment to the best course of action for all parties involved (utility), patience, etc; but loyalty does not seem, in my mind, to fit among these.

Now, I would not go so far to question whether loyalty is ever a virtuous quality. In a platoon on a battle field, in a friendship, on a team...in these situations it plays an important role. What is different here is the game. The games played in these latter situations is one in which the object of loyalty is already defined; it is set forth before the game begins. In politics, this is not so. Here many interests are competing, and it would be detrimental for the politician to declare loyalty to one at the cost of all the others.

Letters to the Editor

2008-05-30T11:23:00.003-04:00

This little nugget of...well...let's just call it a nugget, comes to us from the Bedford Gazette letter to the editor section today. Gotta love my hometown paper:

"It seems wisdom in this country has been replaced with an unhealthy reverence of knowledge. But knowledge is only facts and figures, a tool not the answer"

On the first read, this just makes you cringe, doesn't it? What is wisdom? It seems that maybe in this sense it's synonymous with dogma or, possibly, received tradition, which, in this letter writer's mind, is dichotomously opposed to knowledge. He goes on to say that the US government would do well to heed to the "good counsel" of the Bible, so apparently this is where wisdom lies and knowledge (presumably falsifiable scientific claims) leads us astray of this (or at best acts in an instrumental fashion). After all, knowledge consists of only facts and figures and those can't guide us in our political/moral motives.

Sounds a little scary, "an unhealthy reverence of knowledge," but is there a charitable reading to be made of this? It might be possible to read a Humean insight into what we find here, that one can't derrive an ought from an is. Maybe reason, that which produces demonstrative knowledge, is only instrumental. If that's the case, in some sense, knowledge is only a tool and cannot provide "the answer" to questions of what we ought to do. But even so, can wisdom in the sense of tradition or religious teaching? Certainly not in Hume's view, there the passions rule. It seems we can only put a slight varnish on this claim, but never salvage it completely.

What do you think? Utter nonsese, scary rhetoric, or a diamond of "wisdom" in the rough?

What does it "mean" to consume data?

2008-05-28T17:36:00.002-04:00

Yesterday, NYT ran an article on speculations about the new iPhone. The focus was obviously on new features, gadgets, widgets, and whatnots, but a few paragraphs at the end struck me as a little strange:

IPhone users have turned out to be prodigious consumers of wireless data. For example, the iPhone customers of T-Mobile, the German cellular operator, consume 30 times more data than its other wireless customers, according to Chetan Sharma, an independent wireless industry analyst.

Mr. Sharma estimates that iPhone users in the United States consume two and a half to three times more data than users of other cellphones. Faster networks could widen that gap and further extend the iPhone’s influence in the telecommunications world.

What does it mean to say, "iPhone users consume more data?" More simply, what does it mean to say that one comsumes data? This seems a strange way to put these words - consume and data - to use. What does the verb to consume mean? Well, let's look at how it's used. We use the word in sentences like (1) "The fire grows in intensity as it consumes oxygen" and "The fire is consuming the house" and "I've consumed one too many tacos and two too many beers." In this way, consuming is analogous to or synonymous with ingesting: taking in, breaking down, and using for some purpose. Another way we use the word is its noun form consumer. Here we see constructs like (2) "a gasoline consumer" and "the consumer in such-and-such a market." This is synonymous with words like buyer or purchaser. Another way consumer is used is in the term (3) "consumer of information." This could be synonymous with (2), but doesn't seem to be because we don't normally talk of information consumers - say someone browsing Wikipedia - as buying information. In this sense it seems like a consumer is someone who uses, maybe digests in a sense, but not in the same way as (1).

(1) and (2) also seem to not be synonymous, but is there an analogy, a family resemblence for this concept? If I buy something am I a consumer in a similar way as I am a consumer of cheese when I eat it? There is some sense of taking the object of consumption as one's own, of taking it in. But the similarity breaks down here.

What of consuming data, though? Getting back to where we began, consuming data seems to be most analogous to (3), but not quite. What's the difference here? When we're talking about information, we're talking about data in some distilled form, e.g., a proposition, but data itself is simply bytes of 0s and 1s coming across the airwaves. Do we consume these more like (1)? Do we take them in, break them down, and re-construct them in more useful ways like fire does with oxygen? If this is the case, what are we saying when we say they "consume more data?" Is it like eating more? If it is, is that a good thing? Are we gaining something from it, or is it simply gluttony. Are we overconsuming data?

A bit rambling, but what do you all think? What does it "mean" to be consuming data?

Thank God for Winter Break

2007-12-17T22:27:00.000-05:00

So I'm sure I have no readers left out there...all 3 of you have probably long given up, but I just have to say that I am so happy that it's December 17 and I handed in at 5pm today my final final paper of the semester! The last 3-4 weeks have been absolutely grueling, but they're done! Don't get me wrong, I'm loving grad school, but one of the best parts about writing a paper is handing it in, and I'm so ready for a break...now if I just didn't have this pesky job to go to, haha.

In any case...reflections on my first semester:

1. Grad school ain't easy. When they say read, they mean read; and when they say read 300 pgs by next Weds, they don't just mean the first 10 and the last 10. I think I read more pages in the last semester than in my 4 undergrad years combined. And writing...let's just say it had been a while since I'd put pen to paper (ok, no one does that anymore, but you know what I mean) and it took a while to get back into the swing, but it wasn't all that bad...

2. Being a research assistant is interesting...sometimes. But when the prof you're working for buys a new edition of SdB's The Coming of Age that just so happens to be numbered COMPLETELY differently than the previous edition and she's already read and taken notes on half the book...well, finding quotations and writing up page numbers is not the most thrilling thing I can think of. Besides that little charade it was definitely a great learning experience, and I'm glad to take it on again next semester...but w/ a prof who's focus is Ancient?? Parmenides is not quite my forte, but we'll see.

3. The quirky prof who teaches pomo thought...there's a reason his office is actually a closet. He wears a jacket to class and complains that it hot, a hat w/ ear flaps, and busts a sag. Not to mention the key ring that he must have inherited from the janitor who passed away last year... But he is an interesting fellow w/ some thoughts....just don't ask him "What's up?" when he gives you a strange look across the room....his answer: "Is that a trick question?"

4. As an undergrad, everyone feared how the prof would react to their final presentation to the class. As a grad student, everyone fears how the girl who seems to know exactly how to tear every argument, even her own, to shreds might react. The black knee high boots w/ too high heels add to the persona.

5. Reading for fun...hahahahahaha! It took me an entire semester to get through Restaurant at the End of the Universe! It took me one and a half days to read Hitchhikers Guide...hmmm.

Now it's on to semester two featuring:
1) Marx's Critical Social Theory - used to love him, still like some, some's in question...guess we'll see.

2) Current Issues in Theory of Knowledge - a focus on Alvin Plantinga...lotta catching up to do in this one and it hasn't even started.

3) Philosophical Figures: Hume - they say I have to take a modern course...

These three should play nice together...well, except Marx...always gotta be one troublemaker.

Thoughts on Women's Rights as Human Rights

2007-12-01T17:32:00.000-05:00

How is one to envision the body of ideas that constitutes international human rights in terms of both the universality of human rights and the particularity, or plurality, of various cultures, religions, nations and tribes vying for their right to self-determination?

Not more than twenty-five yards from the door to my office is the entrance to the Embassy of Pakistan – Interest Section of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This office handles all visa, passport, student, and cultural affairs for Iranian citizens residing in the Washington, DC, area. At any time during the day I might walk down toward the elevator and see this scene unfold: a woman steps into the hall in average American dress. She may be in jeans and a t-shirt or donning a business suit, but inevitably, draped over her arm is a long, concealing coat. As she steps off the elevator, she will slide her arms into the sleeves of the coat, reach into her bag and unravel a scarf. As she walks toward the door of the office the scarf is wrapped about her head, concealing her dark hair. She dare not enter the Interest Section with any evidence of a female form visible to the eye. If I happen to step out a while later, I may catch this same woman leaving the building and shedding her makeshift burka as she enters back into her Western life.

Daily, I ponder the ritual of these women. Such a stark contrast exists between the lives they live, and those which they must portray in front of their own government officials. How is one to understand this divide? This, admittedly, is a mild form of the rift between what a Westerner would consider the universal human right to self-expression in dress and what an Islamic state would consider its particular right to cultural self-determination, but it is a ready example of a much deeper issue that I would like to explore – the gap between the ideal of universal human rights and the ideal of cultural diversity.

“Pluralism envisions a state that allows a thousand flowers to bloom (180).” These words of Coomaraswamy describe the vision of a heterogeneous society in which many traditions are allowed to flourish side by side with respect for one another’s differences like the flowers of a colorful garden. The pluralism, though, that is revealed in such a garden at once and always conceals. Hidden within this ideal of diversity of traditions is the hegemony of each culture which consumes the pluralism of individuals within itself.

Another formulation from Coomaraswamy: “If all women are equal, then why do Muslim women have different rights from Hindu women, or Malay women from Chinese women (180)?” Defining human rights contingently in relation to cultural norms seems inherently problematic if one is to call them human rights at all. The term human, though not historically inclusive, in this iteration seems an attempt at a radical inclusiveness, an attempt to define us all as having this one trait in common – our humanness. The term “human rights” then seeks to endow each of us in our humanness with some certain set of rights that on the basis of our humanness cannot be denied. It seems inherently a universal concept.

Of these various rights, though, a few that seem near the pinnacle are that right of self-determination, that right of religious freedom (but freedom to practice, freedom to cede one’s freedoms to it? freedom here seems already problematic), and that right of a community to band together and define itself as a culture. And should not the culture or the religion that rises as a result of these rights be respected by those outside of it? It seems to follow. But if this culture or this religion demands that members forgo certain of their rights as necessary to the rite of membership, and say that certain of these forgone rights are of the nature of what have been called “human rights,” then does the community outside have a cause to protest? Do the human rights of the individual or the rights of the culture or religion to which the individual originally ceded their rights take precedent here?

The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action’s universality clause, as the result of much negotiation reads:

While the significance of national and regional peculiarities and various historical, cultural, and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of states, regardless of their political, economic, and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms.

This ambiguous declaration leaves one still with the lingering question of universality or particularity. Particular histories “must be borne in mind” as the state carries out its duty to “promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms.” What does this “borne in mind” mean? Should the state punish murder unless it is in the form of religious ritual? How far does the particular, the peculiar, extend into the universal? How much of the relative is submitted to the universality of human rights? This declaration seems to be utterly empty of practicable meaning.

Women’s rights groups have thought out other solutions to this dilemma through a discussion of consent. Coomaraswamy writes: “Women and men should be given the right to choose which law should govern their private lives. If they wish to be governed by Muslim law, that is their prerogative; but if they wish to be guided by general secular law, that should also be a right granted to the individual (181).” This voluntarism is problematic in a couple of ways. At the same time as one recognizes the right of a religion to determine itself, one denies the very same right to a state. At what point is this line drawn? Should a village traditionally of a certain culture that precludes certain rights of the individual be asked to also find room within it for those individuals who would not submit to the cession of those rights? If the individual should decide she would prefer the secular law to govern her actions, must she move from the village? From the state? Does this not place undue burden on the individual if she should prefer a different life than that allowed by the culture, the religion, the village, the state?

Even without this undue burden, even if the village must make room for the individual, there is the question of what kind of choice really exists. Do not traditions by their very nature hold on to individuals? To ask it another way, is it not the case that one is indoctrinated into a tradition, a culture, a religion, in such a way that makes it, in many cases, extremely difficult to leave, even if the illusion of this freedom exists at the surface? The consent to be governed in a way that would preclude one’s human rights seems to be an impossible consent to withhold in many situations, and such a system appears to leave unanswered the question of where space must be made for the individual who chooses to live outside of the dominant group.

Why not whole-hearted universality? Born of the Enlightenment, universal human rights hold within them an inherent bias. It is claimed by the Third World that these rights are Western, not universal (168). These rights are formulations born of a particular lived situation, and cannot be applied to all particular lived situations. It is rightly the case that these universal human rights are of a Western imagination rising out of a modern epistemology which seeks to objectify in order to know and to universalize the entirety of its knowledge. At the same time, these human rights were not universal to all in Western society in their initial instance. The exclusivity of the term “human” has been relaxed; bringing far greater numbers into the set to which these rights apply. Indeed, the women’s movement has had great influence in opening up this term. Also, the term “rights” has undergone many alterations. The universal (Western) human rights have been expanded to include rights of women that were never imagined by the framers of the Enlightenment. Does this tell us something of the nature of human rights born of the Enlightenment that is of importance to this debate?

It seems that the particular of the Western idea of human rights is one that is inherently subject to change via the re-iteration of a certain type of dialog. The constant reverberation of reasoned and rational dialog that is inherent to the Western modern epistemology brings about a constant re-evaluation and revaluation of human rights. The ideas and ideals contained within the term are continually open to re-examination. New ideas and ideals are packaged within the borders of the term as old definitions are left by way. Open, honest, and rational dialog, then, seems of utmost importance in the debate. The particular of Western (Enlightenment) human rights may not be universal, but it opens itself up to the type of dynamic change that allows it to continually grow in that direction.

Does this lead, then, to a universal human rights that consumes the particulars, the relative, of local cultures? It seems not to be the case. To say that it is assumes local customs, culture, religions, and the like to be static, un-evolving constructions. All systems are subject to change, to evolution. There is an incessant interplay between world cultures that unfolds at a feverish pace today. We are not confined to our villages, but, instead, it seems more the cases that the world is our village. To say that cultures around the world are becoming Westernized is to miss the dialog that is happening. Local cultures are not now the same as they were a hundred years ago and they will not be a hundred years hence what they are today. The same can be said of human rights.

The women down the hall have stepped outside of their particular culture and into the realm of the particularly Western iteration of human rights. They still must don the cloak of their culture for certain of their interactions. Only a continuing dialog, a critical dialog, will discover what balance between those stark contrasts will unfold tomorrow and twenty years from tomorrow. We, today, are obligated to keep alive that very dialog.

Redefinition and Wollstonecraft’s Dilemma

2007-09-18T23:02:00.000-04:00

Since the inception of the liberal-democratic state, woman has found herself buried deep in the depths of the institution’s patriarchal structure. She is confined to a sphere outside the sphere where individuals are seen to interact economically, politically, and even socially, to a greater or lesser degree. We find her as an ideal in the kitchen, the nursery, the bedroom of our archetypal home, not living life as the free and social being she, like man, is. For well over two centuries now she has fought within the theoretical framework of the liberal-democracy – and especially within the framework of the welfare state – for her emancipation from this house arrest. Working within these bounds she has encountered many obstacles, but one of the greatest dilemmas she has faced is that the patriarchal, fraternal structure of the system precludes in its basic assumptions the possibility of her ever being something even so basic as an individual, let alone a full citizen. Each and every time women try to rise out of this culturally imposed role of the second-tier citizen and assert themselves as full citizens of the state they encounter the paradox that “women in civil society must disavow [their] bodies and act as part of the brotherhood [in order to be seen as citizens] – but since [they] are never regarded as other than women, [they] must simultaneously continue to affirm the patriarchal conception of femininity, or patriarchal subjection (Pateman 52).”

We must, first and foremost, keep in mind that liberal-democratic theory and, hence, the liberal-democratic welfare state have developed not in a vacuum but hand in hand with Western capitalist society (Pateman 145). This recognition is of vital importance because it allows us to realize, in a sense, that liberal theory is not solely revolutionary in nature (though one must also recognize that it is a reaction to the paternalistic governments of the time), but is, instead, a justification of the status quo of the capitalist market economy. The theory, in essence, provides the groundwork for the myth of the citizen through its championing of ‘universal’ enfranchisement. If all are provided the opportunity to vote, the idea goes, then the political elite will be held to the public will by the myth itself (Pateman 147). It is granted from the beginning that the elite will be the only true political actors in society, rotating in power, but never ceding it. Rawls goes so far as to say that while the well-to-do, active in political life have a “political obligation” to the state, the masses simply have a “natural duty to obey” (Pateman 67). Part of this natural duty is a resignation to the tedium of daily routine and political inactivity for the good of the state.

The idea presented here is that the majority of life unfolds in the private (with a lowercase “p” which will be discussed later) sphere. The masses are consumers above all else, paradoxically both the drivers and passengers of the market economy. They purchase and sell, work and play, sleep and eat in the private sphere with little regard for the politics of the state (the sphere of public life), but all the while, by virtue of simply ignoring the political and going about their business, the masses consent to this political realm and fulfill their civic duty. Locke referred to the acceptance of the institutions of the state as “tacit consent” in his voluntarist framework (Pateman 63). What is neglected in this picture is the fact that this private sphere, the home of the individual, of Homo economicus, all the while, through all these activities, resides to some great degree within the Public sphere.

We have created two dichotomies where theorists had once seen only one. The capital-P Public sphere, once the sphere of man, of the individual with political and productive power, has cleaved to reveal the little-p public and private spheres, the spheres of government and economy, which are found at the locus of most discussions of the public versus the private. Governments are asked to stand out of private matters such as the exchange of goods and the growth of business unless some grave concern should arise. This shift has left another conversation by the wayside. The capital-P Private sphere has all but been ignored. Yes, we hope the government respects our privacy by not listening to our phone calls, but this is as much a private (economic) concern as a Private concern. Only in discussions of child rearing and sexual relations does the Private sphere assert itself in the face of the Public.

The Private sphere is where we finally find women obscured deep within this liberal-democratic structure. Nestled here in this realm, women have all but been pushed out of the conversation since the time of Locke through the late 19^th to early 20^th century. Here in this realm is where we begin to see the depth of the questions facing feminism and the hurdles standing in front of women in doing something so seemingly simple as asserting themselves as individuals.

Throughout the history of the welfare state (named as such in 1939, but really throughout the history of liberal-democracy) the Private sphere has been largely ignored as relevant to the political state yet has also been the focus, paradoxically, of many of its policies (Pateman 179). Men have been seen as the breadwinners (citizens) and, hence, the contributors to the welfare state. They produce value through their labor in the private-Public sector and pay taxes for the public-Public good. By virtue of this contribution, men are also the seen as the rightful recipients of the welfare state’s goodwill. It is assumed that women benefit only through their benevolent husbands and fathers (Pateman 188). Women, hence, are not provided the opportunity to do that which is central to the idea of citizenship in the welfare state: work. Women are not seen to be owners of their own persons, and are not able to bring their persons to market in the form of labor (Pateman 186).

Women have, however, through various feminist movements, brought many of their needs to the attention of the state. They have taken the place of the majority in regards to the receipt of welfare (Pateman 180). In their place in the home, women are seen to provide, in some sense, welfare to the state as welfare to the family. They are caregivers of children, the elderly, and the infirm, and, as such, have asserted their rights as, at least, formal citizens of the welfare state and demanded some compensation for this work. But this, as we shall see, has only added to the paradoxical place of women as citizens.

Pateman, in her essay The Patriarchal Welfare State, provides us with a useful idea in what she terms as Wollstonecraft’s Dilemma. Women have sought, as was laid out by Wollstonecraft, two routes to citizenship which both turn out to be “incompatible” with the very structure and nature of the patriarchal welfare state. The first route is to insist that “the ideal of citizenship be extended” to include women as full members, full individuals, of the state (196-7). This can be best exemplified in the woman as worker ideas of Marxist revolutionaries, but it must necessarily fail both by virtue of the definition of the term citizen and by the fact that it fails to recognize that there are differences in capabilities (such as bearing a child) between men and women.

The second route is to demand that the currently unpaid work of the woman in the home be recognized as productive and, hence, contributive to the welfare state. In doing this work, women are fulfilling their duties within the role of citizen (Pateman 197). This maneuver fails to address the dual dichotomies of public and private, and relegates women, still, to the Private sphere of the home where, in spite of any laws or economic remuneration, they will continue to be seen as the perpetual second sex.

Wollstonecraft’s Dilemma and attempts by women to traverse the paths laid out by it have both highlighted and ignored the fundamental, underlying problems of the liberal-democratic welfare state. The current structure does not even allow us the language with which to conceive of a new arrangement of life within the state. A radical redefinition of the terms citizen, private, public, and welfare must accompany a move away from the ideal of full employment (of white men) and the wealth accumulating goal of profit-seeking.

A legitimate candidate for the next step in this process of redefinition is the restructuring of employment law and norms to both better recognize work outside of the confines of the office and the factory as valuable work and afford both men and women equal opportunity and incentive to take part in that work. Men are just as well suited as women to be caregivers to their children, to clean the house, to prepare the meals, and to do the laundry. In essence, such a restructuring is a redefinition of the current ideal of citizenship. Work on the open market (the masculine ideal) would no longer be the only valuable form of work. Breaking down the barriers between Private and Public, between work (as a physical place) and home, allows both men and women to readjust their positions in the state in a positive way.

Recently we have seen pushes toward the mandated availability of both maternity and paternity leave of equal lengths. While some progressive workplaces do offer this ideal, it is still very far from the norm and will not be accepted without a fight by industries. This type of legislation would stand in stark contrast to the business friendly norm that allows employers to be profit-seeking entities for the good of wealthy shareholders and to the detriment of employees. Legislating paternity and maternity leave, or even commanding it, would bring more equity into childrearing and the work of the home while allowing mothers and fathers both to have a job to come back to; allowing both to be breadwinners.

This type of sharing of labor across the Public-Private divide is a necessary step in redefining citizenship. The welfare state plays a crucial role, even while in question, in that state support would be necessary to relieve market pressures on businesses to release mothers and fathers from employment. While many obstacles stand in the way of measures like this, it seems as though we have no choice but to move forward, to persevere, in this project of redefinition.

--The source cited in this text is Carole Pateman's "The Disorder of Women" published in 1989 by Stanford University Press--

The Means to Transcend Biology as Destiny

2007-09-14T10:39:00.000-04:00

My first attempt at re-entering academia goes something like this (be forewarned, it's a weak attempt):

What is female and what has caused her always to be the second sex? These two fundamental questions are at the heart of Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex and provide the frame which we must consider in a reading of the first section of the text, Destiny. Three projects are laid before us, each of which provides a lens through which we can begin to discover some insights into these questions. Biology will provide us with the grounding idea of female as one of a pair necessary for the continuation of the species in many living beings, but not all. Psychoanalysis will offer the Electra complex as a mirror of the Oedipus in an attempt to parse down the description of woman to one essentially of sexuality. Historical materialism will place woman as the victim of the progress of the idea of private property.

While each of these projects will offer up some guidance, none alone can completely elucidate the situation of woman; however, of these three it is biology that today is still most often advanced as a reason, a justification for her Otherness. While the other two ideas have fallen out of fashion, biology remains a potent force entrenched in our mores and enshrined in our laws. Biology, though, finds its teeth only through perception, only by way of our existence as beings in the world. By virtue of this, biology is not a prison for woman but a project. Woman can transcend biology as we understand it today by resituating herself in the world, by redefining our common experience through a reworking of our laws, advancement of our tools, and a reexamination of our common goals.

In biology we find woman as the female of the human species. In this role she, as the female of all mammalian species and many others, is subjugated not only to the male by virtue of her muscular weakness and the prevailing social norms, but also to the species itself. She exists for biology as a body, a conglomeration of systems - more or less complex - that ingest, digest, respire, perspire, ambulate, and procreate. The body functions to maintain the individual in an effort to extend the species temporally. As such, woman is bound by biology to the reproductive role.

Where man transcends via his biology and reproductive organs, woman finds hers alienating. At puberty, her body changes to something she cannot immediately recognize as herself. From this point on to menopause (when nature returns her sovereign body to her) woman is at the service of the species. The ovarian cycle ties her to a monthly period that at times in history has been considered everything from unclean to vile to evil by man. Not by man’s perception alone is her period subjugating, though, as it can also be extremely painful and is accompanied by hormonal shifts. The monthly cycle may be interrupted by pregnancy which is the ultimate exertion of the species’ autonomy over woman. Not until the child is born and weaned do nature and society return to her small piece of her autonomy.

The trick played here by nature is that woman, as the most developed female in nature, both is bound most tightly to it and suffers it the most, as she alone among females has a nature of transcendence. This transcendent nature of the human being is in stark contrast to the subjugation by the species and makes woman feel this subjugation more strongly than any other female. As Beauvoir says, “The individuality of the female is opposed by the interest of the species; it is as if she were possessed by foreign forces – alienated (25).” But biology alone cannot explain fully the second sex for it ignores woman’s own perceptions of herself and her activity in the world outside of procreation.

The psychoanalytical view provides first for us the idea that the body exists not as the physical structure described by biology, but only in so much as it is a “body as lived in by the subject” (Beauvoir 38). Woman is not just the biological partner of the male of the human species; she is defined by her experience of the world and the objects she encounters in it. Not defined solely by biology, woman is also not bound only to her biological functions but also to her perceptions of the world and of herself as an emotional being. The psychoanalytic description of woman falls short, though, in that it is not one of woman as herself but, instead, a description of woman which mirrors its description of man. “He [Freud] declines,” Beauvoir states, “to regard the feminine libido as having its own original nature, and therefore it will necessarily seem to him like a complex deviation from the human [read male] libido in general (39).” Woman defines herself not as subject meeting the world but in relation to the sovereign subject immediately as Other. The Oedipus complex advances the idea that the boy defines himself in relation to his desire for his mother. He both fears and identifies with his father through this desire, and in doing so is able to define himself as a subject. The Electra complex, an inversion of this idea based still on the idea of a masculine libido, posits that the young girl’s desire shifts from mother to father. Her identity as a sexual being is bound up in this shift and manifests itself always as a desire to be dominated. So we find that while the ideas of body in the world are useful, psychoanalysis neglects to define woman as herself and as a subject.

The project of historical materialism presents for us a world in which the proletariat, the downtrodden masses, finds within its history the possibility for its own salvation. Only parallel to this greater drama is the manifestation of woman as subject able to unfold. Beauvoir elaborates that “the fate of woman and that of socialism are intimately bound up together” within the framework provided by Engels and others (55). Woman, like the proletariat, was bound to otherness by the advent of private property. Man seeks alienation, to see himself in something other than himself. In this quest he discovers himself in ownership of property, as the master of land, of slaves, of woman. Woman cannot, by virtue of her biology, carry the weight of man. She is not strong enough to wield his tools, the tools of subjugation. It is in light of this that she can only transcend her otherness through the realization of the socialist economy. As part of the force of production, as one of the many workers, she can come into her own being. But this ignores that woman is woman. Historical materialism focuses on the productive force of woman but ignores the reproductive force. When it must be reaffirmed, it is done so not as a project of woman, but forcefully by law and mores as in the Soviet Union’s paternalistic laws requiring femininity, banning abortion, birth control and divorce, and firming up the institution of marriage. The project of historical materialism provides us with a more concrete idea of the project of becoming. The existential framework of transcendence is devoloping, but woman is still not examined as such.

Looking back toward biology through the layered lenses of psychoanalysis and historical materialism, we can begin to recognize woman as the biological female who is transcendent in nature, capable of self definition, and in need of a means by which to realize transcendence and self definition. Woman is in need of economic freedom as pointed out by Engels’ project, of a means of self definition all her own not tied to man’s as Beauvoir’s critique of psychoanalysis elucidated, and in need of means of breaking free from her subjugation by the species. All three of these needs, it seems, are intricately intertwined within economics, politics, and science and technology. Woman is not confined by her femaleness, for it takes on meaning “only in light of the ends man proposes, the instruments he has available, and the laws he establishes (Beauvoir 34).” These needs constitute a project, a portion of the project of feminism, a project that can come and is coming to fruition today.

In the scope of changing laws, in economics, and in technology we have already seen great advancements for woman now defined as an equal in the eyes of the government from suffrage to employment law and beyond. She has entered the workforce with full force and taken up projects beside man. She has begun to break the economic grips of man on her autonomy. Woman has also begun breaking the grip of the species through advancements in birth control (now capable of allowing a woman even to forgo her period for a time) and women’s health in general.

So we see that there are hurdles being overcome in laws and in instruments that have allowed woman greater degrees of autonomy from both man and the species, yet she has still not been defined as herself and as a subject. Woman still is, at this time, defined and self-defined often in relation to the species and to man. One area where the project beginning to take shape in this early section of the text has not advanced is in a redefinition of “the ends man proposes.” It is in redefining these ends and taking equality and similarity over differentiation, social good over personal gain, accumulation in the public trust over personal wealth, humility over strength, and compassion over power that we can continue to further this project. By creating a living situation in which man and woman take equal responsibility for child care, care of the home, economic well being, and care of each other as well as a society which is willing to forgo miniscule losses in production and wealth for the good of its citizens woman can take another step toward defining herself as the One. She can stand face to face with man each One the others Other but on common and equal ground.

Reading Beauvoir

2007-09-06T18:30:00.000-04:00

We’re reading, in my Feminist Theory class, The Second Sex as our first text of the semester. Last night we discussed the Intro, the Independent Woman, and the Conclusion of the text. One paragraph elicited some heated discussion, and I want to take a bit of time to try to work through some of my thoughts on the following from page 712:

Woman is in any case deprived of the lessons of violence by her nature: I have shown how her muscular weakness disposes her to passivity. When a boy settles a dispute with his fists, he feels that he is capable of taking care of himself; at the least, the young girl should in compensation be permitted to know how it feels to take the initiative in sport and adventure, to taste the pride of obstacles overcome. But not at all. She may feel herself alone in the midst of the world, but she never stands up before it, unique and sovereign.

What we have here, at face value, is Beauvoir providing another example of how her situation prevents woman from transcending, from realizing herself wholly as Subject. In the final sentence she says woman “can feel herself alone” as an individual in the world. She can feel herself unique, but she cannot feel that she can take charge, that she can project herself onto the world, that she can change the current state of reality; she feels herself incapable of boldly standing up to the world as sovereign Subject. Beauvoir implies that woman’s lack of “lessons of violence” contributes to this position in relation to the world. She has not felt that she can “take care of” herself, and for that reason, she does not.

What’s interesting here is that throughout the Independent Woman Beauvoir is making the case that woman simply playing man is not sufficient, is not transcendence. Woman must succeed on her own terms and in her own right. She provides phenomenologies of women imitating man, but falling short or remaining unfulfilled. She is constantly aware that physical differences in the sexes do exist, and that this in itself is not a hindrance and to acknowledge it not a wrong. In this paragraph, however, the patriarchal value of violence seems to prevail. Why is it that Beauvoir neglects to tear down, here, the lofty place of physical force in our collective weltbild? She seems here to simply accept that physical force (be it in the form of violence, sport, adventure, etc) is in some way necessary to the realization of oneself as the One, and not that this is just another construct of the masculine weltbild of which we are heirs.

One could argue that physical force is such a thing; that it is a necessity in this realization because it is such a tangible and accessible representation of ones ability to transcend. If you can move the impediment from your path with physical force you can at once witness your ability to affect reality; you can at once realize your sovereignty.

I think that there is something much more subtle going on here, though. The distinction between masculine violence as the “boy settles a dispute with his fists” and the girl who “takes initiative in sport and adventure” is purposeful. This distinction is not solely in place to say that this might be what society would allow at this given point in time given the situation that woman finds herself in, for if that were the case then what would be the point of the entire text, the entire project? Beauvoir constantly pushes that line, why would she hold back here. I think the distinction is a subtle reminder, actually, of what I said earlier…that the author recognizes the real differences that exist and that woman, once again, must, even in physical force, find her own way and not the masculine way. Woman must learn from the outset to use the body she has to overcome physical obstacles, and in doing so the young girl, as the young boy using his fists, can feel herself to be in control, capable of affecting reality. She can feel herself “unique AND sovereign.”

Already?!?!

2007-08-20T22:42:00.000-04:00

Wow! Did this summer fly by! I can’t believe classes start next Wednesday. I can’t believe I’m buying books right now, or that I have an orientation at GMU this Thursday. Where did my summer go? Where did my trips to Great Falls go? Where did Sunday morning perusing the local farmers markets go? How is it that my summers are always packed full of weekends traveling about the Northeast, but rarely do I seem to have time to enjoy them? I look forward to summer, I build it up, I have more expectations than can possibly fit into that short span between April and September. It’s not that it hasn’t been great fun. It has. It’s just that there’s always so much more I wanted to do when these chilly days of fall start coming upon us. I know I’m jumping the gun here, it’s only mid-August, but DC had one of those fall days today. It’s football season now, the leaves will change soon, and it’s time to go back to school…for all intents and purposes, summer has passed.

I’m developing a new framework as of late to understand how the psychology of all of these expectations works. Developing is a lie…I’m reading a book called Stumbling on Happiness, and, though it’s far from an academic treatise, it helpfully lays out the research of how the mind imagines a future, only summarily filling in the blanks. How we imagine our tomorrow’s much like our todays but with little regard for time, for reasonable expectations. Our imaginations are so far from exact tools. I imagined a summer of endless weekends spent at the beach, in the woods, meandering the streets of DC, and cuddled up with my baby. I imagined more into that summer than time could possibly allow, but in my temporally inept imagination, it all fit nicely, sequentially on my timeline. Oh well, one can’t lament, I suppose on such a summer spent. I did have fun, I did see old friends and go to some great parties. I saw the ocean once again, and spent time in my baby’s arms. Now it’s almost fall…and I love the changing of the leaves, the chill in the air, the Steelers on TV. I’ll try not to make the same mistake…to imagine an impossibly wonderful fall…but aren’t we optimistic creatures? I’m sure I’ll fall victim to the same trap and write this same post again on the first snowfall of the year…but so be it.

Amusement Parks – A Marxist Oasis (At Least They Used To Be)

2007-08-19T22:54:00.001-04:00

I spent the day yesterday at Six Flags America with my roommate. It was great…no crowds, perfect weather, hit every coaster in the park twice. Superman is one of the best steel coasters I’ve EVER ridden; just plain awesome, but I still love the classic wooden coasters the most. There was just one thing that bugged me throughout the day.

Standing in line gave me some time to reflect on this new phenomenon that Six Flags refers to as the Flash Pass. Maybe it was only by virtue of the annoyance caused me by being cut in front of on numerous occasions by “Flash Pass Riders,” but this seemed to me not just dumb but an egregious affront to the communist social contract that riders and amusement park operators enter into once said rider has paid admission into the park. Yes, yes, I know that the capitalists have already taken over the front gates and the food stands…oy! for crying out loud, the food stands! But besides paying for my $8 diet cola, $4 hotdog, and a scrumptious $5 fried, gooey, powder-sugared, goodness known as a funnel cake, I expect lines! And I expect all to be on equal footing in those lines! I expect every rider to understand that she will patiently (or impatiently) wait in the hot sun, moving one foot every 5 minutes, bumping butts, elbows, shoulders, and whatever else gets in the way with the guest in front of, behind, and beside her, enduring the screams of dehydrated and bored children until she finally reaches that joyous moment when she is at the front of the line waiting for that gate to open so that she may slide into that seat, lock down her harness and bask in her 45 seconds of ecstasy that is an amusement park ride. She should not, after waiting all that time in that hot sun be told that “this is a Flash Pass Train, please step back and allow Flash Pass Riders to choose their seats.” She should not have to wait for the next train, it’s her turn!

The capitalist pigs are making an inroad into this amazing little oasis where we all stood once on equal ground, all stood together waiting on queue for our piece of the pie. No longer…now any impatient schmuck with a little disposable income can jump to the front of the line. Soon everyone will buy a pass, and then there’ll be a Flash Pass Line to wait on, and we’ll have two trains…one for Flashers and one for the poor bastards who couldn’t afford it. We’ll have a two-tiered amusement park society! A Six Flags apartheid! But the Flash Passers won’t want to wait in line, so there will then be tiers of Flash Passes with auctions to set the prices. The haves will be paying $100 extra per ride, just to jump to the front! WAIT YOUR TURN! I say. Give us back our little communist refuge in this die hard capitalist world. Take away the Flash Pass before it ruins us all!

Markets and Electorates

2007-07-31T23:05:00.000-04:00

Perusing the internets today (it was a long and slow day in the office), I came across the page of Bryan Caplan, an economics professor at GMU (a hotbed of Austrian free-market folks on the US scene). It appears that Prof Caplan has a new book out called The Myth of the Rational Voter, in which his central thesis seems to be the idea that the average member of the electorate not only is ill-informed in regards to economic policy, but actually makes irrational voting decisions even based on the information s/he has. He bases this on a survey of average voters as compared to economists and highly educated non-economists. The results show that economists would be more likely to vote for stronger free-market outcomes than average voters, a boon for the Libertarian Caplan, and that economic policy may be best left in the hands of the “experts” as average voters affected by certain biases actually skew policy instead of reaching the best possible outcome through the “miracle of aggregation.” (Note, please, that I have not read Prof Caplan’s book and am certain I am doing neither his argument nor his research justice.)

This started me thinking (and be forewarned, this is mere musing not backed by any evidence beyond the anecdotal and likely not properly reasoned) democratic principles at work in politics versus those at work in a market, and the shortfalls of both. Markets serve a number of purposes, but two above all else. The first is the setting of an agreeable (not equitable, not rational, but agreeable) price at which a commodity might be passed from one actor to another. Markets are unquestionably efficient and successful at this task, and are also self regulating by virtue of the fact that the commodity simply will not change hands if the price is not agreeable to both parties. Markets are also conveyors of information through the act of price setting. The manager of the steel mill knows how much to produce for all of the various buyers by virtue of the price. If prices are rising s/he knows to produce more as there is greater demand. If prices are falling, there is a surplus on the market and the manager should hold back production. This can change day to day across millions of markets for billions of commodities, more than any person or computer can track efficiently, yet markets are able to make these on-the-fly corrections because they convey the knowledge of the person-on-the-street through interactions of supply and demand. Towards these two ends, price and information, markets are unmatchable, but notice that I say that markets set agreeable prices, not equitable or rational prices.

Markets, I think, don’t account for the greater good. Their outcomes are geared towards creating exchanges at prices agreed upon by buyers and sellers, but these buyers and sellers are, as Caplan says the electorate is, both ignorant of their true needs/desires and acting irrationally. Perception of needs and desires are skewed by greed, among other factors. The lust for money (i.e. profit seeking, in econ-speak) has created an entire multi-billion dollar industry around manipulating buyers’ desires. How has the market reached a equitable outcome when you can drive past a dilapidated home in need of numerous repairs with a Lincoln SUV with rims worth a few grand sitting in front of it? How has the market reached a equitable outcome when the upper echelon of society sees it’s income growing exponentially while the middle-class and impoverished fall further behind? These are clear examples of ignorance, by the market, or the greater good. But what of rationality in decision making? Even actors acting on incorrect information about their own needs are not acting rationally. For evidence, just look to the stock market bouncing to and fro on the whims of investors. Fear, arrogance, and caprice, not rationality, are market driving forces.

So maybe Caplan is onto something, that economists, not the electorate, should determine economic policy, but at least the electorate wears its ignorance and its irrationality on its sleeve, and doesn’t hide it behind fanciful explanations like the market does. Democracy doesn’t bring about the best of all possible outcomes, but like the free-market, it brings about an agreeable one.

Reflections on a New Experience

2007-07-25T22:49:00.000-04:00

For the past six or seven months I’ve had a headache. It’s fairly constant, fairly consistent, but far from severe or debilitating. At times it flares up, others it subsides, and from time to time it seems gone entirely. I think of these little nuggets of time as moments of clarity, of sorts. They’re times when I can think and act without the constant wondering of what’s causing this bit of pain at my forehead, nose, and teeth. In any case, these headaches aren’t terrible, but they are annoying, and I’ve seen a GP, an eye doctor, and an ear, nose, and throat guy in attempts to figure out what’s causing them. I’ve heard explanations from high blood pressure (now under control) to sleep apnea, but none of these explanations with their solutions has panned out.

So, on Monday, I did it. I left work early, drove out to Annandale at the suggestion of a cousin, and visited an acupuncturist. Now, Eastern medicine, mythology, religion, and philosophy have always deeply intrigued me, so this was no far reach for me, but it was interesting to measure it up to my long held expectations. I’ve considered yoga before, studied Eastern philosophy, and do meditate and practice breathing exercises (though not as often as I’d like), but have never sought out the aid of a “professional.” I expected something holistic in his methods and demeanor; maybe an older man or woman taking the time to discus my problems, my lifestyle, her thoughts on my condition, and potential treatments or lifestyle changes. I expected a slow, but practiced and sure progression into treatment and a rational setting of my expectations.

Wow, was I off base! Entering the office was interesting in itself. The walls and shelves were lined with boxes labeled in Chinese, large jars with roots of some sort or another suspended in liquids, other jars with ground substances, and all enveloped with a distinct earthy odor. To this point my expectations remained intact. I filled out a questionnaire about myself, answered a few other questions and was led into a room. A few moments later a 30-something year old man in a while lab coat entered and shook my hand. He reminded me more of the chiropractor I used to visit than of a practitioner of some ancient form of medicine. The man briefly scanned my questionnaire and asked me where my headache was centralized. Within seconds he had me on my back tapping needles into my stomach and face. Fifteen minutes later I was in the bathroom wiping the little beads of dried blood from my cheeks, not quite sure what had just transpired. Talk about misconceptions! He gave me only a bit of advice, “Don’t overeat, and no cold drinks,” “Don’t worry so much,” and “Your sinuses are very tight.” He then asked me to come back on Wednesday and Friday. On my way out, the young receptionist charged $30 to my card and sent me on my way.

In this time when complaints abound about the lack of time doctors spend with patients, forced by insurers to move us in and out one of after the other like an assembly line of medicine, I expected something different here. I failed to realize that these practitioners are a part of the same system, operating in the same constraints. They have bills to pay and mouths to feed and the way money is made is by a constant flow in but also out of the door. We leave no time in our lives for questioning, for explanation. The quick fix is the American way.

Even so, I went back today and will again on Friday. The experience is one of incredible relaxation for that short time left alone, lying perfectly still, listening to your own breathing with no distraction. That solitude, that time of release, of freedom of the mind might be worth $30 alone. I don’t know if acupuncture is working for me, but I’ll give it three or four weeks and see if there are any results. In the meantime, I know not to expect much from my acupuncturist beyond a few needle sticks and a brief massage.

Glimpsing Beyond the Bubble

2007-07-18T23:14:00.000-04:00

Thinking about solutions, thinking about change. I often find my mind stuck inside a paradigm, like a bubble not allowing me to see, to understand, to imagine, to intuit the changes that might be possible. I can think of change within my bubble; how we might do this thing or that thing differently, and how it might affect my life, your life, their lives. The bubble, though, always constrains my imagination. I can think only right up to the edge of it, to its shimmering surface, but the light strikes it just so, and I can’t see beyond.

Think of a billiards table. A number of balls strewn about, and a cue ball in hand. There are any number of shots I can play within the rules of the game…inside this bubble. Every one of them a chance, a change, with a number of predictable outcomes. But you’re constrained by the rules to play only certain shots, and with only once cue ball, and with only one cue, and to only strike certain balls, and to only play on one table, and on, and on. But what if those rules can change? What if you can push them, bend them, twist them? Now your possible shots and possible outcomes have changed…possibly grown, possibly become more appealing, but definitely changed.

Sometimes I catch a glimpse beyond my bubble. It doesn’t pop, but a shadow passes by and allows me to see possibilities if I could just stretch the edge of my bubble a little bit farther. If we could just bend, twist, and push some of these rules, some of these assumptions, so many new possibilities lay just outside our understanding. A little fracture opens up in the paradigm, possibilities become visible that had never before been grasped.

Think about maternity and paternity leave. Think of the absurdity that these are a luxury. Why? Because they negatively affect productivity. Time, as the saying goes, is money, and money is king. Productivity equals gains at the margin, and this is what drives a capitalist economy. We must always consider the almighty margin lest we fall behind our competitors, lest we flounder and fail. But look around and tell me what you see. Cars, sometimes 2 or 3 or 10 to a person; I see houses larger than a family of 4 might live in for a couple alone; boutique stores, high end grocers, expensive restaurants; I see wealth and abundance all around (though not equally shared). Outside this bubble that constrains me to the capitalist mindset, I see the possibility of wholesale change. We cannot provide more maternity leave for the new mother inside this paradigm because it is a paradigm of constant competition, not cooperation. I can argue easily why it is inefficient to grant more time, why it will cause failure. But outside of this paradigm, outside of this bubble…we have the capability to produce beyond our wildest dreams, and should we choose to share it there would be abundance for all. Outside my bubble, I can see maternity and paternity leave as a basic right granted to all because we’ve forgotten about scarcity, about price, about the margin. But I can only see it. The bubble hasn’t burst, and the shadow passes, and my view is obstructed once again.

Embarrassing

2007-07-12T22:09:00.000-04:00

Embarrassed, disgusted...these are the words that come to mind watching this video. The first time a Hindu has offered the opening prayer in a session of the US Senate and this man is interrupted by the shouts of the Christian Right. TPM Cafe has a good synopsis of the event here as well as an...ummm....interesting?...press release from Operation Save America.

I really don't even know what to say about this. How are we to have a meaningful dialogue, a meaningful political discourse, a civil fucking discourse, if we can't even allow each other the decency of listening? This is not mutual respect, this is pure and ugly hatred.

I showed this clip to my roommate and after a few minutes of silence he said, "Well, a little foresight and anyone could have seen this coming." My first reaction was anger at his simple dismissal of the actions of these three 'protesters.' After a little reflection though, I have to admit that I wonder if he might be right. An open Senate session with an advertised "first," it seems rather obvious that some crazies will come out. This, though, says something so much more horrible about our society than his initial statement lets on. If we are to expect the worst of people, if we are to expect that intolerance will always rear it's head, always rise to the occasion...well, another reason to walk away shaking my head.

My Theory of Actual Reality

2007-07-09T22:21:00.001-04:00

Because reality just can’t hold their interest, some have turned to the virtual world…even for a source of income. I’m not talking programming, networking, and internet commerce here. No, I’m talking about this. “Gold farming” is the practice of harvesting virtual goods in an online gaming environment and then selling them for real cash in the real world.

This is what capitalism leads to? It’s time to enter the real economy, produce in the real world. When “commerce” that is confined to the universe of an online game requires real world legislation to govern it, it’s simply gone to far. We have real problems affecting real people all over the real world, and it just seems utterly wasteful to me to have millions of dollars a week changing hands over virtual goods. It also seems a monumental waste of legislative time (not that governments around the world don’t find thousands of other ways to waste this time) to have to create laws to govern this little economy. Some things just make me walk away shaking my head.

Only PG-13???

2007-07-06T13:15:00.000-04:00

Hurrumph! Apparently I haven't been angry enough lately:

The stats: 4 hells, 2 bitches, and a fuck.

Whirlwind

2007-07-05T22:51:00.000-04:00

What a crazy ride is life. I haven’t yet become too reflective over how it is I’ve found my way to this point in life, but looking forward to the next couple of months I’m expecting an insane whirlwind of activity. Decisions to be made, moves to be undertaken, classes will start, writing again, working still, time for a life?

Most of you already know that I’ve accepted an offer in the philosophy MA program at George Mason University. Classes that I’ll sit down with the grad studies director next Tuesday to choose will begin on August 27. I’m excited and anxious to dive back into philosophy as a full time student. I’m afraid there’s a lot I’ve forgotten. I know my writing skills are rusty and my research skills unpracticed. I have absolutely no idea what will be expected of me or what to expect of the program. That being said, I can’t wait! I’m ready for something new, something interesting. For too long I’ve had a routine, and it’s time to mix it up a bit.

By the time classes start I’m hoping to have moved. I’ve both found a place and am looking for one at the same time. A college roommate has been offered an apartment near American University and has asked me to move in with him. For a long time I’ve wanted to live in the city, and this will place me only minutes from my office and about a half hour from school and from BL. I wish I could be closer to her and closer to school, cutting traveling time out of my life is going to be a big part of making this new schedule work, but in all likelihood I’ll be taking this apartment. The location, the roommate, and the rent are just too good a combination to pass up.

I’ve mentioned I’ll still be working; the plan there is to cut my hours by as much as possible while still keeping my benefits. I’ve got a great boss who in turn has a great boss who both have agreed to help me toward this end. It looks like I’ll be “working” around 30 hours a week. Some of that time will be spent working from home, and I’m sure a bit of it from time to time will be on the good will of my bosses and coworkers. A new twist, however, in this little scheme is that one of the VPs of our little company, even knowing that I will be a fulltime student come fall, has approached my boss about moving me into a new position…as a manager. This VP’s international sales pipeline is being backed up because of a logjam in the implementation department, and he would like me to come on as a second implementation manager to focus on his new clients. I love that this opportunity is being presented to me and that they think this highly of me, but I just don’t know how to react. A big part of me wants to jump at it. I love the idea of more responsibility, of taking a leadership role and making things happen instead of begging others to push the ball along. This is the kind of position I would thrive on, but I just don’t know if I can truly handle the time commitment come fall. There will be some discussions over the next few weeks to see if we can actually make this work.

Thinking about all of this tonight I’ve realized what it is that has me really and truly excited to be on the cusp of such uncertainty and potential craziness. Throughout high school and college I always considered myself a bit of a renaissance man (yes, I’m modest, I know ;-)). I always had a multitude of different activities between classes, sports, musicals, work, and play, going on at the same time. My days were full to the brim with very little down time in front of the TV or lounging around. Since graduation I haven’t had this. It’s been up in the morning, drive to work, sit at a desk all day, drive home, cook dinner, watch the tube, read and sleep. Occasionally the gym slips in there or some time with BL. Sometimes I have a happy hour or other event to get to, but not the same level and variety of activities I had in my past lives. I miss those activities, and I think what has me most excited is the possibility that my days will once again be filled. I’m sure I’ll bitch that I have no time to rest, that I’m stressed and don’t know how I’ll meet this or that deadline, but I strive on that level of intensity…I’m ready to have it back in my life. So here goes…I’ll keep you all updated on whether or not my head explodes.

It's a Meme!

2007-07-02T23:02:00.000-04:00

Wow, so it's been almost two months since I last posted ANYTHING. I'm pretty much a terrible blogger at this point. SteveG and Spaz, however, have coaxed me out of the shadows by both tagging me on this meme. So, for the Oxymoronic Philosopher's 100th post, here it is:

First we have the rules:

We have to post these rules before we give you the facts.
Players start with eight random facts/habits about themselves.
People who are tagged need to write their own blog about their eight things and post these rules.
At the end of your blog post, you need to choose eight people to get tagged and list their names.
Don't forget to leave them a comment telling them they're tagged, and to read your blog.

8 Random Facts or Habits about 71.

This is the first meme I’ve ever been tagged on :-)
Growing up I wanted to be everything from a Secret Service Agent, to a garbage man, to an Orthodox Priest, but philosopher never entered the mix. It’s funny looking back and trying to trace all the steps I took to get here. Even entering college I was planning on a health and exercise science major with a focus on athletic training…somehow I ended up with degrees in Econ and Philo.
I’m starting grad school in the fall at George Mason University where I’ll be working on an MA in philosophy. I’m both excited beyond belief to start something new and scared shitless that I barely remember what philosophy is.
I worked for the US Secret Service for two years during college. The job was awesome, but the coolest part by far was when some co-workers got me into a Capitol Hill bar underage by flashing their Secret Service commission books.
Ok, I lied, that wasn’t the coolest part of the job. The coolest part was when they sent me to Vegas on an all expenses paid business trip for two days and two nights to set up a video camera and tape recorder for an interview. Yes, my friends, your tax dollars at work.
From the time I was in elementary school through middle school, I collected those little collectible spoons you find in tourist trap gift shops. I had about a hundred of them in a rack on the wall in my bedroom, and every time I’d close the door half of them would fall. I hated those things…why did I ever collect them?
I was the coolest little kid. Ok, maybe not, but I, honest to god, got to play w/ Reagan’s dog Rex in the Rose Garden, and that’s gotta make me pretty damn cool. My mom’s cousins worked at the Service (and dated in the Service), they used to hook me up in so many ways. I even have a picture of myself behind the podium in the press room.
Even though I’m turning into a rather progressive oxymoronic philosopher, I’m still a country boy at heart. I refuse to give up hunting, as it’s one of the few pastimes I share with my dad, and I love being out in the woods. I also am finding it hard giving up my pickup, I just can’t see myself in a little teeny tiny car. I hope I’m not the only one who often has trouble giving his/her rational beliefs with the life I live. It’s something I’m constantly working on.

Now...if I only new 8 other bloggers to tag on this...hmmm. I guess I'll just go with some of the Gburg bloggers, know them or not:

Effie Jones at Brown Girl in the Ring

Maynard at Creative Destruction

Ping right here

quaker j at resounding peace

A Stranger at A Stranger in a Strang(er) Land

Matty at Matty's Blog

Ok, honestly, six is enough...man this is hard work.

The Give Me a Break Article of the Day

2007-05-04T10:04:00.000-04:00

From the Toronto Star:

$65M lawsuit over lost pants

May 04, 2007 04:30 AM

Lubna Takruri
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON–A missing pair of pants has led to one big suit.

A customer got so steamed when a dry cleaner lost his trousers that he sued for $65 million (U.S.). Two years later, he is still pressing his suit.

The case has demoralized the South Korean immigrant owners and brought demands that the customer – an administrative law judge in Washington – be disbarred and removed from office for pursuing a frivolous and abusive claim.

"They're out a lot of money, but more importantly, incredibly disenchanted with the system," said Chris Manning, lawyer for the owners. "This has destroyed their lives."

The customer, Roy Pearson Jr., who has been representing himself, declined to comment.

According to court documents, the problem began in May 2005 when Pearson became a judge and brought several suits for alterations to Custom Cleaners in Washington. A pair of pants from one suit was missing when he requested it two days later.

Pearson asked the cleaners for the full price of the suit: more than $1,000.

But a week later, the owners said the pants had been found and refused to pay. Pearson said those were not his pants and decided to sue.

Manning said the cleaners have made three settlement offers to Pearson: $3,000, then $4,600, then $12,000.

But Pearson was not satisfied and expanded his calculations beyond one pair of pants. Because he no longer wanted to use his local dry cleaner, he asked in his lawsuit for $15,000 – the cost of renting a car every weekend for 10 years to go to another business.

The bulk of the $65 million demand comes from Pearson's strict interpretation of Washington consumer protection law, which imposes fines of $1,500 per violation, per day. Pearson counted 12 violations over 1,200 days, then multiplied that by three defendants.

Much of Pearson's case rests on two signs Custom Cleaners once had on its walls: "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service." He claims the signs amount to fraud.

The case is set for trial June 11.

Sherman Joyce, president of the American Tort Reform Association, an organization that fights what it considers abusive lawsuits against small businesses, has asked that Pearson be denied a renewal of his 10-year appointment. The association has also offered to buy Pearson a new suit.

Chief Administrative Judge Tyrone Butler had no comment on Pearson's reappointment prospects.

Melvin Welles, former chief administrative law judge with the National Labour Relations Board, wrote to The Washington Post to say that if he were the judge in the case, he would throw out the lawsuit and order Pearson to pay the dry cleaners for their legal expenses and their mental suffering. He also called for Pearson's ouster and disbarment.

"The manifest absurdity of it is too obvious to require explanation," he wrote.

He Apalls Me

2007-05-03T22:33:00.000-04:00

This from CNN.com this evening:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House has threatened to veto a bill passed by the House of Representatives on Thursday that expands hate-crime laws to include attacks based on sexual orientation or gender.
Under current law, hate crimes are subject to federal prosecution only if the acts of violence are motivated by race, religion, color or national origin. Federal prosecutors get involved only if the victim is engaged in a federally protected activity, such as voting or participating in interstate commerce.
The White House says there is no need for the expanded bill because state and local laws already cover the crimes it addresses, and there is no need for federal enforcement.
In addition to allowing greater leeway for federal law enforcement authorities to investigate hate crimes, the House bill -- which was passed on a 237-180 vote --provides $10 million over the next two years to aid local prosecutions.
A similar bill has been introduced in the Senate, but no date has been set for a vote.

So, he'll veto the bill because it's redundant? I love this logic because, you see, it's very well aligned with the way we've written laws to this point. There's absolutely no redundancy in US federal and state laws.

Come on, man! Why would you veto this bill? It sets out a firm protection in the law for two additional groups of people who are targeted by others simply because they are members of these groups. That's what sets these crimes apart. Not only is an individual targeted, the group as a whole is targeted. These crimes are perpetrated to make a statement, to intimidate, and, for this reason, they should be highlighted in our laws. When we allow the actions of some to cause entire groups of people to live in fear of having similar crimes committed against them only because they are a member of the group we are allowing an egregious injustice to go on occurring. This bill would be a small step in the right direction...a codification of our moral outrage against the perpetrators of these crimes. To simply say that they will spend their lives in prison for committing these crimes is not enough, we must condemn not only the result but also the intent and the motivation of such heinous crimes.

As for this argument from Rep. Feeney (R - Fla):

"What it does is to say that the dignity, the property, the life of one person gets more protection than another American. That's just wrong," he said.

GIVE ME A BREAK! It says that we will not allow groups of people to be made targets, simple as that. We do just fine putting up the barriers the Representative is speaking about without codifying them in laws...

Mr. President, don't veto this bill.

The Shiites Have Hit the Fan

2007-05-03T10:27:00.000-04:00

BL forwarded this quote from WaPo May 2, 2007, "Democrats Recall an Anniversary Bush Would Rather Forget:"

"Today is the fourth anniversary of the president of the United States announcing 'Mission Accomplished,' " Rep. Stephen Cohen (D-Tenn.) proclaimed on the House floor. These days Bush "has been channeling Warren Zevon, who said, 'I'm caught between a rock and a hard place. Send lawyers, guns and money,' " Cohen said, paraphrasing the rest just a little: " 'The Shiites have hit the fan' "

To the Dad at the Gym This Morning...

2007-05-02T22:07:00.000-04:00

Listen, man. I know you think it's great that you've got your 10 year old in the gym with you. It's father/son bonding time. You're teaching him about something that's important to you. You think you're preparing him to be a stellar athlete. But you've gotta put a little more thought into this.

First of all, I know you're true motives. You're like reading an open book. You're wearing a Maryland Wrestling t-shirt and an old pair of wrestling shoes, but you don't look like you were a state champ back in the day. You don't have the build and you don't have that unmistakable fire in your eyes. You've got your son decked out in a t-shirt with the slogan "Wrestling: Sanctioned by God" across his back and an image of Jacob wrestling the angel on his chest. You can't live through him, man. It's not fair to build yourself a little state champ because you feel like you didn't work hard enough or want it bad enough when you had the chance. Let me tell you what will happen.

First, you're getting your kid up at 6 am to hit the weights. This is fine for a grown adult, but the kid needs his rest and needs to grow. 10 is the age for learning technique. He's still figuring out his body (and will be for the next 6 or 7 years). He's not sure how to control those limbs, keep them in tight and practiced motions. This is what he needs to be working on as a kid...if he even needs to be practicing as intense a sport as wrestling at all.

Kid's burn out. I could see it in his face, he wasn't enjoying your regimented workout, your constant critique of his form, your pushing him to the edge. He's going to resent the sport, it's going to become a job to him before he ever has the chance to blossom. And worse...he's probably going to resent you.

The way I see it, we each get about 10, maybe 12, years to play the more intense sports (unless we go pro, but at that point it's a job, it's a livelihood). Any more than that 10 years and our bodies start to break down, our intensity starts to wane. I've seen too many great junior high athletes never make it that next step because they just don't love the sport anymore. Don't do that to your kid. Let him play, let him wrestle, let him have fun and be a kid. Don't push him yet. He'll learn the value of hard work in due time. He has years of growing to do and plenty of time to pack on muscle. Just let your kid...well...be a kid.

At least...that's my opinion. Dad at the Gym, I just don't want to see you run your kid away from the sport you love and a sport I love, too. Let him be a kid for now, and maybe someday you can be proud of YOUR SON'S state championship.

A Compromise?

2007-05-01T22:40:00.000-04:00

On this, the 4th anniversary of our victory in Iraq , our Congress of the people of these United States sent down from the Hill a bill of emergency funding for the war.

Now...am I the only one who thinks this is really fucking strange? They just wrote and passed a bill to fund a war that ended four years ago. What the hell are they smoking....ummm, what the hell are we all smoking?

Ok, we all know the game that's being played. Congress passes a bill to authorize emergency funding and attaches to that bill the stipulation that we begin a redeployment (an odd term to me) of our troops in Iraq. Shrub gets the bill and, as promised, immediately vetoes it this evening. It's political pageantry. It's making a statement. It's a little stronger vote of no confidence in the administration than that which was issued a few months back. Now we go back to the drawing board and come up with something in the middle...but honestly, what does that look like?

Bush has offered up a solution. We set up (once again) benchmarks that the Iraqi government must meet in order to maintain an American presence. Now, this seems somewhere between defeatist and ridiculous to me. Benchmarks will obviously not be set up outside of the reach of what the Iraqi government is immediately capable. They will be meaningless...pointless, just another example of feigned progress. I see this move as essentially admitting we're going to be there for a very long time and probably see very little progress.

For a very interesting and quite sobering perspective on this whole debaucle you've got to have a listen to this piece from the CBC's "As It Happens" April 30, 2007, show. It's an interview with Michael Bell, former Chairman of the International Reconstruction Fund for Iraq. This is quite honestly the most realistic and honest prediction I have heard to date.

Einstein Once Again Ahead of His Time

2007-04-26T17:20:00.000-04:00

The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them. – Albert Einstein

I’m not sure if Einstein was wearing his scientist hat or his socially/politically active citizen hat when he coined this quote, but, wow, is it ever poignant today. What we have here is the idea that when we make a significant mistake, we create a hefty problem, or we find ourselves engulfed in a grave situation (usually of our own making) we simply and absolutely must think our way out of that situation with a different mindset than that which got us into it in the first place. The actions that stemmed from our original level of thought created this situation; the actions that will untangle us must necessarily arise out of a higher level of thinking. If they do not, won’t we just continue to dig a deeper and deeper hole? At the very best we’ll stagnate.

Now, in all honesty, this seems to be a fairly simple principle and one which can easily be followed. After all, we should be learning from our mistakes. Whatever got thinking got us into this problem created obvious actions and, probably, obvious reactions. We pinpoint those, we ruminate on those, we grow from those, and we think/act our way out of the mess. Or…at least that’s how it’s supposed to work.

So tell me…what the hell happened? When did we decide it was good idea to just keep plugging away with the same thinking, the same actions repeated time after time? No wonder we’ve created a “quagmire.” What else could have possibly happened? We haven’t grown, we…fuck that, not WE, the Bush administration…hasn’t learned a darn thing. They just keep plugging along with the same broken logic, the same flawed worldview. When are they going to start thinking on a different level and get us out of this mess?

How to Respond…

2007-04-24T17:57:00.000-04:00

Came across this article yesterday on CNN.com, and I just don’t know what to think. It seems that Turner County High School in Ashburn, GA, had never had a school sponsored prom before this year. In the past parents put up the money for students to hold dances off of school grounds. This is all well and good (I mean, sad that they didn’t have a prom, but not too bad) except for one minor detail; the dances have been segregated. That’s right, the white students had their dance, the black students had theirs, and no one went to the other. Separate but equal…give me a break. Even this year with the “integrated” school sponsored prom the “white prom” still went on.

Nichole Royal, 18, said black students could have gone to the prom, but didn't. "I guess they feel like they're not welcome," she said.

It’s not a race issue, it’s just tradition, another student espoused. No, that’s not a race issue…they just “feel like they’re not welcome.” Hmmmm…I wonder why? What is the one defining feature that separates the “welcome” from the “unwelcome” at this dance? Skin color! Sure, economic status may play a role, but let’s be honest (and slightly stereotypical)…in this town, that’s likely a function of race. How about attitude? Do the black students not feel welcome because of the way the perceive themselves to be treated? I would be willing to bet that this plays a roll…but what lies beneath it? Race.

In any case, the new school prom was semi-successful at starting to close this rift in the school. But I’m still not sure how I feel about this article. I’m horrified and appalled that this “separate but equal” idea has endured in such an institutionalized fashion for so long. At the same time, I want to say kudos to those students who FINALLY pushed for a change. Is it a bright light for the future, or just another sad truth of our present day?

Karl Rove is the Worst Dancer in the World

2007-03-29T14:01:00.000-04:00

As if things weren't bad enough for Karl Rove, he had to unveil his dance skills, or lack-there-of, at last night's Radio & TV Correspondents' Dinner last night in Washington. Now that's funny...

Going Home

2007-03-26T23:25:00.001-04:00

On Sunday BL and I made our first of hopefully many summer trips out to Great Falls. It was absolutely gorgeous out, the first true shorts weather of the season. If you’ve never been to the falls and you live in the DC area, you don’t know what you’re missing. A season pass is only 20 bucks, $5 for a day (I think). There are plenty of hiking trails meandering between the Potomac and the C&O Canal as it makes its way toward the city along the MD/VA border. There are some more treacherous, rocky trails for the slightly more daring, or the tow path for the everyday walk or jog. There’s even a newly built working canal boat and a few locks for the history buff. People watching opportunities abound on a beautiful spring day. You’re guaranteed to see the spectrum from tiny tots bundled and strapped to daddy’s chest to grandma and grandpa out for an afternoon stroll. We came upon at least one second date…that’s our guess judging by the conversation…and quite a few dog lovers. As we strolled and chatted we were absolutely blown away by the thought that the first time either of us had been there had been together…10 years ago! TEN YEARS? Granted, we were only in middle school at the time, but wow! It’s hard to believe we’ve even known each other that long.

The thing that struck me about the falls 10 years ago is still the very same thing that strikes me today. I didn’t have words for it then, and I only have a fleeting comprehension of it now but the best words I can muster to describe the beauty, the power, the smell, the overwhelming calming effect of watching the waters of the river rush by me are these: God lives here. I’m not a conventionally religious person, but I shudder at the cliché, I’m not religious, but I’m spiritual. It’s hard for me to describe what I believe about the great unknown besides to say that there is some amorphous, incomprehensible, ineffable something out there that is bigger than I. However, when I come upon a place like this, there’s an overwhelming awe. Not an awe that strikes me back as in the sight of a massive building or amazing machine, but an awe that draws me in…calms me…grounds me…allows me to feel like and be me again. I feel the same way floating on my back in the Atlantic, watching a thunderstorm roll in, or gazing upon the rolling mountains of the Allegheny Plateau. I feel at home. I feel wrapped in the arms of some greater existence.

I need these experiences that I can’t quite explain, I can’t quite describe. I long for them. It’s been a long winter, my life is totally and completely up in the air right now. This weekend, though, this one short day strolling around the falls, has grounded me again. I’m ready again to go along for this crazy ride until the next time I get the chance to go home…

Penn State Women's Basketball Coach Resigns

2007-03-22T15:08:00.000-04:00

Embattled Penn State women's basketball coach Rene Portland resigned today, just a month after settling out of court a discrimination lawsuit filed by former player Jennifer Harris.

In 2005 Harris filed a discrimination lawsuit against Portland and Penn State, alleging that Portland discriminated her on the basis of sexual orientation and race. Harris claimed Portland had a strict "no lesbian" policy-- not the first time the coach had been accused of discrimination in her 27 year tenure-- and said she was ostracized and eventually asked to leave the team because "she needed to look more feminine." The incident caused an uproar on the Penn State campus and with the ACLU, as student groups, including the LGTBA and the Black Caucus, petitioned for Portland's firing.

Portland's resignation has to be seen as a victory for civil rights. Public institutions like Penn State should not and cannot tolerate bigotry at any level, let alone a position as visible as the head coach of a major sports team. It's a shame that the university stood behind Portland for so long, even after investigating her and ordering her to take professional development course on diversity.

The Birthday Dinner

2007-03-19T22:28:00.000-04:00

BL took me out for an amazing dinner Friday night at Indique Heights. The chicken chettinad was absolutely killer, and the atmosphere was more than I expected from a place in Friendship Heights. If you like Indian, it's definitely a place worth checking out, though admittedly a little on the expensive side.
BL and I were entertained this evening by a combination of our observations and our dorkiness, as usual. Since she was treating and I was being lazy, she chose the bottle of wine, and we waited to see how it would be presented. The waiter, true to the decade in which we live, presented her the bottle and poured her taste, then poured me the first glass. We both smiled. Dinner was rather uneventful, but definitely wonderful, and when we had finished, our waiter brought the check, and, once again, handed it to BL. This guy's good. He pays attention and he doesn't make the assumptions that are often made at a dinner for two. The assumption that the man will pay, that the man will choose and approve of the wine. It always pleases me to see that every once in a while that mold's broken.
But then, of course, the egalitarian bubble was popped. Another waiter came by and picked up the check from our table with BL's credit card inside. He ran the card, brought the check back, and...yep...you guessed it, handed the check with her card inside directly to me. Eh, you win some you lose some, but it's always interesting to watch.
Just as a little aside, I wonder how much age affects this phenomenon? Our waiter was young. Probably mid 20s. The second waiter was a bit older, probably mid to late 40s. Have we broken these assumptions somewhere in that 20 years in between?

Obama

2007-03-19T22:17:00.000-04:00

This has probably been circulating for a while, but BL sent it my way today at work. I'm all about breakin the mold, shakin up the status quo...check this out:

Bracketology

2007-03-14T22:59:00.000-04:00

Ah, yes. The brackets are all filled out. Most of the online pools lock at noon tomorrow. Some are scurrying through their last minute research while others, like me, just wing it...just in it for the fun. It's NCAA March Madness time and it seems appropriate that we hear some words of wisdom from the illustrious Frank Deford.

Anyone have any favorite picks this year?

On Dealing with Intolerance

2007-03-12T23:08:00.000-04:00

How does one handle the intolerance of others, especially when those others are ones oldest, dearest friends?

A couple of weeks ago I was in Pittsburgh with my girlfriend visiting some college friends. One of these friend’s best friend from high school, who I’ve also come to adore, is gay (we’ll call him A). A is quite open about his sexual orientation and quite comfortable talking about it and often cracking jokes about it. Let’s just say A makes no attempts to lead you to believe he is anything but exactly who he is.

So Saturday afternoon, we meet an old friend of my girlfriend for lunch. We have a nice time at a little Lebanese place. He tells us he’s going to be out in the same neighborhood we are Saturday night, and we leave saying we’ll try to call and hook up later in the evening. As we drive back to our friends’ house we start to discuss the lunch and the coming evening, and my girlfriend tells me that we can’t meet up with her friend if A is going to be with us… “it would just be awkward.” Apparently, he’s not comfortable with A’s sexuality. This got the old wheels spinning…what is the reaction one ought have to a friend, a dear friend, who maintains this worldview that simply will not jive or mesh with one’s own?

I suppose the moral highroad would be confrontation of some sort, a sort of coaxing in the direction of tolerance. I’m sure that our friend, and many of my friends from the small town I call home, would warm to the personality of A, who is just a riot to hang out with. I would love to be able to say that given this situation I would invite my friends along without a mention of A and force them into a friendly interaction…force them toward change. But this is just my head in the clouds. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if simply exposing someone who leans toward closed-mindedness to a variety of people would open them up? I fear that what would truly happen is defensiveness, a closing off of avenues of conversation, a willful avoidance of commonality. But then again, what if, by some off chance, all would have a good time and get along famously? Is it worth the risk?

Unfortunately, the path my girlfriend chose and the path I often do choose with many friends in this and other morally sticky situations, is the path of compartmentalization. I find it exceedingly easy to say to myself, “Yes, self, your old friend is flawed in his thinking and has done some wrong, but he’s still your friend and he still has many good qualities and he is still good to you.” Its so simple, the bad things, while acknowledged, are tucked away neatly in a little box and set aside…the good times roll on. The ease with which I do this, the ease with which I see my friends do this, regularly is, to be quite honest, somewhat frightening. Does this loyalty behoove either party, or is it actually one of the many problems of human interaction? We can, it seems, set aside almost any dastardly deed if we can find some redeeming quality…even if that quality is just that he’s a good drinking buddy. Or is this just immaturity? Does this fade with time, or does our daily tolerance of intolerance go on?

You ever just have one of those days?

2007-03-08T21:50:00.000-05:00

Honestly...I was just off from the start. Couldn't get outta bed this morning. Found my keys dangling in the front door since last night. Just completely out of it at work all day. Sent two emails to the wrong recipients (why are so many people suddenly named Karen?). Got nothing...NOTHING...accomplished. And, yoy, was the drive home entertaining. First, Carpool Buddy (henceforth; CP) and I are talking about the spring ahead this weekend, and:
OP: Well, at least it's on a weekend, makes recovering from that lost hour easier.
CP: strange look.
OP: What? What's with the look?
CP: It's ALWAYS on a weekend?
OP: Yeah, I'm an idiot...long day...
Literally less than a mile later I'm talking and CP suddenly bursts out laughing.
OP: What? (again...this was a common theme of my day)
CP: You know that was a red light?
OP: Where?
CP: Where you just went around a car to run it.
Yes...I went around a stopped car to run a red light. I don't know...I suppose I thought they were making a left turn. Luckily, everyone else on the road was paying attention and no cops were around...but seriously, who goes around a stopped car to run a red light? Just one of those days.
Tomorrow's Friday...

Piggybacking

2007-03-06T23:11:00.000-05:00

Sitting around the kitchen at lunch today the conversation veered toward internet providers. Now, I work for what I would consider a tech company. At least half of the staff has some sort of IT degree and/or background, so this was on the low end of the techie conversations that often come up. To my surprise, I was part of the minority of my coworkers who actually pay for their home internet services. The rest of them don’t go without, of course; they piggyback. We all NEED the internet…I swear it’s an addiction of our entire culture.

Anyways, with the copious number of wireless networks crisscrossing every neighborhood in the greater DC area, it’s not hard to believe that a good number of the people using the internet are doing so on their neighbor’s buck. This essentially means that we’re stealing each other’s internet, right? It seems unethical, by why do so many of us do it without thinking twice? Hell, we even seem proud about it at times. It’s a small victory, I got online and didn’t have to pay a dime! I would bet the majority of us, even if we don’t do it regularly, have jumped on a neighbors signal when our own network was down. It’s just become common practice, and so long as no malicious activities ensue…well, it just doesn’t seem that bad.

(Funny, my router just dropped my signal mid-post, and now…well, I’m on my neighbor’s network. Thanks ‘emerge,’ whoever you are.)

The common thinking seems to go like this. My neighbor, let’s call her Jane, doesn’t have her wireless network well protected. I don’t need a key or a password to log on, and she doesn’t have a firewall up. Therefore, Jane’s internet is fair game, she doesn’t mind if I or anyone else in the vicinity piggyback on her connection. If she did, obviously she’d lock it down. If I do piggyback, I’m only taking something that Jane has put out there for the taking.

Now, let’s apply this logic to another situation. Say Jane has a sweet ride…a Beamer, for argument’s sake…and I’m a broke recent grad with no vehicle and it’s a long-ass walk to the Metro. Now, Jane, being the naïve small town girl in the big city, doesn’t always remember to lock up her beautiful car. She often leaves it sitting in the lot, unlocked, keys in the ignition. If I wander out one day trying to figure out the quickest way to get to the bar (let’s be honest, where else am I going) and see Jane’s keys dangling there in her open car, jump in and drive off, I’m stealing. Right? This is obviously wrong. Even though the keys were in the car, the car was unlocked, and it took no malicious effort on my part (actually saved me effort) to drive off in the car, it’s still unacceptable. So what’s the difference? Why can I steal Jane’s unlocked internet but not Jane’s unlocked car?

I tend to think that the difference is in the exclusivity of what is being stolen. If I steal Jane’s internet connection I’m just taking a bit of bandwidth. She can still get online, check her email, chat, surf the net, etc. But if I steal Jane’s car…well, Jane’s shit outta luck. Even if I leave the spare tire behind, it’s not doing her much good. Because me taking the car excludes her from using the car it causes her a greater loss, it is ethically more wrong.

Some other ideas batted around were the tangibility of what was stolen. You can’t see a wireless connection, you don’t really know you’re missing out on anything, etc. The idea of finite source also came up. There seems to be an infinite source of “internet,” whatever that is. You wouldn’t be so upset if someone stole a bucket of water from your hose to wash his car, but you would be upset if they stole your only bucket. To you, the bucket is an immediately finite thing, the water seems rather infinite in comparison.

Anyone out there got any thoughts on this quandary?

Back from the Burgh

2007-03-04T22:49:00.000-05:00

Just back from an incredible weekend in the Burgh visiting two of my best friends with the GF. Have to say, even though I rip on it from time to time, I do love that town. Yinzers are some of the best people you’ll ever meet. It was also a gluttonous weekend…in 2 days we managed to hit up a diner, a Lebanese restaurant, a dueling piano bar on the South Side, a gyro joint, and a pizza place…and topped it off with a few meals cooked at the house. Yoy!

I’m still processing some thoughts on the happenings of the weekend. There’ll be a post or two to come, but for now…I need sleep.

In Economic News Today...

2007-02-27T23:29:00.000-05:00

Yeah, yeah, the Dow, the S&P, and Nasdaq all tumbled 3-4 percent today on the heels of a Chinese market sell-fest and Greenspan (Really, how does this man still wield so much power? Gotta love the smoke and mirrors that comprise the power of the Fed. Give Ben some time and he'll catch up to heavy-hitters Volcker and Greenspan in this regard.) opened his mouth for the first time in ages to say a recession is coming, but the really big news...$2.35mil for "the Holy Grail of baseball cards!"
Holy bejesus, who'da thunk a little picture of a Pittsburgh Pirate could ever be worth so much. That's right, the Honus Wagner tobacco card...the only one still in pristine condition, though others still exist...sold today to an anonymous collector for 2,350,000 simoleons. Let's think about this for just a minute. For that amount you could put a roof over your head, a nice car in the driveway, plenty of food on the table, buy a college education, and still have a bit left over, yet someone (well, ok a lot of someones) has enough cash lying around to spend it on a piece of cardboard with a photo on it that came out of a cigarrette box. Now, don't get me wrong, I collected (ok, so I still have them) baseball cards and used to beg and plead with my parents for a few bucks to buy a pack or two. And I used to gawk at pictures of the Honus card and many others in the Beckett magazine, but it still makes me question our economic system when a baseball card sells for this kind of moolah. Supply and demand...supply and demand, yoy.

FINALLY!

2007-02-27T23:22:00.000-05:00

We're finally, yes, FINALLY going to talk to Iran and Syria! And, holy cow, nobody in the world is accusing us of rolling over and playing dead in making this decision. I'll be darned. I coulda sworn from all of Shrub's rhetoric over the years that the walls would just come tumbling down if we ever decided to hold a conversation with these "rogue states." Maybe they caught a glimpse of my foreign policy platform. It warms my heart to see the US finally at the table with both Iran and North Korea. I'm still fearful of the administration's rhetoric and seeming moves towards a war with Iran (as yesterday's post on WhirledView hit on the money) but at least I've got a little hope. It's kinda like standing in bunker deeper than I am tall but still catching a glimpse of the pin. It may take 5 or 6 swings to get out, but we'll make it.

"The Redirection"

2007-02-26T21:15:00.000-05:00

PHK at WhirledView put up a great synopsis today of an upcoming New Yorker article by Seymour Hersh on the recent Middle East policy shift of the Bush administration. It's an absolute must read. I haven't gotten to "The Redirection" yet, but it's on my reading list for the week.

Yoy!

2007-02-25T22:14:00.000-05:00

Where the hell have I been? Everyday I think about posting but just can't bring myself to do it. I've been busy...embarked on a new relationship :-), working, trying to maintain a social life...but I've also just been plain lazy, and I need to get over that. I've been having some health issues (not to bemoan you all....is anyone still reading?...with my ailments) that have been spurring some nasty headaches and just zapping my energy, but I need to stop being a baby about it and get back on this horse.

I missed out on the Edwards' bloggers fiasco...when will Dems stop allowing themselves to be bullied? I've missed out on numerous presidential candidacy announcements. God, doesn't this seem early, I hope we don't burn ourselves out...it seems somewhat ridiculous. But, I do have to say, I LOVE OBAMA! Missed some Iraq excitement...the Brits are pulling out, we're "surging." What happened to regional diplomacy, what happened to the Baker commission? At least the House did something in essentially registering a vote of no confidence in the administration, but let's put forth some alternatives before we start sending thousands more soldiers abroad. Yoy, so much to talk about, so much I've been quiet about.

Final note...I've started hearing back from grad programs and apparently the ACC is not a big fan of this lil' ol' PA boy, looks like I won't be going to school in North Carolina, but that's alright, still 5 more to hear back from and the possibility of applying to one or two more MA programs. I have to admit, I'm a little scared...I'm starting to second guess whether I went about this application process in the right way. But it's too late now for second guesses, I've poured a lot into this and I gotta ride it out and see what happens...

Anyways, my pledge, if not to you then at least to me, is to post at least 3 times this week. I don't know what I'll have to say, but I'm sure to spout of on some craziness or another going on in the world. Until then...

The State of the Union is Strong?

2007-01-23T22:56:00.000-05:00

At least according to the president it is.

Even with his approval rating at an all time low and with just 26% of Americans feeling that the country is headed in the right direction, Mr. Bush trudged on tonight in his State of the Union address. The smirk, the bravado, and the style wavered only slightly.

The rhetoric stayed much the same, too. With lines like "we can go forward with confidence... our cause in the world is right" and "out of chaos in Iraq, would emerge an emboldened enemy... with an even greater determination to harm America. To allow this to happen would be to ignore the lessons of September 11^th and invite tragedy. And ladies and gentlemen, nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East," he's clearly living in world of denial. What's more, the President's clearly still a fan of fear mongering. The strategy is clear: create sound bites that let Americans know that if we don't get the bad guys, the bad guys are hell bent on coming here and getting us. And the only way to get the bad guys? Of course it's the path we're on right now, no matter what the truth of the matter is.

Overkill

2007-01-22T21:12:00.000-05:00

Eric Boehlert has a great piece over at Media Matters about the media's unhealthy obsession with the 2008 Presidential election.

Citing the media's eruption over the recent "news" that Senators Obama and Clinton have formed presidential exploratory committees, Boehlert writes that the media has effectively extended the presidential election season, which was once a coveted, once-every-four-year period for journalists, into a feeding frenzy that started well over two years before the election is even set to occur and that has produced very little substantial news. Just seven years ago when George W. Bush announced that he was forming an exploratory committee, Boehlert writes, The New York Times published a tiny 900 word story on page 14. However, he notes that The Times "played the Obama exploratory announcement prominently above the fold on Page 1."

Pretty interesting stuff...

I think a lot of this early coverage, which often lacks substance or truth or a combination of the two, could have a few negative effects on the early candidates. They say all press is good press, but I'm not sure that's really the case in this situation. The media is so saturated with stories of Obama, Clinton, the election, etc. that the news watching public might hear or read a little more than they want to learn, whether it be true or even really newsworthy or not, about certain candidates that all of this coverage might negatively sway opinions. There's going to be so much press over the next 20-some months that journalists corroborating false reports or printing irrelevant reports might have a big impact come election time. Just some thoughts...

My Library

2007-01-20T00:33:00.001-05:00

One of my best buds asked me recently to suggest some new reading material. She just finished a book, her first in a while, and felt like she’d been slacking on her reading lately. We have a lot of similar tastes in music, books, movies, life in general…so I thought, hell yes, I’d love to suggest a book or two. I came home and started looking over my bookshelves…what to suggest? What would catch her interests and really captivate her? What would she truly relate to?

Then it struck…I’d never noticed this in my book selections before, and I’m positive it’s not a result of conscious decision making, but I don’t have a single fiction book (that I’ve already read) besides Alice in Quantum Land (and I don’t think this really counts since SteveG made me read it) that is narrated from the point of view of a female character. Even those books written by female authors that are part of my collection are narrated from the male character’s perspective.

I’m not sure yet of the source of this phenomenon. I suppose it’s possible that it’s a result of my subconscious likes and dislikes when choosing reading material. It’s entirely possible that I choose books that fit into the categories that have been engrained in my mind as masculine and exciting by years of socialization. But, I think it’s also possible that it’s not only that these books appeal to me more on some level but that they are simply more prevalent. Books written from the female perspective seem (and I’m basing only on personal experience which is woefully limited) to be geared toward teens, seem to tell stories that appeal to teenage and twenty-something women. I’m sure I’m generalizing and that there are many, many novels from the female perspective that I’ve not been exposed to, but do they appeal to a male audience…can I relate without making a conscious effort to do so?

What do ya’ll think?

Can anyone tell me???

2007-01-12T23:46:00.001-05:00

So this week there’s been a lot of conversation about the administration’s new plans for Iraq. A “surge” is what they call it. According to Condi, this isn’t an “escalation” it’s an “augmentation” of our effort…what beautiful word play. 20,000 more troops and a few billion more dollars to achieve “victory in Iraq,” but it’s not an escalation because our goals remain the same. Now…this line of bs is enough to make my blood boil in and of itself, but my real question is this: What does the phrase “victory in Iraq” mean? I know the party line, victory is achieved when Iraq can govern and defend itself. But who really believes this can happen at this point…or at any point in the next 10 year or so? We’ve created a perpetual battleground. Our foes will continue to funnel money and bodies into Iraq so long as we maintain a presence there, but if we leave, the country, and possibly the region, completely goes to shit. So, again, what does victory look like? Is it a matter of cutting our losses, or is there something more to be had? I won’t pretend to know the answers, I just feel the need to ask the questions. The one thing I do believe, we can’t do it alone, and the only ones who hold enough of a stake in the region to make a real difference…well, we’re not talking to them right now.

Quote of the Day

2007-01-12T12:13:00.000-05:00

During a meeting with members of the House Armed Services Committee yesterday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates confessed to the panel that he was "no expert on Iraq", going as far as to say that he was "no expert on military matters" in general.

Hmmm... something about that confession seems really puzzling to me. The guy has 26 years of experience in intelligence, with both the CIA and National Security Council. He's been a pretty high ranking official for quite some time. Yet, during all of those years, he never picked up a smidge of military expertice, let alone a much better grasp on the situation in Iraq than what's held by the American public. Wouldn't it have been a better move by Dubya, considering the current state of affairs in Iraq and the rest of the world, to tap a real expert on all things Iraqi or even all thing military to lead the D.O.D? I'm not doubting Gates' experience, but one would think that if the president was serious about winning the war, if "winning" is even a legitimate option anymore, that he would've gone the way of someone with a little more military intelligence.

Or maybe, just maybe, you'd think that Bush would've pressured his nominee to beef up his knowledge of Iraq before allowing him to take over at the Pentagon. Oh wait, that's right, Gates had that chance when he was a member of the James Baker's Iraq Study Group. I guess that several month long crash course didn't really do much.

Talk about faith...

2007-01-09T22:15:00.001-05:00

If you haven't been there already, check out this discussion out on the Playground. Right my alley.

Plug-and-Play Diplomats

2007-01-06T00:59:00.001-05:00

Dubya made some interesting moves this week, a shake-up, if you will. Seems that Negroponte will soon be Condi’s number two replaced by a yet-to-be-named crony. Our illustrious ambassador to Iraq looks to be moving into Bolton’s old post at the UN. The administrations two top generals are also stepping down and being replaced. I don’t know much about diplomacy and I don’t know much about politics, but it seems to me that experience really doesn’t matter. It seems to me that qualifications for the job don’t really matter. It looks like the decision has been made by this administration that diplomats and generals are simply plug-and-play. It’s like that game with the ball under one of the three cups…where will the dip end up? You did it here, you can do it there. We’ll just pluck you from this post, drop you in that. It’s not a demotion, it just is what it is…I don’t know, but it just doesn’t make sense to me.

Thanks Bill

2007-01-05T13:42:00.000-05:00

An era in the history of Pittsburgh sports has come to an end. And as a die-hard yinzer (read: Steeler fan) through and through, I've got to admit I'm deeply, deeply saddened by it. After 15 great, yet sometimes rocky, years as the head coach of the Steelers, 11 winning records, 2 AFC titles, and a Vince Lombardi Trophy, Bill Cowher has decided to resign, hoping to retreat to North Carolina to spend more time with his wife and 3 daughters.

Perhaps more than any other sports team in the nation, the Steelers franchise is their city, is Pittsburgh, personified. Hardworking, blue collar, tough, resilient, proud yet incredibly humble: the Steelers and the Rooney family, like the working class people of the city, cherish those traits like none other. And in his 15 years as head coach Bill Cowher, the jaw-jutting native son who succeeded a legend in former coach Chuck Noll, has typified the organization and the city. He's been a tough, hardworking teacher and coach. Like the city of Pittsburgh, which has tried for years to pull itself out of the failures of industrialization, he's been resilient, enduring a number of losing seasons on the cusp of winning a Super Bowl Championship. He's been humble in the face of immense accomplishments, and even during losing campaigns, proud of the time and effort his players and assistants put in. Above all, Bill Cowher has been respected not only as a solid leader, but also as a man. Players attest that even though a fuming Cowher, with his trademark jaw out and spit flying from his mouth, was usually the first guy to be in your face after a mishap on the field, he was also almost always the first to slap your helmet after a job well done.

Coach Cowher has been the only head coach that I, and a host of other Steelers fans, have known. And while it's almost inevitible that Bill will one day seek another head coaching job in the NFL, I know that my fellow yinzers and I will always hold a special place in our black and gold hearts for him. Earlier today Cowher told members of the media, " You can take the people out of Pittsburgh, but you will never take the Pittsburgh out of the people. I'm one of you." Well Coach, no matter where you go, we'll always be damn glad to have you. Thanks for the memories.

I don't know...

2007-01-03T23:50:00.001-05:00

I don’t know… I don’t know what life’s supposed to be or where I’m supposed to go. I don’t know where I’ll be in ten years, or even next year. I don’t know if I’m to be an MBA, a philosopher, a carpenter, a space cadet. I don’t really know why I’m blessed with such wonderful friends or why I’ve been so lucky to have the amazing experiences I’ve had. I don’t know how I got the fortunate lot in life that I did. I don’t know the right way to go about finding a job. I definitely don’t know the first thing about choosing a grad school. I don’t know if everyone has one love of their life or 50 million of them. I don’t know how to make money or if I want to make money. Hell, I don’t even know if the shit that I don’t know even matters. But that’s really not the point, is it? I mean, there’s a lot out there that I don’t know and never will know, but the important stuff is the stuff I have figured out…or at least I’m starting to figure out. I do know that there’s nothing more important than good friends and caring family and that I should never, ever do anything to alienate them. I do know that a cup of coffee matters in the morning and that sunshine usually makes you feel better, too. I do know that life’s an intermittent spattering of high points that we have to cherish…and the rest is filling the voids between, hopefully productively, playfully, and happily. The highpoints are weekends with good friends. The highpoints are sips of good wine or hearty beer. The high points are steak dinners and passing a piece with certain friends. The highpoints are festive holiday meals and nights in the hot tub with dad drinking beer. We have to fill the gaps between the good hugs, the cuddles and the passionate kisses…the gap between the great books and new ideas with real life. We fill the gaps with going to work, reading the mundane, catching the news, and office happy hours. The trick is to keep the gaps short and real life light and entertaining…that way you have some stories to tell your friends on those amazing weekends and evenings. That’s about all I know.

Happy New Year Folks!!!

2006-12-31T14:40:00.000-05:00

See you all in 2007! Wish everyone a safe and happy night and all the best in the new year! Hopefully I'll have more interesting thoughts when it gets here...haha.

Holiday Thoughts

2006-12-27T21:56:00.001-05:00

Being home for the holidays is always wonderful. It was an incredible long weekend with friends and family. Did a little drinking, a little hunting, a bit of story telling and a LOT of laughing, but I started off the weekend by reading these thoughts from Mama Philosopher and I felt compelled to pass them along:

Isn’t what we really need this time of year one more sweatshirt with Santa falling off his sleigh? The other day I was on hold to speak with someone at Sam’s Club to answer a question about a gift for my husband. The gentleman helping me had a distinct accent and so we spent a few minutes trying to understand each other. Finally, I was put on hold, or at least he thought I was on hold, but, actually, I was overhearing another poor sap talking to another Sam’s employee with another foreign accent trying to purchase that perfect gift. Finally, when I was put on hold, I spent another ten minutes listening to the most beautiful Christmas song about the babe Jesus. It was a moment in all the many moments that lead up to the celebration of our Savior’s birth. Not sure what the feeling was I was experiencing while listening to the song; sort of an eclectic mixture of emotions. Mostly what I felt was shame, guilt and longing.

The shame, I believe, came from the realization that somehow in all the preparations what I really spend the least time preparing is my heart. My heart knows what to do, my mind leads me astray somehow each holiday season. My hear feels heavier this time of year; the poor look poorer; the homes needing repairs somehow look even more needy. The stories I hear day in and day out in my practice as a counselor somehow seem sadder. My heart is trying to be heard. I do my giving tree bit. I don’t pass a bucket without dropping some bucks, and there have been times during the season when I give to my clients, anonymously of course, because God knows I wouldn’t want to be unethical or allow tem to know I have a heart at all. Always in the back of my mind during Thanksgiving and Christmas is this vision of me and mine working at a shelter or handing out food to the homeless. But somehow I know we would get there late ‘cause no one would want to get up, or it may intrude on my kids’ plans to party with their friends, or, God forbid, there might be a football game on at the same time.

The guilt I felt listening to the Christmas song while on hold probably has to do with the reality I choose to repeat year after year…the same routine of preparations. I bake the cookies even though we are overweight with high cholesterol and borderline diabetes. I buy the gifts even though all through the year I and those I love get what we need or want when we need or want it. My guilt is acknowledging it is not others, not my family keeping me from changing the way I prepare for Christmas, it is me and my need to keep it going. Nostalgia takes over and I obsess about doing it the way I did it last year and the year before and the year before that. My kids are not kids anymore; they are 19 and 23 and I still find myself counting to see if they both have the same number of gifts under the tree. Do I do this for them or me? This may be the important question. When it comes down to it, it is easier, less awkward, less risky to keep repeating what was done before than to try something new. I would risk seeing some disappointment in their faces if there were no gifts on Christmas morning. I would certainly hear a few whines if the food was not on the table. So the earthly needs would go unsatisfied. But if we did the things I dream of doing as a family, take an active role in providing for others, sharing our blessings…how satisfied our hearts would be.

The feeling of longing I felt listening to the story of the baby Jesus’ birth probably had something to do with hope someday I will have the courage to do it right. Someday I will listen more to my heart and less to my head. Someday I will choose to take the risk of disappointing family, abandoning tradition, and instead listen to the little voice inside of me. The little voice kept quiet for too long.

Note: This would have been longer but the timer on my oven sounded and I had to get another pan of cookies out before they burned. And the doorbell is ringing, maybe another box from QVC…

Happy Festivus!

2006-12-23T12:13:00.000-05:00

Today, take the time to set up an alluminum pole(note: pole must be alluminum because of its high strength-to-weight ratio and must be undecorated because tinsel is really freaking distracting) in your living room, complain to all of your friends about how they've wronged you over the past year, and end the day with a wrestling extravaganza... and do it all in the name of Festivus, the holiday created the father of Seinfeld writer Daniel O'Keefe. The holiday, which gained fame in the Seinfeld episode "The Strike" about ten years ago could be just what this country's looking for this holiday season: a non-denominational, uncommercialized excuse to relax, drink, eat, and be jolly all while not stepping on anyone's toes.

So, instead of bickering about whether you should say Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Happy Hanukkah, or Merry Saturnalia let's all come together and celebrate the Miracles of Festivus.

A Little Christmas Cheer?

2006-12-21T22:27:00.000-05:00

I was doing a little Christmas trivia research (by the way, it was, in the original anonymous printing, Donner and Blixem then Donder and Blitzen, and, finally, Donner and Blitzen...something to do with German vs. Dutch spellings, but no matter how you spell it they translate to Thunder and Lightening) when I came across this classic. Thought you might enjoy:

A Visit from Saint Nicholas
(In the Ernest Hemingway Manner)
by James Thurber
Issue of 1927-12-24
Posted 2003-12-15

This classic New Yorker holiday story, from 1927, appears in the anthology “Christmas at The New Yorker,” which was published by Random House.

It was the night before Christmas. The house was very quiet. No creatures were stirring in the house. There weren’t even any mice stirring. The stockings had been hung carefully by the chimney. The children hoped that Saint Nicholas would come and fill them.

The children were in their beds. Their beds were in the room next to ours. Mamma and I were in our beds. Mamma wore a kerchief. I had my cap on. I could hear the children moving. We didn’t move. We wanted the children to think we were asleep.

“Father,” the children said.

There was no answer. He’s there, all right, they thought.

“Father,” they said, and banged on their beds.

“What do you want?” I asked.

“We have visions of sugarplums,” the children said.

“Go to sleep,” said mamma.

“We can’t sleep,” said the children. They stopped talking, but I could hear them moving. They made sounds.

“Can you sleep?” asked the children.

“No,” I said.

“You ought to sleep.”

“I know. I ought to sleep.”

“Can we have some sugarplums?”

“You can’t have any sugarplums,” said mamma.

“We just asked you.”

There was a long silence. I could hear the children moving again.

“Is Saint Nicholas asleep?” asked the children.

“No,” mamma said. “Be quiet.”

“What the hell would he be asleep tonight for?” I asked.

“He might be,” the children said.

“He isn’t,” I said.

“Let’s try to sleep,” said mamma.

The house became quiet once more. I could hear the rustling noises the children made when they moved in their beds.

Out on the lawn a clatter arose. I got out of bed and went to the window. I opened the shutters; then I threw up the sash. The moon shone on the snow. The moon gave the lustre of mid-day to objects in the snow. There was a miniature sleigh in the snow, and eight tiny reindeer. A little man was driving them. He was lively and quick. He whistled and shouted at the reindeer and called them by their names. Their names were Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet, Cupid, Donder, and Blitzen.

He told them to dash away to the top of the porch, and then he told them to dash away to the top of the wall. They did. The sleigh was full of toys.

“Who is it?” mamma asked.

“Some guy,” I said. “A little guy.”

I pulled my head in out of the window and listened. I heard the reindeer on the roof. I could hear their hoofs pawing and prancing on the roof. “Shut the window,” said mamma. I stood still and listened.

“What do you hear?”

“Reindeer,” I said. I shut the window and walked about. It was cold. Mamma sat up in the bed and looked at me.

“How would they get on the roof?” mamma asked.

“They fly.”

“Get into bed. You’ll catch cold.”

Mamma lay down in bed. I didn’t get into bed. I kept walking around.

“What do you mean, they fly?” asked mamma.

“Just fly is all.”

Mamma turned away toward the wall. She didn’t say anything.

I went out into the room where the chimney was. The little man came down the chimney and stepped into the room. He was dressed all in fur. His clothes were covered with ashes and soot from the chimney. On his back was a pack like a peddler’s pack. There were toys in it. His cheeks and nose were red and he had dimples. His eyes twinkled. His mouth was little, like a bow, and his beard was very white. Between his teeth was a stumpy pipe. The smoke from the pipe encircled his head in a wreath. He laughed and his belly shook. It shook like a bowl of red jelly. I laughed. He winked his eye, then he gave a twist to his head. He didn’t say anything.

He turned to the chimney and filled the stockings and turned away from the chimney. Laying his finger aside his nose, he gave a nod. Then he went up the chimney. I went to the chimney and looked up. I saw him get into his sleigh. He whistled at his team and the team flew away. The team flew as lightly as thistledown. The driver called out, “Merry Christmas and good night.” I went back to bed.

“What was it?” asked mamma. “Saint Nicholas?” She smiled.

“Yeah,” I said.

She sighed and turned in the bed.

“I saw him,” I said.

“Sure.”

“I did see him.”

“Sure you saw him.” She turned farther toward the wall.

“Father,” said the children.

“There you go,” mamma said. “You and your flying reindeer.”

“Go to sleep,” I said.

“Can we see Saint Nicholas when he comes?” the children asked.

“You got to be asleep,” I said. “You got to be asleep when he comes. You can’t see him unless you’re unconscious.”

“Father knows,” mamma said.

I pulled the covers over my mouth. It was warm under the covers. As I went to sleep I wondered if mamma was right.

Quote of the Day

2006-12-21T12:40:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, Oxymoronic Philosopher wrote of a War on Christianity. While the idea of a well planned, serious onslaught against Christianity and Christmas seems highly improbable, the notion that many right wing nutjobs, ranging from pundits to politicians, are seriously waging a war on Islam seems a whole-hell-of-a lot less far-fetched. And these guys aren't necessarily attacking the sort of radical Islam espoused by our real enemies (lest we forget who those guys are... you know, the ones who attacked us, the ones went after and blew our chances to get in Afghanistan). No, far from it. They're taking jabs at honest, hard-working Americans who choose to exercise their First Amendment right and practice the teachings of Muhammad.

Take Minn. Rep. Elect Keith Ellison, who, about a month ago, requested to be sworn in using the Quran. He's become the target of the right-wingers simply for staying steadfast in his beliefs, something Christian Conservatives seem to favor when it comes to members of their own flock but tend to oppose when it comes to followers of a different persuasion. The message seems clear: 'Christians, hold your beliefs no matter what. You're right, and there's no debatin' that. Never let the media, government, etc. challenge those beliefs. Everybody else: freedom of religion only applies to us. Screw you!'

So many members of the Conservative media have told Rep. Elect Ellison "screw you" that it's ridiculous. Remember back in November when CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck told Ellison, "what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.'"? Comments like these aren't limited to idiots like Beck, though. Just a few days ago Virginia Congressman (yes, a congressman. an elected leader who's supposed to uphold the Constitution) Virgil Goode wrote a letter to his constituents about the need for a complete overhaul of the current immigration policy, which leads us to the long-awaited and much anticipated (work with me, people) return of my Quote of the Day.

In the letter Goode wrote, "When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Quran in any way.

"The Muslim representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Quran... I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary..."

Having the greeter at the local Wal-Mart say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" is one thing. It's a petty argument for an so-called war that doesn't really exist. Having a U.S. Congressman, a guy who's supposed to defend the Bill of Rights in every situation, attack the Quran and essentially undermine the legitimacy of a Muslim-congressman is an entirely different thing. That, my friends, is a well-calculated war on a religion that has been overshadowed in the mainstream media.

A War on Christianity

2006-12-20T23:21:00.000-05:00

Sitting at work this morning and an email indicator pops up in the bottom corner of the screen…I double click, and this is what I see:

Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of Him very odd.

If Scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.
And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now.

Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.
The law is specific, the law is precise.
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.

For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all.
In silence alone we must meditate,
God's name is prohibited by the state.

We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.
They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.
To quote the Good Book makes me liable.

We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.
It's "inappropriate" to teach right from wrong,
We're taught that such "judgments" do not belong.

We can get our condoms and birth controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
No word of God must reach this crowd.

It's scary here I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school's a mess.
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My soul please take!

Amen

Now, I’m not as crafty as SteveG, so I won’t put my own twist to this tale, but I do want to contemplate it for a just a moment. What got us to this point…where trite poems about the persecution of Christians intrude on our mailboxes on a daily basis? Is it that we have become so secular, so entrenched in reason, logic, and science that we are simply appalled by appeals to religion…by the prayers of others? Come on…if we’re living in a reality-based society where reason has defeated all comers, why are we still in an ill conceived war? Why is it that the majority still claims to be religious? Why is it that most charitable giving still comes from the low-income population and through religious channels? No, reason hasn’t won out on this one.

In fact, we’re dealing with just the opposite. The pressure against religion in public life is reactionary. It is a reaction on behalf of the religious minorities in the face of some of the greatest churchgoing and evangelizing that this nation has seen. It’s done in different ways now than in the past…with light shows, video screens, TV and radio broadcasts, but the Christians of this country are far from persecuted. The mechanisms have always been in place to remove the religious gestures from public life, but the impetus to do so was never there until the minority began to feel threatened. Then…the push from both sides began.

The question left unanswered, though…is this the solution we ought seek or is this yet another symptom of the continuing polarization of American society? Is it not just a reaction, but an overreaction that we see coming from both sides of this issue?

The Decision Is In...

2006-12-20T13:10:00.000-05:00

No casino in Gettysburg:

Pa. gaming board awards 5 slots licenses in historic session

12/20/2006, 12:06 p.m. ET
By MARC LEVY
The Associated Press

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — State gambling regulators on Wednesday awarded five slots licenses for casino projects in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Bethlehem and the Pocono Mountains, while rejecting bids that included a proposal for a slots parlor near the historic Gettysburg battlefield.

The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board awarded two Philadelphia licenses to groups led by billionaire developer Neil G. Bluhm and by Connecticut-based Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation. In Pittsburgh, the board awarded a license to Detroit-based casino developer Don H. Barden.

Las Vegas-based casino operator Las Vegas Sands Corp. won a license for a Bethlehem casino and businessman Louis A. DeNaples won one for a Pocono Mountain resort.
The gaming board can award as many as 11 permanent slots licenses, each allowing as many as 5,000 machines. Six licenses are earmarked for the state's horse-racing tracks, while 13 applicants competed for the remaining five stand-alone licenses.

Among the applications the board rejected were:

• a hotly contested proposal by a group led by Connecticut-based Silver Point Capital LP for a casino near the Gettysburg battlefield;

• an application by Donald Trump's Atlantic City, N.J.-based casino company for a casino in Philadelphia;

• a proposal by St. Louis-based casino operator Isle of Capri Casinos Inc. for a casino in Pittsburgh; Isle of Capri had promised to build a new $290 million arena for the Pittsburgh Penguins without using taxpayer money.

So far, two racetracks — Mohegan Sun at Pocono Downs and Philadelphia Park — already have opened slots parlors under conditional licenses, while racetracks in Chester and near Erie are expected to open slots parlors in the next two months.

Gov. Ed Rendell rejuvenated a 25-year drive to legalize casino-style gambling in Pennsylvania by promising that slots revenue would help reduce property taxes and revive the state's declining horse-racing industry. The law passed in 2004 authorized up to 61,000 slot machines at 14 sites.

The First Day

2006-12-19T23:01:00.000-05:00

I, as I’m sure many do, often find myself thinking about my beliefs and convictions, both spiritual and intellectual, and how well the way I actually live my life coincides with them. I usually come to the conclusion that the overarching theme of my life displays well the beliefs I hold about the way a good life should be lived, but I’ll be damned if I’m not still a hypocrite the other 49% of the time.

One of the most outrageous examples of this disjunct in belief and practice surfaces every year between the Monday after Thanksgiving and mid-January. This is the time of year that I take to the woods in that most primal endeavor, that coming of age event of the Western PA youth…yes, my friends, the Oxymoron continues, I am a hunter. Though occasionally pursuing small game and birds, the Pennsylvania whitetail is my prey of choice. Grant it, I haven’t taken a deer in the last two years…I said I was a hunter, not a killer. Often the adventure is more about taking my gun for a long walk in the woods than anything else.

So what is it that draws me to this “sport?” I hesitate in daily life to squash a fly or step on a spider. I swerve to miss squirrels in the road and feel terrible when I step on the tail of my 15 year old cat. I despise causing harm or bringing pain upon anyone or anything…for the most part. But, for some reason, I can’t think of hunting in these terms. There are the common defenses, with which I agree, given by hunters and outdoorsmen: population control, crop protection, if we don’t kill them you’ll hit them with your car, there are so many deer that they will starve to death if not controlled. But there’s so much more to taking to the woods during this time of year. There’s a culture and a tradition built up around it that I am, quite simply, not ready to forego. This is one time of year when I make the entirely conscious decision to live in discord with my beliefs.

The tradition…it starts in September when the time comes to buy a license and send in applications for additional tags. The emails and phone calls start escalating. Who’s seeing deer where? Where’s the big buck this year? Where are you hunting? Should we move our stands? Have the regulations changed? Remember where they took that big one in the Valley last year? It builds and builds…my dad, my uncles, my closest friends all chatting it up over the coming season.

Then…Thanksgiving weekend. Some of the guys have already been out for archery; they’ve seen the deer and have tales of tails to tell. The night before the holiday is always a night out on the town talking with old friends, singing, telling stories, and reminiscing. Thanksgiving day is for football and feasting and drinking some beer. But then comes Black Friday; while many take to the malls my friends and I take to the woods. We clean our guns, prepare our gear, check all our treestands, blinds, and other spots. Make sure the paths are clear and shooting lanes open, then trek back to the cabin for a couple of beers. Sunday is the final preparation. Pile the gear in the basement, double check your ammo, make some sandwiches with the leftover turkey, and go buy a pair of gloves because you definitely lost yours from last year…oh, and batteries for the flashlight…how are they ALWAYS dead? Nobody really sleeps on Sunday night.

The serenity…the alarm wakes me at 4:30 AM. Breakfast and a cup of coffee with my dad, and we bitch about how the newspaper is never there on time on the First Day (we capitalize it in PA b/c it’s a holiday there). I glare out the window at the crisp, dark morning hoping for some snow that just won’t come. Pile on three layers of clothes…maybe four…and mom gets up to say, “Good luck!” Load the gear in the truck, grab your thermos of coffee hit the road.

In the woods before sunrise finding your way with a flashlight, the stands must have moved since Friday…honestly, where can they be…by the big pine, or was it that big pine? Small talk ceased when we left the truck, now it’s walking in silence. Finally, I’ve found my tree and climbed the stand…strapped myself in and loaded my gun. My walkie-talkie is still off and this is my favorite part of the day. Watching the sun slowly peek over the horizon, the pinks and oranges of the morning light flicker off the glistening branches of the winter trees. The woods start to come alive. Birds chirp. Turkeys fly from their perches like feather covered rocks falling from trees. Woodpeckers start about their day. I sit in silence…just watching, listening. It’s the perfect place to be a philosopher…to contemplate and meditate. I’ve written papers in the woods before, all in my head. Made life decisions there, too. Hours pass slowly but steadily. A rustle behind me, and I turn slowly thinking it may be a deer. Just some squirrels playing, chasing each other through the leaves. Damn do they get annoying after a while, always keeping you at nerves end. But then, distinctively, the sound of a deer…maybe two…moving through the woods. They’re swift and light on their feet, but still I can hear them coming…behind me. I wait…let them move closer, then slowly turn…so slowly. Out of the corner of my eye…she’s there…just a doe. What beautiful creatures…majestic…this is their wood, where they belong. She walks, then eats, then walks. I turn to get a better look, still moving gingerly. She hears me. She looks at me then looks away as I hold my breath. Then…unexplainably, she spooks. As she runs, I see her suitor. The powerful buck that had been just out of my field of view gives chase.

The adrenaline…my heart starts to pound profusely, breathing becomes sporadic as I raise my gun and find him in my scope. I can’t hold him there, my hands tremble. A DEEP SLOW BREATH…and they steady. He has enough points…find his front shoulder…slowly squeeze…

Aha…drag him back to the cabin and let the stories begin over a sandwich, a cup of coffee and a frozen candy bar. No sandwich is better than the one that’s been smashed under your thermos all morning. No cup of coffee tastes as good as the hot cup in the cold woods. And frozen Snickers are a gift from heaven.

No…I’m not ready to give this up. I can’t reconcile it with my beliefs or justify the killing of an animal with any intellectual or spiritual certainty. But…sometimes traditions are just that way. Sometimes the tradition consumes you and is simply inexplicable…and I like that…sometimes.

Applications: COMPLETE

2006-12-19T22:50:00.000-05:00

FINALLY! I just sent of the final 3 packets of supplementary materials today and the ball is officially out of my court...for now. What a great feeling...knowing I've done what I can to this point and now have the constant weight I've been feeling for the last few months relieved. I ended up applying to seven grad programs pretty much across the spectrum. Six PhDs and one MA; a few large research institutes and a couple of smaller programs; from strong Continental programs to pluralistic/eclectic programs, to the highly analytic department at Pitt. It will be interesting/fun to see how this all plays out (not to mention a little nerve wracking). So everyone please keep your fingers, toes, eyes....and whatever else you got...crossed for me!

Lack of Posts

2006-12-04T11:07:00.000-05:00

It's been a week since the blog's been updated, and even before that, postings were few and far between. For our readers (there are a few readers, right?... maybe?), I think this deserves an explanation.

While the Oxymoronic Philosopher has been busy with work and grad. school applications, I've been busy writing papers, studying for exams, and wrapping up my fall semester. Thus, as of late, posts have been sporadic and, to some degree, without much thought. We just haven't had the energy to put any real thought into writing anything, and that's sad. Hopefully at some point we'll get back to putting the time needed into maintaining a thoughtful, earnest blog. Until then, keep checking in from time to time, as I'm sure that random posts will continue to appear.

Happy Monday,
Ping

Charitable or Cheap?

2006-11-27T22:03:00.000-05:00

So I was buying a new hoodie at a sporting goods chain the other day, and as I waited for my receipt, the cashier asked me if I wanted to donate to the American Red Cross. Noticing my indecision, the cashier politely said that donations could be as little as a dollar. After the immediate hesitation, I said that I would donate. And when asked how much, I quickly responded "a dollar."

Normally I wouldn't think twice about donating to a charity. Some pocket change, a dollar, or even more: I tend to give money to organizations when asked or on my own terms. However, this situation was weird for me. It seemed like I was bombarded by the question and really had no choice but to say yes. I was forced, or almost guilted, into donating-- not that that's necessarily a bad thing. It's probably a very good thing for the charities benefiting from such practices.

Then, once I made it clear that I was giving the minimum amount-- a dollar-- I couldn't help but feel like a cheapskate. There I was spending some forty bucks on a new hoodie, yet I couldn't shell out more than a dollar for the Red Cross? What's more is that I didn't even immediately decide to give anything. Was my early indecision just a result of the fact that I felt bombarded by the question?

Why do I feel so weird about this? I mean, I did make a donation. Was I charitable or was I just plain cheap?

Weekly Report Card

2006-11-17T13:53:00.000-05:00

From the NFL to Capitol Hill, here's how the world the fared this week.

Last Sunday, my beloved Pittsburgh Steelers got a much-needed win, besting the New Olreans Saints 38-31. To this point in the NFL season, my Sundays, which were days of pure joy last season as the Steelers went on an improbable run to the Super Bowl, have been mired in the stench of defeat. It's been disgusting watching a battered Ben Roethlisberger, who was once hailed as the saviour of Pittsburgh football, look like a hapless, has-been type quarterback. And it's been even more disgusting watching the injury-ridden Steelers limp to a 2-6 record just a year removed from a Super Bowl Championship. Sunday's win, in which the Steelers didn't turn the ball over and reverted to a trusty, smashmouth, Steeler-esqe running game, was a much needed one for Roethisberger and the Steelers as well as for irate fans like me. Grade: B+

Tuesday, CNN's Glenn Beck put Representative-elect Keith Ellison, the first Muslim ever elected to Congress, in a really akward situation, saying, "I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.' " Beck added: "I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way."Not only is Beck a complete idiot, but I also think (and hope) that he's grossly misrepresenting the feelings of most Americans. Grades (for Beck and CNN for allowing such trash to be aired): F

Wednesday, Republican Senate leadership elected Trent Lott as the Senate's new Minority Whip. Lest we forget that Lott is just four years removed from these comments at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party: "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either." Great. You're proud that your state voted for a segregationist candidate in the 1948 election. What problems might Thurmond have cleared up? That terrible ruckus made over civil rights? Memo to Republican Senators: your party has enough problems, adding a racist to the ranks of your leadership cannot be a good thing. Grade: F

Thursday, MSNBC reported that Fox has agreed to an interview with O.J. Simpson about his new book, If I Did It. First, jeers to Simpsons, who is already creepy enough without writing a book about how he "would have" murdered his ex-wife and her boyfriend. Second, jeers to Fox and Judith Regan for giving O.J. airtime to plug the book, which was published . O.J. should be ashamed. More importantly, Fox should be ashamed. Oh, that's right, this is the same network that lets the likes of O'Reilly and Hannity act as newsmen. This is the same network that brought us quality TV with shows like "Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance". This network shows no shame. Grades: F

This Is Just Too Cool

2006-11-10T10:08:00.000-05:00

Check out this computer interface of the future. I want one now!!! How cool is this thing?

A Touching Tribute and Other Post Election Ramblings

2006-11-09T13:51:00.000-05:00

Last night, the Colbert Report put on a touching tribute (click the video called "Special Memories") to the Republican majority, reminiscing about some of the greatest leadership our country has ever seen. Ah, the good old days... nearly brought a tear to my eye.

Moving on, who else is happy that election season is over, if only for the fact that we don't have to be constantly bombarded with crappy TV ads for a few more years? If I had to watch Rick Santorum punch out a pro wrestler again, I think I'd lose it. It's great to see that Rick's attempts to get the pro wrestling fan vote weren't enough to save his Senate seat.

On a more serious not, I just read that George Allen is set to concede the Virgina senate race today, avoiding what could have been a really messy, ugly re-count. I'm pretty shocked by this, as I really thought that leading Republicans would go to great lengths to re-count those votes and somehow make up for the some 7,ooo votes Allen is currently trailing by. It's very unlike Republicans (hell, it's very unlike Democrats, as well) to simply give up a race that's as close as this one wihtout any sort of fight, dirty or not. Could this be a sign that these guys are more down and out than we thought? Did the Democratic defeat drain most of the energy out of the Republican party on a national level?

That's all for now, just thought I'd weigh in on some stuff that hasn't yet been hashed to death.

Rummy's STEPPING DOWN!!!

2006-11-08T13:10:00.000-05:00

Post here and headline here, but not much news on it yet. Supposedly, Shrub will announce a replacement at 1 pm press conference. More thoughts later.

UPDATE: Bush nominating Robert Gates, former Director of the CIA and current Texas A&M President to the post.

From the Horse's Mouth: Bush said, "I thought we were going to do fine yesterday. Shows what i know!" during today's press conference...our fearless and well-informed leader.

PA Election News

2006-11-06T13:36:00.000-05:00

Courtesy of reader onmyway: http://www.keystonepolitics.com/Article4758.html.

It appears that Slick Rick has got a pollster in his corner now. Now I have no empirical evidence to back these thoughts (though I'm sure someone out there knows of some studies done), but it seems to me that polling data could effect voters in a number of ways:

1. Data that shows a closing gap in a heated election such as this should increase voter turnout for both sides. Those who oppose Santorum should be moved to the polls to bolster the opposition, those who favor should be energized and excited about the opportunity for a win. Will this be a null effect or will there be a greater effect for one side or the other? I don't know.

2. The bandwagon effect. Some people just want to be on the winning side. Will undecided voters jump the Democratic ship as they see the incumbant gaining momentum? You see it in sports as the playoffs dwindle to a few teams...all the sudden everyone's a Cowboy's fan. Does this effect exist in politics as well? I'm sure it does to some degree.

3. Disenfranchised Democrats. Will Casey backers lose steam as at the sight of poll numbers showing the gap closing? This is in opposition to the first point, but both are plausible reactions within different groups of voters. Will some begin to think that a chance at ousting Rick was a pipedream?

I'm sure there are other possibilities I'm not hitting on, but these are some thoughts. Polls seem like prophecies that can be self-fulfilling. Bad poll numbers, as this article insinuates these may be, could plausibly have a real effect in the election.

Hypocrisy

2006-11-02T22:39:00.000-05:00

If this story is true...pure hypocrisy. A self proclaimed male prostitute claimed on a local Denver radio station this morning that he has been accepting money for sex from Rev. Ted Haggard. Haggard, the President of the National Association of Evangelicals and pastor of New Life church in Colorado Springs has stepped down from both positions while an investigation is undertaken. Haggard also has the ear of the President as he participates in weekly conference calls with White House staffers. Oh, and did I mention, he's a vocal proponent of a Colorado ballot initiative to ban gay marriage. If this allegation is true, it's simply serves as another glaring example of the hypocrisy of the Christian right. If it's not, it should at least make for good theater.

UPDATE: Pastor Ted has admitted to calling Mike Jones "for a massage" and purchasing meth from him, though he never used it. B/c, you know, we all buy meth from our masseuse...and it's something we all like to keep lying around the house just in case.

"Apologize, Mr. Bush"

2006-11-02T12:56:00.000-05:00

(Part 2)

I've been waiting to comment on the much debated John Kerry remark/botched joke/Republican talking point, holding back as the backlash continues to reveal itself. Keith Olbermann, however, provides a much more nuanced response than I could ever conceive of, so I point you in his direction, care of last night's Special Comment.

"There is tonight no political division in this country that he and his party will not exploit, nor have not exploited; no anxiety that he and his party will not inflame."

That line is so utterly true. As always, Republican spin doctors seized this flubbed joke, which if you read within the context of the entire speech it clearly was, (off topic, but, who else is shocked that John Kerry screwed up the timing of a joke?) as an opportunity to paint the Democrats as elitist, unpatriotic ass-holes. A week before election day, Republicans, with their backs against the wall, focus on some made-up idea that Vietnam vet John Kerry and other leading Democrats don't support our troops rather than pointing to their own accomplishments. (Oh, that's right, they haven't accomplished anything.) These guys play on something, real or not, that tugs at the heartstrings of Americans instead of pointing to substantive issues, about which their views are clearly out of touch with the way this country feels. Uggh, the pattern of deceit continues.

Sex is the Devil

2006-10-31T22:51:00.000-05:00

Ok, so Bitch beat me to the punch, but I still gotta say something about this (I know, I know, it’s USA Today, but that’s where I saw it while waiting in line at the deli for lunch. Sorry). Shrub's folks have decided that targeting abstinence only education at middle and high schoolers just wasn’t getting the job done. No sir, no way, no how…we’ve gotta aim for the ones that are having all of these babies out of wedlock, after all, and it’s not the high school crowd. Federal grant guidelines for 2007 are aimed to funnel millions of dollars to the states for abstinence only programs for 19-29 year olds!!!! You can buy cigs, drink booze to your hearts content, pick up a Playboy, and even die for your country…but for God’s sake, DON’T HAVE SEX!

Give me an effin’ break! Come back to reality folks. What’s the first thought you have when I say don’t eat candy? Damn, I could go for a Snickers…that’s what it is. High schoolers are gonna have sex. College kids are gonna have more sex. Post college…well…it could be better, but we’re still trying. The point is, teach them how to do it safely. Teach them how to avoid disease. Teach them how to not end up with little bundles of joy that they’re not ready to care for. Teach them to use a condom. Teach them about birth control. And, for crying out loud, come to terms with the fact that they’re gonna have sex no matter what you say.

Happy Halloween

2006-10-31T13:12:00.000-05:00

What better way to scare yourself on this All Hallow's Eve than by watching this Rick Santorum attack ad that equates Rick's Democratic challenger Bob Casey with Kim Jung Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, while implying that Casey supports terrorism. Ghouls, goblins, terrorists, and Bob Casey. Scary, huh?

Not So Liberal Democrats

2006-10-30T22:41:00.000-05:00

Heath Shuler is a former star football player at the University of Tennessee. After a brief and unimpressive stint in the NFL, Shuler went back to college, finished his degree, and became a real estate mogul in Knoxville. The 34 year old Shuler is also an evangelical Christian who opposes abortion rights and gun control. And why am I writing about a has-been quarterback with socially conservative tendencies? As you might know, Shuler is the Democratic candidate for congress in North Carolina's 11th district.

The Times has pretty good read about Shuler and other moderate to conservative Democrats running for congressional seats across the country. The Democratic leadership is turning to these types of candidates in hopes of winning seats in socially conservative, often evangelical, rural areas that have been ransacked by Republicans in recent years. While these so-called New Democrats, or Blue Dog Democrats, might more closely fit the profiles of their districts, is it really worth supporting them since many of their views are so far removed from those of the party's base?

To be honest, I don't know. These candidates have the best shot at winning in conservative districts, but what's the point of winning an election if you're going to, in effect, maintain the status quo. A conservative under the guise of a Democrat, a candidate who will not support abortion rights, who will not be a true progressive on other social issues, and who will side with the Bush administration on hugely important debates, is not much better than a conservative Republican. Is it?

A Contradiction

2006-10-29T23:44:00.000-05:00

I want to talk about a contradiction in reaction to reader Evan’s comments a couple of weeks ago and to a post by Spaz about the neo-con hijacking of feminist arguments (followed up by some great comments by humbition and SteveR). Liberalism entails a certain allowance for a difference of opinion over many subjects. We don’t have to agree to get along. We should be able to debate and find a middle ground in which we can both work. The certain contradiction that’s bothering me lately, and I haven’t yet come to terms with, is the disparate beliefs that we should at the same time allow, by our belief in religious freedom, the practices, beliefs, myths, and experiences of other religions, whatever they may be, and yet morally condemn certain of those practices, beliefs, etc.

Spaz points out in her piece that the neo-cons are pimping feminist arguments to bolster support for imperialist actions in Muslim nations. This is a legitimate criticism, and, as humbition pointed out, a move that has often been a part of imperialist arguments. But shouldn’t someone be trying to change the way women are treated (or better, work toward equality for women) in these traditional Muslim nations? Humbition believes it to be the right/duty (I’m not sure exactly) of the women in these countries to take up this battle themselves. However, is it always that case that the oppressed know that they are oppressed and that there is a way out? And do they always have the means to fight their own oppression? We have a moral obligation; it seems, to intervene when we see a wrong being done; to offer our assistance. Now, this does not mean that I in any way condone imperialist moves in this type of situation. I am simply pointing out here what I see as an obligation.

But why do we allow ourselves this contradiction. I can say that I believe that all religions should have equal right to carry out their practices, rituals, etc. In the next breath, I can say that I despise the Muslim practice of forcing women to wear the burqa or some other practice that puts women in the place of another class of citizen. But because of the first, do I prevent myself action on the second? It doesn’t seem to be the case domestically. We all, as liberals, seem to be willing to fight for equality for women, gays, races in spite of religious beliefs held by other groups within our borders. We will openly condemn the Catholic church for not allowing gay marriages or women priests. We will point out all their hypocrisies. It seems, though, that when we try to transplant those same beliefs into another cultural realm, somewhere outside our borders, we fail to be able to act. We prevent ourselves from fighting for the rights of the individuals, the basic human rights.

It occurs to me that this is a case of affording cultural relativism too much power. When the rights of the culture (or the nation, or the religion) trample the basic rights of the individual as a human being, we are required to intervene. Not through force, not by military action, but with argument, with dialogue, and maybe with economic pressure. Freedom is not realized by exporting democracy; by transplanting a one-in-a-million-shot political system to the rest of the world, but by working for the rights and freedoms of the individuals; and by placing those basic rights above cultural, social, and religious customs.

I’d really like to hear some other thoughts on this…as it’s something I’m working through continually in my head. Anyone got anything for me…maybe even some direction toward some good reading?

Betting on Global Warming

2006-10-25T00:42:00.000-04:00

This piece came on while I was driving home this evening, and I wasn’t quite sure how to react. Now that’s it’s had some time to sink in, I’m pretty flabbergasted by it.

KAI RYSSDAL: We begin more than a thousand miles straight north of Minneapolis-St. Paul, on the western shore of Canada's Hudson Bay. Marketplace's Stephen Beard set out from the Sustainability Desk for Churchill, Manitoba.
STEPHEN BEARD: Darren Ottaway is in his element — tramping through the snow around Churchill, the tiny, frozen outpost that he used to administer in Northern Canada. In the 10 years he was the town council's chief executive, Darren learned to listen to the snow:

DARREN OTTAWAY: You can tell the temperature by the sound of the snow. So this is sort of a . . . You know, when you're walking and you hear a bass sound, it's because the snow is wet and it's starting to melt, so it has a different sound. When it's minus 40 out, it's a sharp, crisp sound that you can hear under your feet. It makes a completely different noise.

He doesn't hear that sharp, crisp sound as often as he used to. The snow melts earlier in the year. The ice that once covered Hudson Bay until August now melts a full month earlier. The signs and sounds of global warming are everywhere. But Darren Ottaway is not complaining:

OTTAWAY: You know, nature's going to respond to global warming. It'll adapt on its own. What global warming really represents is an economic issue. That's really what it is. How do we adapt to changing weather and climate? And how do we capitalize on that economic opportunity? And this is really, I think, where we're going to come ahead of the game because we're not looking at it as being a negative impact. It has a lot of positive impacts.

This small, rather ramshackle town of 1,100 people has been declining for years. But now it's putting its hopes in the revival of its port.
Vince Pirelli, the port's operations manager, is supervising a shipment of canola grain. At the moment the port is ice-free for only four months of the year, but that's one month more than a decade ago. Ships are making it through the Arctic waters earlier each year. The shipping season could get longer still, says Pirelli:

VINCE PIRELLI: There's global warming, they say, that's going to help Churchill.
BEARD: Do you think it will?
PIRELLI: I could see it one day happening. I could see it happening. If the global warming is really going to happen, I could see Churchill being open eight, nine months out of the year.

At the moment Churchill is still a small operation, shipping every year about half a million tons of Canadian grain, peas and canola to Europe and Africa. That's a small fraction of the cargo handled by the Atlantic ports — like Halifax or New York. But Churchill could have a big future:

ROB HUEBERT: Anyone who looks at a globe, and anyone who flies, knows that the shortest distance between North America and Europe is, of course, over the Pole rather than the long way across the Atlantic.

Dr. Rob Huebert, an expert on the Arctic. He says that the current owners of Churchill — a rather secretive American railway company called OmniTRAX — bought the port specifically in the hope that it would benefit from global warming.

HUEBERT: What OmniTRAX sees — and why OmniTRAX has been so attracted towards Churchill — is that what Churchill provides, if this ice diminishment continues, is a new Arctic shipping link that is going to join Northern Canada to Northern Europe.

Russia might use it to ship oil and minerals into North America. European exporters could be interested too as a way of avoiding the congested Atlantic ports of New York, Baltimore and Boston. Churchill could in time generate revenues of $100 million a year. Not bad, says Dr. Huebert, when you consider that OmniTRAX bought it as a derelict facility from the provincial government of Manitoba for just $10.

HUEBERT: The provinical government, I think, will look back at one point and go: Ooo, we made a dumb decision on that!

But the people of Churchill are not complaining. They are happy that OmniTRAX spotted the port's potential. And they welcome climate change for the higher standard of living it could bring. Even though, says Darren Ottaway, other places further south may suffer:

OTTAWAY: Since the port was built back in the 1920s-30s, we've been the underdog. So, I think that it's our . . . you know, it's our turn to take the opportunities that really are ours. And I don't think we need to apologize about doing that.

Churchill needs a boost. On the local radio station they're playing a well–worn, scratchy old 45. A local favorite: "The Churchill Blues."

"When I came here, I got off the train. It was the coldest day of the year. I picked up my bags, I stepped outside. I almost froze off my ear."

It's not the acute cold here that gets people down. It's the chill winds of economic decline. Global warming will mean floods and storms for much of the planet. But here it's considered benign.
In Churchill, Northern Canada, this is Stephen Beard for Marketplace.

"I got nothing to lose. I'm in Churchill with the Churchill blues. . . ."

From today’s Marketplace.

I think what strikes me the most about this segment is the “Churchill-centric” attitude of some of the interviewees. It’s one thing to observe that this small, northern-Canadian community may actually see economic benefit as an effect of global warming, but it’s wholly different to say “it’s our turn.” Saying it’s our turn implies that, the rest of the world be damned, we’re going to finally make a living up here. It ignores any semblance of a world community…of humanity, and places the well-being of this one tiny 1,100 person town above the good of the globe as a whole. Nations cavalierly go about business with this type of worldview, but it’s not what I’d expect of a frontier town. I would have expected naturalists, worries about the environment and how the melting snow and ice could negatively impact the land on which they live and the world in which they live. But economics changes all of that…corporations change all of that…capitalism changes all of that. The show-me-the-money attitude of this little town truly frightens me.

The other aspect that I find interesting here is that a shipping company has bet on global warming. Forget Kyoto, this is capitalism gone way awry. There’s no incentive to stop global warming, so we’ll make a bet that it’s going to happen and try to make some money off of it…again…all others be damned. Any thoughts?

Quote of the Day: Rush Limbaugh

2006-10-24T19:37:00.000-04:00

It was only a matter of time until quite possibly the biggest creep of them all, Rush Limbaugh, crept his way into my little quote of the day segment. Alas, that time has come.

Eric Alterman's blog at Media Matters pointed me in the direction of this incredibly insensitive and disturbing comment about actor Michael J. Fox from the king of conservative talk radio: "... he was either off the medication or he was acting. He is an actor, after all."

Of course, Rush is referring to those new ads for Senate hopeful Claire McCaskill that show Fox, swaying back and forth because of his Parkinsons, lending his support to McCaskill because of her support of stem cell research, unlike the Republican candidate running against her.

That quote is completely ridiculous. Why would Fox exaggerate his symptoms? Why would he not take his medication and allow himself to suffer even worse than he already does? In the words of funny man Al Franken, Rush Limbaugh really is a big, fat idiot.

Obama in '08?

2006-10-23T21:23:00.000-04:00

Sunday morning, Senator Barack Obama told Tim Russert on Meet the Press that he has "thought about the possiblity" of making a bid for the White House in 2008, contradicting his previous statements about his lack of interest in the position. The Senator, however, said that he would wait until after the November 7th midterm elections. So, if Obama runs, is he the Democratic frontrunner?

I'll answer that question with a decisive "maybe."

This guy has been the Democratic posterboy since bursting on to the scene at the 2004 Democratic Convention, where he delivered that rousing keynote address that sent the Boston crowd into a frenzy. Since then, his stock has sky-rocketed. The Senator's well-liked, incredibly charismatic and passionate. Not to mention the fact that he's never endured any sort of ethical scandal or had his character called into question — some pretty valuable attributes for a viable presidential candidate.

But is charisma, alone, enough for Obama to win the candidacy? Again, in this wide open race, I have to say maybe, although he has some major obstalces ahead of him. While some of his stands provide nice alternatives to those of fellow Democratic contenders, particularly Hillary Clinton, his experience is kind of limited; he's only been on the national scene since 2004, only a senator since January of '05. Additionally, I can't write a piece about the possibility of an Black presidential candidate without mentioning the fact that no major party has ever nomiated an African-American as its candidate. I know, I know, it's 2006 and it's terribly sad that skin color is still an issue, but it is.

In spite of those hurdles, that aforementioned charisma, that seemingly ubridled enthusiam and optimism, sort of sets Obama apart in a world filled with stonefaced politicians, who, at times, seem aloof and out of touch. Having endured Dubya' for eight years, that charisma, that message of hope that he set forth back at his address to the Democratic Convention, could be exactly what this country is looking for. I know it's something I'd love to see.

Funny... and true

2006-10-19T17:56:00.000-04:00

I don't know if any of you have seen this new (I think) commercial from the September Fun d, a 527 organization "established to communicate with the public on issues of national and local importance in the 2006 elections." Aside from being pretty damn funny, it's poignant and definitely worth a look if you haven't seen it yet.

That's all, just thought everyone could use a little laugh.

Quote(s) of the Day: Michael Savage

2006-10-18T20:53:00.000-04:00

I normally don’t pay too much attention to conservative talking heads. Pundits like O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Sean Hannity are nothing more than stubborn, unyielding media bullies who knowingly blur the line between factual journalism and biased commentary. They really have nothing of value to say, and therefore don’t warrant my attention.

I did, however, stumble on these utterly disturbing quotes by Michael Savage, host of the hugely popular syndicated radio show The Savage Nation, thanks to Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

After a Eurocentric tirade about the inability of immigrants from non-European, non-Christian countries to assimilate into American culture, Savage says, “there's been no Middle Ages for the Muslims coming into America. It's insanity to be bringing in millions of people who have no Middle Ages yet, they haven't even gone through the Middle Ages. They're never going to be compatible with America.” No Middle Ages? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Not compatible with America? Islam is the fastest growing religion in the U.S. and has become the country's 2nd largest religion. Seems to me like Muslims, in large, are doing quite well here.

Savage didn't stop there. Oh no, he just kept running his mouth, making a claim so preposterous that it doesn't even warrant any sort of response: "It will happen overnight, and it could lead to the breakup of the United States of America, the way the Soviet Union broke up."

Was he done after that zinger? By no means as he finished his October 13th broadcast with the following terribly misguided comments about gays in California: "California, unfortunately, is in the hands of the far-left homosexual mafia. They unfortunately don't even understand what's good for them. They don't understand that voting on the left side of everything is actually in their disinterest, not in their interest -- that if they gay community ever understood what's in their interest they'd become conservatives, by and large. But they are also very confused, as anyone could figure out by their death-style." Please, Mike Savage, explain how it would be in the interest of the "homosexual mafia" to back conservatives? Simply look at the voting record of most conservatives on Capitol Hill and tell me how your statement is not utterly false.

It's remarks like those that remind me exactly why I dont pay much attention to Savage, O'Reilly, and the like. They really could care less about the content of their comments, as long as they grab some attention, build their egos, and climb the latter to being a made man in Godfather Bush's neo-con mafia.

Madonna, Adoption, and the Fight on Poverty

2006-10-17T19:10:00.000-04:00

This article by Simon Hooper at CNN.com brings up some interesting issues in the debate over the value of celebrity adoptions of 3rd world children.

In the wake of Madonna's recent efforts to adopt a 13 month old boy from Malawi, one of the least developed and AIDS stricken countries in Africa and all of the world, I can't help but question the motives of celebrity adopters. I can't doubt that they love the adopted children and provide nourishment and care that far exceeds the type of treatment that the kids could've received in their homelands, but doesn't this growing trend seem more and more like an effort to get positive press, bolster a global image, and appear like a major player in the fight against global poverty? It seems to me like these children are taking on the role of glorified accessories, as sorts of living status symbols.

If celebrities were truly interested in fighting poverty, wouldn't it make more sense for them to donate large sums of money that could, if managed properly (which in and of itself is a tough task), possibly save thousands of impoverished, malnourished children instead of only 1?

Any thoughts?

Go Feminism!

2006-10-13T13:14:00.000-04:00

Yesterday while picking up my daily cup of coffee at the chain that will one day rule the world I noticed the cutest little girl playing with her mom out front. She was probably about two with beautiful golden blonde curls. She an her mom weren't playing with barbies or baby dolls...no, this little girl was laughing and joyfully and excitedly playing with a Tonka truck! It warmed my heart :-)

Scrupulous Fun

2006-10-12T00:22:00.000-04:00

Let’s chat a little bit about language today, specifically the chasm between the meaning and the intent or connotation of certain utterances. Veiled compliments… “You’re very astute,” does that mean I pick up on things quickly, am a keen observer, or did I just get called a dumbass? I suppose in that case context is everything. If a teacher tells me that I’m probably taking it as a compliment. If my old frat buddy tells me that after I make an obvious observation…not so much. The difference is pretty easy to see.

But what of this situation: a good friend today was told by her boss that she is “scrupulous.” The context was fairly mundane…they were discussing the work of some coworkers and my friend said she would have a talk with them about their performance. Her boss told her that’s a good idea “you’re very scrupulous.” Is this a compliment? The word by definition means adherent to a strong sense of right and wrong or being precise and accurate. Not bad things. One would definitely take it as an insult to be called “unscrupulous” or told that one “has no scruples.” But is the inverse necessarily true? It seems to me that the connotations associated with this word have dissociated it from this original meaning. In our game of common discourse to call someone scrupulous has become quite akin to calling them a tight-ass, a stickler for the rules, and one who is a slave to minute details. A scrupulous person probably wouldn’t be much fun to grab a beer with.

We collectively get to decide when the intent of the words we use change. They’re not static and a dictionary definition can never fully capture them. So is this a word that has? Or maybe it’s stuck somewhere in the middle. Maybe it hasn’t yet become its own antonym. After all, in this context it seems to be if not a compliment, at least a reinforcement of why my friend should have the talk. Her coworkers are missing the details, and her boss knows that she pays attention to them. However, the fact that she came away from the dialogue thinking about whether it was an insult or not implies some underlying shifts taking place in the game. The word, if not fully dissociated from its meaning, at the very least triggers a reaction that its original form did not intend. It’s interesting to think about these little anomalies…after all, language is fun!

Or maybe I should just get this stick outta my butt and stop being so scrupulous…

Accident?

2006-10-05T13:59:00.000-04:00

Just found that great picture courtesy of the O'Reilly Factor. Now that's bringing spin to an all new level.

Republican strategy for handling Foley fallout:
Step 1) Ignore it... make it a non-story
Step 2) Make excuses... "He's an alcoholic."
Step 3) Blame everyone but Republicans
Step 4) Keep blaming everyone but Republicans
Step 5) If steps 1-4 fail, deem the culprit a Democrat

Seriously, though, what are the chances that the cronies at Fox created that caption on purpose?

Beer Blogging

2006-10-05T00:00:00.000-04:00

Tried a new brew tonight at what could quite possibly become a regular watering hole in downtown Silver Spring. The Quarry House Tavern is a local dive bar tucked down in a basement below a Chinese restaurant. It’s been around since the mid-30s, with wood paneled walls, a low ceiling, and classic beer memorabilia all around it’s a great place for a few friends to gather for a few brews and some great bar food.

Tonight I went with a few coworkers and tried some beers from their extensive menu. A classic Belgian style ale / cherry lambic blend from the Ommegang Brewery in Cooperstown, NY, Three Philosophers definitely pleased my palate. A very dark, almost creamy ale with hints of dark chocolate, cherries, and malt, this brew also packs a punch with a 9.5% ABV. So if you’re ever in the mood for a good after dinner beer or need something to wash down a roast, check out Three Philosophers…you’ll also get a kick out of some witty labeling.

Anyone try anything good lately?

"Back at you, Santorum"

2006-10-04T14:13:00.000-04:00

Brian McGory at the Boston Globe had a great column in yesterday's edition that's definitely worth the read.

He takes direct aim at everyone's favorite senator from Pennsylvania, aiming particularly at Slick Rick's 2002 comments in the internet journal Catholic Online: "Priests, like all of us, are infected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element of it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm."

McGory writes that "he (Santorum) is probably the best lesson in what goes around, comes around. Santorum seemed to be all but gloating when he blamed Democrats, liberal academics, and everything Boston for pedophilic priests. Yesterday, White House spokesman Tony Snow was urging all parties to allow investigations to proceed, rather than, in his words, to say, ``OK, how can I get political advantage out of this?"

Oh, how the times have changed.

Science in the Community

2006-10-03T00:32:00.000-04:00

Female Hormone May Help Heal Brain Injuries

I’m just not sure what my reaction should be to this piece from Morning Edition on NPR. Dr. Art Kellerman has published a piece in the Annals of Emergency Medicine relaying results of an initial study into the use of the female hormone progesterone as an emergency treatment for brain injury patients. It appears that progesterone, being a steroid, acts as an anti-inflammatory and protects brain cells. This first round of testing has shown the results to be significant and promising. Obviously, this wonderful news for emergency medicine and for all of us who come to rely on it from time to time. To this point, there has been no really promising treatment for traumatic head injuries and they kill thousands every year.

The problem for me arises in the race and gender issues that Dr. Kellerman was forced to work through before he could consider carrying out his tests. It wasn’t enough to leave the decision to the families of victims; Kellerman felt compelled to turn to the community at large for permission. Why? In the Doctor’s words: “This is a female hormone being used to treat a condition that occurs primarily in men; men get hurt critically much more often than women do…what in the world are they doing at that hospital?” Saving lives? Isn’t that enough? Isn’t that what we ask them to do? To think that the fact that progesterone is a “female” hormone could have potentially prevented groundbreaking medical science from moving forward is disgusting to me. How are these gender stereotypes still so engrained in our collective psyche? Kellerman feared the community reaction. Will this treatment “feminize” these young men of our community? Is the implication here that it is better for these young men to be dead or maimed than to be “feminized?”

And then the racial angle…Because this study would be carried out in a trauma unit in a hospital that serves a predominantly black community the Tuskegee experiments had to be raised. We’re talking about good science done out in the open by respected researchers working with a respected university; should they feel the need to get political and community approval before conducting their research? “Well in the black community you just don’t mix male and female hormones,” said Rev. Timothy McDonald, when asked of his first reaction. This line is still drawn. He didn’t say he was worried of the reaction or worried of the consequences of giving progesterone to a male patient. He said “you just don’t” do it “in the black community.”

But then I have to ask myself, is my gut reaction the scary one? Do I sometimes give “good science” too much credit? Shouldn’t science that affects the lives of people have to answer to the community? I think, to a degree, it should. If science is striving to find explanations and answers to make the world a more livable place, it should take into consideration the culture, the community, the atmosphere in which the experiments are being conducted. Dr. Kellerman indeed made a bold move in asking permission first, as there was a good chance he would not get the answer he sought. But in making that move, he enlightened the community to the science behind what his ideas. He broke down some barriers and he made some new allies.

What do you all think? Should science have to answer to the community in this way? And if it should not, would you agree that it might be helpful if it chose to do so?

Modus Ponens Gone Wrong...

2006-09-30T00:46:00.000-04:00

Stale bread is better than nothing.
Nothing is better than a big juicy steak.
Therefore, stale bread is better than a big juicy steak.

Not in my book...but it's a fun trick used in by the "revolutionary re-educators" in Land of the Blind which I just happened to watch tonight. If someone can please explain to me what revolution this movie is supposed to be referencing, I'd be eternally grateful. It was definitely interesting, but incredibly confusing...and I think the best lesson I could pull out of it was the classic, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

They Want Us Out

2006-09-27T22:47:00.000-04:00

A poll recently conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org found that seven out of ten Iraqis want the U.S. to commit to a withdrawal plan and be out of Iraq within the year. The same study found that a vast majority of Iraqis feel that U.S. military presence actually provokes more insurgency than it prevents (something that doesn’t seem too farfetched to me) and that if the U.S. created a plan for withdrawal, the Iraqi government would actually be strengthened

Those are some very interesting findings that present some even more interesting questions. We’ll start with this one: since it’s pretty clear that the Iraqis want us to leave, should we finally come up with a decent plan and get the hell out?

The Bush administration would certainly say the answer to that question is no. We’ve made the mess and we’ve got to “stay the course.” We’ve got to see Iraq through its early stages of democracy like a parent walks behind a child just learning to ride a bike. Eventually, as the Bushies see it, Iraq’s going to be like that little kid on the bike: everything will click and the kid, err Iraq, will ride off into the sunset as a thriving democracy.

As valid as some of those points are, the people of Iraq want American troops out, so shouldn’t we grant them that wish and just leave? To this point, we’ve already messed things up pretty badly for them. Some forty thousand Iraqi civilians have fallen to American or insurgency fire. Countless more have lost their homes, and the fear of car bombs and suicide attackers has supplanted that of the unyielding dictator now facing trial for crimes against humanity. On top of that, the American death toll keeps growing. And while the administration says that there is unseen progress in Iraq, progress that the U.S. cameras don’t see and don’t want to see, it doesn’t seem like things are getting much better. So we can leave now, save some American lives, make the Iraqi people happy, and hope from afar that the prediction that American withdrawal will lead to a stronger central government comes true.

That leads perfectly into our next question: if we choose option two and pull out, if we pull the old cut and run (what’s that even mean?), and the situation in Iraq continues to worsen, who shoulders the blame? Would the U.S. be in the wrong simply because we made the mess and didn’t stick around long enough to clean it up? Would the Iraqis be at fault because they wanted us out, claiming that we actually did more harm than good and that they could do a better job themselves?

Looks to me like we're in a lose/lose situation.

Pat Buchanan Strikes Again: Quote of the Day

2006-09-26T23:03:00.000-04:00

Last night on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, former Presidential candidate turned political pundit Pat Buchanan gave Americans yet another reason to be thankful he failed at his three attempts at the presidency. Plugging his new book on immigration, State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, Buchanan told Stewart, “look at the Indians, Jon, they had a liberal immigration policy. Look what happened to them.”

Wow... what more can be said?

Are you ready for some football?

2006-09-20T23:43:00.000-04:00

Apparently, the city of New Orleans is. In less than a week, the Saints will be back at home in the Crescent City, playing a real home game for the first time since Katrina ravaged the team’s playing field, the Super Dome, over a year ago. Having spent a year playing home games in San Antonio and Baton Rouge, the return home, the return to a sense of normalcy, is a much welcomed one for Saints players and countless football fans in New Orleans.

The National Football league seems to be quite excited about the return, as well. The league has scheduled the home opener in a prime-time spot on Monday night. And it’s attracted big-time musicians U-2 and Green Day to be a part of pre-game festivities that will benefit Music Rising, the group dedicated to bringing music back to the Gulf. For the NFL, getting the Super Dome rebuilt and football back to New Orleans was a huge deal, and this game represents the culmination of their efforts.

So fans are happy, players are happy, and the league is happy. The Saints will provide a much-needed rallying point for New Orleanians, an escape that takes their minds and energies of all the crap they’ve been dealing with. And the return of football will surely provide a little boost to New Orleans’ struggling tourism sector. Then what’s wrong with this whole situation?

It’s yet another example that government officials are, in a sense, turning the other cheek to the city’s poor and much of its former population. While the city’s tourism-rich areas have redeveloped, the ninth ward and other areas lay in ruin. While businessmen and women and many white-collar workers have returned to the city, thousands upon thousands of musicians, artisans, and people that made New Orleans so unique are displaced around the country because they have no homes to go home to. While the Super Dome, home to about 100 highly paid athletes and cherished by fans willing to shell out top dollar for tickets, is rebuilt, countless hospitals, schools, and other buildings that serviced the city’s entire population are things of the past.

Bringing football back to New Orleans is definitely a nice story. And when people watch the game on Monday night they will without a doubt hear some incredible tales of survival and perseverance. However, what they will not hear is that the return of the Saints and the rebuilding of the Super Dome has been used to overshadow the city’s real problems on the rocky road to recovery.

The New Guy

2006-09-20T22:24:00.000-04:00

To my two or three loyal readers (I hope there are at least that many), I'd like to introduce a new cohort. Since it’s become glaringly apparent that I have trouble keeping up w/ posting on a regular basis I’ve invited a friend to join me at the Oxymoronic Philosopher. I’m excited to see a new perspective…and it should be interesting as he’s a current college student at a big university with a lot of interesting thoughts to put out there (no pressure, kid). His interests are in politics and sports…and anything else he decides to tell you himself. And, let’s not forget, he’s taking his first philo class ever this semester! So give a nice warm welcome to Ping when we hear from him sometime over the next few days.

We Missed the Pontiff's Point

2006-09-19T01:21:00.000-04:00

I’ve been wanting to comment for a few days now on Benedict’s comments at the University of Regensburg last Tuesday and the Muslim fallout that followed, but decided to wait until I had a chance to read the entirety of the Pontiff’s lecture (can always count on NPR and the BBC) before chiming in. While Benny probably should have been a little more careful with his choice of quotes, a charitable reading of the transcript conveys a hopeful message for true dialog and makes some very pertinent points.

What we’ve all heard…THE sound bite that seemed to escape from the context of the address:

…he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship of religion and violence in general saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and then you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith that he preached."

What we missed was the careful criticism of forceful evangelizing. Though he may have erred by focusing criticisms toward Islam and not looking back an acknowledging past wrongs of his own faith, the Pontiff espouses the central reason why faith must not be “spread by the sword.” From the Gospel of John: “In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was God.” Logos is the Greek used by the author in this passage and it means both Word and Reason. “In the beginning was Reason, and the Reason was God.” The nature of God is reasonable, Benedict claims, and to spread faith by force is not; therefore it goes against the very nature of the Divine. The claim he is really making is that God is not so all-powerful and all-knowing that we cannot even use the greatest capacities endowed on us to understand what is truly good. He is saying that we cannot expect killing and maiming one another to be a reasonable means to any good end, because it is against the very nature of God.

God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf.

Reason, not blind faith, is the way to God…a pretty extraordinary claim from a man of faith??? Not really, but that’s another story.

Benedict then goes on to make a call for dialog between Islam and Christianity, but more-so between Reason and Religion…or what he has seen Reason become. The Pontiff scolds the academia of the West not for becoming too reasonable (as Spaz claims) but for too narrowly defining what reason is. We are prone to defining reason, Benedict claims and I concur, as only that which can be defined with the “certainty resulting from the interplay between mathematical and empirical elements.” We have moved theology, questions of mysticism and divine experience, and even morality and social (soft) sciences to the fringes of reason or beyond. This narrow definition makes it difficult, if not impossible, for dialog to blossom. How are people of faith, mystics, moral thinkers supposed to speak if they cannot come to us with the scientific rigor we demand? They have tried, in the past to change their language to that of the sciences (Aquinas), but in doing so they lose their message and their heart and soul. The answer is on the side of reason. Reason must once again open her doors and welcome perspective from outside of the mathematic and empirical if we are truly to talk and, more importantly, listen to one another. Truth with a capital T is not only truth derived from scientific experimentation nor is it only truth derived from mystical experience. Truth with a capital T is Truth that arises out of a dialog of all human experience and Truth that leads us to acceptance and cordiality among one another. For what is it really that separates scientific knowledge from knowledge of faith but a simple decision of where one chooses to stop asking for verification of claims? The boundary of the games are different, the people playing the games must still live together.

"It's unacceptable to think!"

2006-09-18T22:33:00.000-04:00

QTime or WMV via Crooks and Liars

Another great "Special Comment" from Olbermann. Dubya is getting just plain scary... A CEO, when s/he gets out of control and loses sight of the big picture has a board to rein them in or throw them out...where's Congress when we need them...for that matter, where's the angry American public? A blowjob nearly costs a decent President his job, but continuous tantrums and endless wars...eh, we're ok with that. I'm not the first to say it, but I'll say it again. Somethin' ain't right here.

If you haven't listened already...

2006-09-13T20:15:00.000-04:00

Check out Frank Deford's commentary from morning edition this morning: Sports Obsession Holds Boys Back in College. It's poignant, but it's also a hoot.

Dolan May Need an Excedrin...

2006-09-13T00:27:00.000-04:00

Big Pharma…I know it’s an old topic, but it’s in the news again today. Peter Dolan, CEO of Bristol-Myers Squibb, stepped down today amid a federal investigation into some shady business dealings undertaken to keep a generic version of big-seller Plavix off the market. The FBI even came knockin’ at (actually, knockin’ down) the door of his NY office. Here’s the background: Bristol’s biggest money maker is a heart pill called Plavix. Something like 1/3 of their profits are derived from this drug alone. The company expected its patent to remain safely in their hands for another couple of years, but recently a generic drug maker announced it would release a version of Plavix this year. Dolan scrambled and put together a deal to pay-off the generic drug maker to keep their version off the market. This, if you haven’t figured out, is not really the way the Feds like to see business run.

Drug makers are simply incapable of innovating (read finding new ways to dupe consumers) fast enough to beat the expirations of their big money patents. They can only invent new diseases…ehem, excuse me, drugs…so fast. I heard the argument made by a few analysts today that the problem is in the “old guard CEOs.” Drug companies, they say, need new blood…they need risk takers and innovators heading up the ranks. This makes sense from a market perspective; drug companies are profit driven. But does it really make sense as part of the big picture? We’re operating under the assumption, here, that markets are a sufficient and efficient motivator for the correct type of innovation…yet we see time and again that the innovation they motivate manifests itself as shady business and marketing ploys to sell drugs to people who don’t need them…not to mention creating drugs for diseases that no one really knew were a problem until the drugs arrived.

Why is the motivation misdirected? Why does the market, with so many obvious pressures toward profit, not guide drug makers toward the altruistic ends intended for medicine? It’s quite simple, really. The people who need the most help, who suffer from the most diseases, who have the highest death rates, who live with the most ailments are also the people with the least purchasing power. There is no profit to be realized in helping them. Profits are to be found in clever marketing to the middle and upper classes of society. Those with less ailments, but with money to pay to cure those lesser ailments. When a drug is developed that could help the downtrodden, it’s so outrageously priced that very few can find a way to afford it…of course, this is because R&D is so expensive and it takes so long to develop a new drug (i.e. – we must protect our profit margin and keep our investors happy…if the stock price falls, I’m out of a job). The simple truth is this: incentives of a free market align terribly with the altruistic goals that medicine should cling dearly to.

So what’s the answer? I’m not sure really. Would non-profit drug makers more efficiently meet the needs of a wider range of consumers? Probably not, because some incentive is better than none at all…relying purely on charity and good-will is scary, and drugs still are expensive to make. Should drug companies be part of the government sector? Well, we’ve seen how good they are at R&D and providing for the common good…it’s questionable. Anyone have any ideas to bat around? We know it won’t ever happen, but it’s fun to think about…is there a more efficient incentive structure than the free market to drive drug makers to act toward the common good?

The American Caste

2006-09-06T00:45:00.000-04:00

This sad but oh so true commentary from Tuesday evening’s Marketplace:

BETH SHULMAN: At one time, education was our great equalizer. Children got an equal chance to rise based solely on their own potential, regardless of their family background. But today, education is deepening the economic divide.
Rising costs at public and private universities are outpacing student aid. Meanwhile federal tax breaks for college actually help wealthy students more than poor ones.
It turns out that families with incomes of at least $92,000 get more tax breaks for college than families making less than a third of that. Tax breaks simply don't help the poor the way they do the rich. They often don't make enough to qualify. And studies show that financial aid for college goes increasingly to wealthier students.
That doesn't bother institutions of higher learning. In fact, they're skewing their dollars towards helping affluent children on purpose. They want to show that they've bet on horses that win instead of helping people equally at the starting gate. This way, the gap between the educated haves and have-nots keeps growing.
Since 1980, the earnings gap between college entrants and high school graduates more than doubled. Enrollment rates of the rich at four-year colleges, the ticket to higher pay, increased by 20 percent in the last decade.
But poor students' enrollments are actually falling. Any increase in postsecondary education among the poor has been mostly at two-year colleges.
This shouldn't surprise us. Tuition's an expensive, up-front investment. Many students can't afford to borrow the amounts needed for higher education as costs go up.
If we want to claim education as the great equalizer again, we need to put our money where it needs to go, to the children of everyday working Americans.
If not, instead of giving every child a chance to excel, we face an America that simply keeps children in their economic place.
RYSSDAL: Beth Shulman is author of "The Betrayal of Work."

Coupled with this commentary on the disappearance of the “American Dream” from last Thursday this is just a recent representation of a scary but not-so-new trend of American society. Call it what you want…a caste system, apartheid, the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat…there is and has been a growing gap between the haves and have-nots that has been ignored for far too long. Why is it ignored? Because America, despite all our checks and balances, our talk of meritocracy, our belief in the “common good,” our calls for personal freedom and responsibility, is a class society. In a class society, the ruling class, no matter it’s good intentions in providing for the good of all will not...cannot…give up its power.

There has always been a sort of ruling class in American politics, but the beauty of the system established from the very beginnings of Revolution out of principles of the Enlightenment is that it has always facilitated upward mobility. The ruling class was not a closed class (except to women those of a skin tone other than white…but that’s for another post). One could be born the son of a farmer in a one room log cabin and find himself President of the nation one day. The sons and daughters of coalminers and mill workers were given more-than-adequate educations in public schools and provided opportunities to go on to higher education. There was a time when you didn’t just hope and dream that your children would be better off than you yourself…you expected it. You expected to be repaid for your hard work and perseverance; after all…this is America.

But America, as these pieces illustrate, has failed her working class. One can no longer pick herself up by her bootstraps and fight for a better life. We make it impossible for the sons and daughters of blue collar labor to get a college degree. Not to mention the fact that the blue collar labor that once meant a hard working job in a mill or factory that provided the family with benefits and a pension now means a job flipping burgers or stocking shelves at Wallyworld for meager pay and little or no healthcare. But what has led us into these precarious waters? Is it a fault of the system? Maybe…if we look to Marx we find capitalism playing out in just this way: a growing proletariat becoming more dissatisfied by the day eventually overthrows the whole shebang. Is it a fault of the people? Most definitely, for we define the system and the institutions. We created the laws that now allow corporate giants to create the laws. We’ve allowed families to maintain fortunes far beyond necessity…because if you earned it you get to keep it, right? Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, “What is the most important for democracy is not that great fortunes should not exist, but that great fortunes should not remain in the same hands. In that way there are rich men, but they do not form a class.” In this we have failed and failed miserably. We have allowed a class to emerge and now they act as any reasonable ruler would…they protect their power and hoard all other power available. They band together and grow their fortunes. Maybe we’ll get lucky and it’ll trickle down, but I doubt it.