Just when it seemed that the Democratic 2008 Juggernaut would be infallible this election cycle, along comes Joe Biden, just to keep things interesting.
Thanks, Joe! We'll be listening!
Gone Fishing
2 hours ago
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Don't Make Me Pull This Car Over!
I think I've figured it out.
I'm not expecting any huge cash awards. Please don't bother notifying the Nobel committee, or even recommend me to the Pulitzer bunch. I'm just a workin' Joe doing my part for the greater good.
One thing that has truly boggled my mind since joining the Blogosphere nearly three years ago has been the levels of poisonous invective that have been reached in many of the discussions I've read. Or even participated in, for that matter.
No one is immune, apparently. Michelle Malkin can, in her own way, be just as spiteful and (dare I say?) mean-spirited on certain issues as the people who regularly write nothing but hateful, sexist, and racist posts about her. Kos and his infamous Kids are widely known for profanity-laced writing of the sort that we used to ban from classrooms back in the day. Used to be that newspapers would bow their heads in shame if they allowed language like that to appear in one of their "responsible" publications, but now they seem to relish the nastier attitudes that are extant throughout the current political dialogue.
So what happened, and why do we allow this sort of thing to continue?
One might argue that this sort of dialogue is a waste of bandwidth. Why clutter our servers with so many words that have absolutely no chance of resolving anything of any real importance? The "I hate you; you hate me" meme that we find in 95% of the comments on any given blog are useless. I don't think they even serve any therapeutic purpose other than to demonstrate the apparent lack of any real education on the part of the commenters (as adjudicated by the number of misspelled words and grammatical errors). As one former boss once told me, there's no reason to use profanity in order to do business. (This lesson has actually only recently been learned in my company. Profanity is finally frowned upon by enough upper managers that I hear much less of it in today's environment.)
So here's my theory. I grew up in what would be considered by many to be a "large" family. There are five of us siblings, and I'm the old guy on this totem pole. Five more different personalities you couldn't hope to find anywhere. As a kid, I ruled with an iron fist (almost literally, really). I was the tyrant. My brother, the middle child, was the class clown. My sisters had differing levels of sweetness, but each has had their own method of conflict resolution with varying degrees of success.
Dialogue in this large-ish family pretty closely resembled what we see in the blogosphere (and politics in general) today. Lots of accusations thrown around with little or no proof to back them up. Very little attempt to truly understand the other person's perspective. If I was annoyed with my brother (which I often was), then he was just wrong and that was all there was to it. If one of my sisters dared to enter my Sanctum Sanctorum (I could tell because one of my dirty clothes mounds had shifted slightly to one side) then there was hell to pay. Explanations were for the weak.
Then we grew up.
We dearly love each other these days. Oh, I may not agree with everything they say or do, but I'm also mature enough to understand that I don't have to. In fact, they probably think of me as more of an old fuddy-duddy than my past life would seem to have indicated. I have not only become conservative in my old age, I have become very conservative. But I believe they still love me all the same.
So what we have here, in the Blogosphere, is a large family (like mine, only larger by a factor of about 100 million) waiting to grow up. Really. That's the only reason I can see for the whole "neener, neener, neener" voice I come across on so many blogs today.
Nowadays when a sibling of mine tells me something with which I may not agree, I will very politely listen, perhaps make a comment or two, but largely leave them to believe what they will. If it's something I happen to feel strongly about, then I'll let them know. Politely. Hopefully without leaving the other one feeling like they have a big red "A" sewn on their chest. And the next time we talk, we'll still be the same loving brother and brother and/or sister that we've always been. I also - contrary to what you may see in my writings - have learned enough to know when I don't have the answer. And I've even had to admit that to my siblings at various times over the years.
It's one of the hardest things I've ever had to do.
So here's my thought, for what it's worth. Let's try treating our blog-family like just that. A family. We all breathe the same air; we have many of the same needs; we probably even share more goals than we're likely to believe based on the discussions we're not having right now. If we need a time-out, we take one. Then we can return to the discussion without accusing each other of having genetic abnormalities or deviant sexual proclivities.
It's something to look forward to.
I'm not expecting any huge cash awards. Please don't bother notifying the Nobel committee, or even recommend me to the Pulitzer bunch. I'm just a workin' Joe doing my part for the greater good.
One thing that has truly boggled my mind since joining the Blogosphere nearly three years ago has been the levels of poisonous invective that have been reached in many of the discussions I've read. Or even participated in, for that matter.
No one is immune, apparently. Michelle Malkin can, in her own way, be just as spiteful and (dare I say?) mean-spirited on certain issues as the people who regularly write nothing but hateful, sexist, and racist posts about her. Kos and his infamous Kids are widely known for profanity-laced writing of the sort that we used to ban from classrooms back in the day. Used to be that newspapers would bow their heads in shame if they allowed language like that to appear in one of their "responsible" publications, but now they seem to relish the nastier attitudes that are extant throughout the current political dialogue.
So what happened, and why do we allow this sort of thing to continue?
One might argue that this sort of dialogue is a waste of bandwidth. Why clutter our servers with so many words that have absolutely no chance of resolving anything of any real importance? The "I hate you; you hate me" meme that we find in 95% of the comments on any given blog are useless. I don't think they even serve any therapeutic purpose other than to demonstrate the apparent lack of any real education on the part of the commenters (as adjudicated by the number of misspelled words and grammatical errors). As one former boss once told me, there's no reason to use profanity in order to do business. (This lesson has actually only recently been learned in my company. Profanity is finally frowned upon by enough upper managers that I hear much less of it in today's environment.)
So here's my theory. I grew up in what would be considered by many to be a "large" family. There are five of us siblings, and I'm the old guy on this totem pole. Five more different personalities you couldn't hope to find anywhere. As a kid, I ruled with an iron fist (almost literally, really). I was the tyrant. My brother, the middle child, was the class clown. My sisters had differing levels of sweetness, but each has had their own method of conflict resolution with varying degrees of success.
Dialogue in this large-ish family pretty closely resembled what we see in the blogosphere (and politics in general) today. Lots of accusations thrown around with little or no proof to back them up. Very little attempt to truly understand the other person's perspective. If I was annoyed with my brother (which I often was), then he was just wrong and that was all there was to it. If one of my sisters dared to enter my Sanctum Sanctorum (I could tell because one of my dirty clothes mounds had shifted slightly to one side) then there was hell to pay. Explanations were for the weak.
Then we grew up.
We dearly love each other these days. Oh, I may not agree with everything they say or do, but I'm also mature enough to understand that I don't have to. In fact, they probably think of me as more of an old fuddy-duddy than my past life would seem to have indicated. I have not only become conservative in my old age, I have become very conservative. But I believe they still love me all the same.
So what we have here, in the Blogosphere, is a large family (like mine, only larger by a factor of about 100 million) waiting to grow up. Really. That's the only reason I can see for the whole "neener, neener, neener" voice I come across on so many blogs today.
Nowadays when a sibling of mine tells me something with which I may not agree, I will very politely listen, perhaps make a comment or two, but largely leave them to believe what they will. If it's something I happen to feel strongly about, then I'll let them know. Politely. Hopefully without leaving the other one feeling like they have a big red "A" sewn on their chest. And the next time we talk, we'll still be the same loving brother and brother and/or sister that we've always been. I also - contrary to what you may see in my writings - have learned enough to know when I don't have the answer. And I've even had to admit that to my siblings at various times over the years.
It's one of the hardest things I've ever had to do.
So here's my thought, for what it's worth. Let's try treating our blog-family like just that. A family. We all breathe the same air; we have many of the same needs; we probably even share more goals than we're likely to believe based on the discussions we're not having right now. If we need a time-out, we take one. Then we can return to the discussion without accusing each other of having genetic abnormalities or deviant sexual proclivities.
It's something to look forward to.
Monday, January 29, 2007
The Kerry Doctrine
Without getting into the whole "new world order" conspiracy (one of very few conspiracies to which I give any credence), John Kerry's remarks on Saturday during the World Economic Forum in Switzerland go a long way toward showing Kerry's true stripes. Here's the telling quote:
What really bothers me here is his statement that the context of "reality" cannot be our own lens but the lens - or "reality" - of other cultures and histories.
So let's examine those other cultures and histories a bit closer so we can zero in on Kerry's perception of "reality." Kerry wants our refusal as a government to officially recognize the "problem" of global warming, our refusal to clean up Africa's AIDS problem for them, and our Kerry-generated status as an "international pariah" to be the talking points.
Let's start with the idea that Kerry made the "international pariah" statement in conversation with a former leader of a nation that has long been considered an "international pariah." Iran has been at or near the top of our National Spit List since storming our embassy, kidnapping American staffers, and holding them hostage. As a nation we "officially" support Israel, but Israel itself has long held the "pariah" moniker since the days of one of the shortest wars on record. Shucks, if you want to split hairs about it, Israel has been a pariah since Joshua wiped out half of Palestine. Egypt is currently considered a pariah by most other Arab nations for even bothering to speak to Israel, let alone having any diplomatic ties with them.
So we're a pariah. We are a powerful nation, and it is impossible - no matter how dedicated a diplomatic corps you may have - to please everyone. We're always going to be a pariah to someone. Japan will always be suspicious of us because we don't want them to kill marine mammals. Canada will always be mad at us for keeping them in a frozen meat locker north of the border. Mexico will love us when we let their citizens work here and spend their money there, but hate us when we talk tough about closing the border. Pick a country. I'm sure you'll find some reason for hating our collective guts.
The AIDS pandemic is a tough problem, of course. No one wants to see people suffer, and it certainly requires some concerted efforts by those with means to combat it. But will we ever be able to support these efforts to the complete satisfaction of everyone? Of course not. As a nation, we're already spending money we don't have on any number of issues, both domestic and foreign. In terms of straightforward aid and comfort, there is no other nation on earth that approaches our level of monetary and other aid to those less fortunate than ourselves. With that in mind, it is likely that whatever money we provide to AIDS must be shared with countless other research projects, assistance programs, and monetary bail-outs that we have provided over time.
One of our real problems, of course, is that we are currently spending money we not only don't have, but are having to make up as we go along. At some point this economic bubble is liable to burst, and with it will go any funding for AIDS, marine mammals, global warming, and starvation. Even were we to completely de-fund our entire defense budget, it wouldn't be anywhere near enough to satisfy all of the monetary demands being made by [pick your favorite cause] activists.
Global warming is a huge problem. There's the warming itself, which means that I may be living on potential beach front property within a few decades, assuming the Big One doesn't get me first. I live about twenty miles from the beach on a steady slope, but my mean elevation is still only about fifty feet above sea level. Aside from that, though, is the question of what's really to blame for this warming trend. Yes, there's an awful lot of evidence that some of this may be a man-made problem. However, there's just as much evidence available to indicate that this also could just be part of the earth's own natural cycle of warming and cooling, and we're about to enter the next phase of melting the polar caps, which will then lead to the next cycle of cooling that will finally give me bragging rights when talking with Minnesotans. Whom to believe? John Kerry? Al Gore? Rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth scientists who are looking for more grant money? Meanwhile, we as a nation are apparently supposed to foot the hefty bill of guilt being levied against us by the same nations who gave us the Industrial Revolution in the first place. That's gratitude for ya.
Looking at the world as a whole, I find absolutely no ideals of true international community that people like Kerry seem to believe exist. There isn't a nation on earth that doesn't have at least some blood on its hands, and for many of the nations that Kerry seems to idolize, their blood is still as recent as only a few decades ago. Yes, John, I really want to see the world through their lenses.
With these remarks in an international forum, Kerry once again ably demonstrates just why he has become the irrelevant former presidential contender that he is today. We don't need a man in the White House whose only considered actions would be to cry "mea culpa! mea culpa!" while tearing down our sovereignty as a nation. Because, "new world order" conspiracy or not, that appears to be what John Kerry really wants.
He wants a new set of lenses.
"We need to do a better job of protecting our interests, because after all, that's what diplomacy is about," he said. "But you have to do it in a context of the reality, not your lens but the reality of those other cultures and histories."Because, of course, any American view of the world has got to be the incorrect one.
Kerry criticized what he called the "unfortunate habit" of Americans to see the world "exclusively through an American lens."
What really bothers me here is his statement that the context of "reality" cannot be our own lens but the lens - or "reality" - of other cultures and histories.
So let's examine those other cultures and histories a bit closer so we can zero in on Kerry's perception of "reality." Kerry wants our refusal as a government to officially recognize the "problem" of global warming, our refusal to clean up Africa's AIDS problem for them, and our Kerry-generated status as an "international pariah" to be the talking points.
Let's start with the idea that Kerry made the "international pariah" statement in conversation with a former leader of a nation that has long been considered an "international pariah." Iran has been at or near the top of our National Spit List since storming our embassy, kidnapping American staffers, and holding them hostage. As a nation we "officially" support Israel, but Israel itself has long held the "pariah" moniker since the days of one of the shortest wars on record. Shucks, if you want to split hairs about it, Israel has been a pariah since Joshua wiped out half of Palestine. Egypt is currently considered a pariah by most other Arab nations for even bothering to speak to Israel, let alone having any diplomatic ties with them.
So we're a pariah. We are a powerful nation, and it is impossible - no matter how dedicated a diplomatic corps you may have - to please everyone. We're always going to be a pariah to someone. Japan will always be suspicious of us because we don't want them to kill marine mammals. Canada will always be mad at us for keeping them in a frozen meat locker north of the border. Mexico will love us when we let their citizens work here and spend their money there, but hate us when we talk tough about closing the border. Pick a country. I'm sure you'll find some reason for hating our collective guts.
The AIDS pandemic is a tough problem, of course. No one wants to see people suffer, and it certainly requires some concerted efforts by those with means to combat it. But will we ever be able to support these efforts to the complete satisfaction of everyone? Of course not. As a nation, we're already spending money we don't have on any number of issues, both domestic and foreign. In terms of straightforward aid and comfort, there is no other nation on earth that approaches our level of monetary and other aid to those less fortunate than ourselves. With that in mind, it is likely that whatever money we provide to AIDS must be shared with countless other research projects, assistance programs, and monetary bail-outs that we have provided over time.
One of our real problems, of course, is that we are currently spending money we not only don't have, but are having to make up as we go along. At some point this economic bubble is liable to burst, and with it will go any funding for AIDS, marine mammals, global warming, and starvation. Even were we to completely de-fund our entire defense budget, it wouldn't be anywhere near enough to satisfy all of the monetary demands being made by [pick your favorite cause] activists.
Global warming is a huge problem. There's the warming itself, which means that I may be living on potential beach front property within a few decades, assuming the Big One doesn't get me first. I live about twenty miles from the beach on a steady slope, but my mean elevation is still only about fifty feet above sea level. Aside from that, though, is the question of what's really to blame for this warming trend. Yes, there's an awful lot of evidence that some of this may be a man-made problem. However, there's just as much evidence available to indicate that this also could just be part of the earth's own natural cycle of warming and cooling, and we're about to enter the next phase of melting the polar caps, which will then lead to the next cycle of cooling that will finally give me bragging rights when talking with Minnesotans. Whom to believe? John Kerry? Al Gore? Rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth scientists who are looking for more grant money? Meanwhile, we as a nation are apparently supposed to foot the hefty bill of guilt being levied against us by the same nations who gave us the Industrial Revolution in the first place. That's gratitude for ya.
Looking at the world as a whole, I find absolutely no ideals of true international community that people like Kerry seem to believe exist. There isn't a nation on earth that doesn't have at least some blood on its hands, and for many of the nations that Kerry seems to idolize, their blood is still as recent as only a few decades ago. Yes, John, I really want to see the world through their lenses.
With these remarks in an international forum, Kerry once again ably demonstrates just why he has become the irrelevant former presidential contender that he is today. We don't need a man in the White House whose only considered actions would be to cry "mea culpa! mea culpa!" while tearing down our sovereignty as a nation. Because, "new world order" conspiracy or not, that appears to be what John Kerry really wants.
He wants a new set of lenses.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Wingnuts v. Moonbats
Fetching Jen and I don't always agree. Some of her positions in the last election with respect to our ballot initiatives here in California I just couldn't get behind, but my disagreements with her have always been amicable. (This is strictly a one-sided relationship, I hasten to add - Jen and I do not truly communicate other than when I troll her blog and make an occasional comment.)
I find her commentaries to be just a little more saucy than my own, but largely she holds the conservative torch fairly well. This is all to the good. She fully understands what she believes and has no problem stating that in her writing.
I have to say, though, that my attraction to her blog has less to do with what she's written, and more to do with the comments she gets from a few anonymous lefties.
It's altogether too easy to paint these characters with the same stroke of the brush. Reading their comments, one would gather that they have been well indoctrinated by the Kos Machine. That is to say, they spend more time making MTV-spawned personal attacks against the author ("You stink.") and less time arguing her more salient points ("You don't like Kerry. You stink."). Then, of course, they wait for guys like me to jump in and accuse them of just that so they can take the Victim POV and claim that we are all shills of the Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly triumvirate. (Did I mention that I never watch or listen to any of these gentlemen?)
Yeesh.
One such commenter to this post, wherein Jen links to some older commentary by Mark Steyn, went so far as to imply that we didn't get it. He (I'm assuming this is a "he") was only "poking fun" at Jen, apparently. I guess my own sense of humor is impaired enough that I didn't immediately see just how funny such zingers as "Boy, you are nothing but negative energy. Are you like this around your kids?" really are. Is this the sort of thing that Conan says? I've never watched the man, so I couldn't say.
But Mr. Anonymous went on to make (finally!) what I believe was his only money quote:
To which I can only say: Dude, you'd really be surprised just how "right wing" those who questioned that monarch truly were.
I find her commentaries to be just a little more saucy than my own, but largely she holds the conservative torch fairly well. This is all to the good. She fully understands what she believes and has no problem stating that in her writing.
I have to say, though, that my attraction to her blog has less to do with what she's written, and more to do with the comments she gets from a few anonymous lefties.
It's altogether too easy to paint these characters with the same stroke of the brush. Reading their comments, one would gather that they have been well indoctrinated by the Kos Machine. That is to say, they spend more time making MTV-spawned personal attacks against the author ("You stink.") and less time arguing her more salient points ("You don't like Kerry. You stink."). Then, of course, they wait for guys like me to jump in and accuse them of just that so they can take the Victim POV and claim that we are all shills of the Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly triumvirate. (Did I mention that I never watch or listen to any of these gentlemen?)
Yeesh.
One such commenter to this post, wherein Jen links to some older commentary by Mark Steyn, went so far as to imply that we didn't get it. He (I'm assuming this is a "he") was only "poking fun" at Jen, apparently. I guess my own sense of humor is impaired enough that I didn't immediately see just how funny such zingers as "Boy, you are nothing but negative energy. Are you like this around your kids?" really are. Is this the sort of thing that Conan says? I've never watched the man, so I couldn't say.
But Mr. Anonymous went on to make (finally!) what I believe was his only money quote:
Sad actually, but the liberals were always more interesting since they are the ones who questioned authority and the status quo, kind of like some dudes 200 years ago who dared question a monarch.
To which I can only say: Dude, you'd really be surprised just how "right wing" those who questioned that monarch truly were.
The Shape of Campaign 2008
We are well into the official start of the 2008 Media Wants Clinton campaign, and I must say that things to this point have been entirely predictable. Right now Clinton's primary advantage seems to be that the more liberal elements (read: the vast majority) of the traditional media really want to make this an "epic" campaign. They need this to be all about a tough-minded woman(!) with a strong socialist agenda(!) fighting her way into the White House, seemingly against the odds.
Unfortunately her primary disadvantage is that those same liberal media outlets can't seem to agree on just what, per se, Ms. Clinton's agenda truly is. Is it the idea that a modern feminist can reach the pinnacle of male-dominated power? Or should it be that a moderate/liberal/moderate/whatever Democrat can return the country to the sound traditional values of destroying both the traditional American family and countless unborn children?
Sorry. Cheap shot, I know, but where Hillary is concerned I just can't help myself. For my own part I really could care less whether a woman becomes President of the United States. Big whoop. Just because we'd have a female chief executive wouldn't make the Europeans hate us any less. In fact, the primary difference between Hillary and Bill is that Hillary is only slightly more likely to land Air Force One wherever her favorite hairdresser might happen to be. That and the fact that she will probably have learned from Bill's lessons on proper intern care and keeping. Otherwise, I would fully expect to see a continuation of whatever agenda Bill never finished when he had the office and Hillary was probably creating behind the scenes anyway.
No, far more worrisome to me is that pesky social agenda of hers. In foreign policy matters, her stance on Iraq is what it is, and I can't see her getting in Iran's face, either. Likewise North Korea. Lots of saber-rattling, I'd like to bet, and lots of "dialogue," which is what career politicians do that allows bad guys to build and test weapons designed to make our property values plummet for the next hundred years or so. Business as usual on the foreign front.
But the real damage another Clinton presidency would wreak is in our domestic policy. Support of gay marriage is a given in a Clinton-II presidency. "Right to choice" (read: slaughter of unborn children) and entitlement programs galore are the spawn of a Clinton administration.
This is not to say that these policies wouldn't have a champion in any other Democratic candidate. My fear is that Clinton would see her presumed victory as a mandate from nature; the voters elected a woman to this office, which by extension means that they want me to enact these policies. Now. Hillary has shown herself to be at her energetic peak when she's grappling with social legislation, and I can't see that changing in the White House. I can't help but think that anyone else would show at least some restraint before crumbling our society.
The other part of my fear, of course, is that the Republicans will find themselves unable to create a significant challenge to whomever floats to the top of the Democratic ticket next year. I certainly am crossing my fingers for Mitt Romney, if he's the choice to counter McCain. "Anyone but McCain" is my campaign slogan for the coming election. I've written previously about Romney's real challenges as a candidate, hoping against hope that I will be proven wrong and that he really can stay above the political fallouts that seem to beset anyone who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. If Giuliani runs, that will only cement my support for the Romney campaign because at that point Romney becomes the only "true" conservative in the field. We certainly can't pin that label on John McCain. Rudy is really just a Democrat in a conservative-looking suit, so I can't see him carrying the banner for the party, either.
(Notice that I do not call Romney a "pure" conservative. I have mentioned before that there are no "pure" conservatives or liberals anymore. Just those that lean way over to one side of an argument or another. It may appear to be a semantics problem to you, but it makes perfect sense to me to differentiate between "pure" and "true" when describing political ideologies. Here at the Woundup, "pure" means someone who stays on the conservative side of every issue, no matter what that issue may be. A "true" conservative, on the other hand, stays conservative on enough issues to be well identified as a conservative. I may be splitting hairs, but when you have hair like mine you tend to split 'em rather than lose 'em.)
For these reasons I do not look forward to the coming campaigns with any gusto. Maybe I'm just getting old and tired, but a body can only take so much of a steady diet of hateful rhetoric between candidates before we just want to line them all up against a wall in front of a firing squad.
Besides, with John Kerry not running this time, where will we turn for entertainment?
Unfortunately her primary disadvantage is that those same liberal media outlets can't seem to agree on just what, per se, Ms. Clinton's agenda truly is. Is it the idea that a modern feminist can reach the pinnacle of male-dominated power? Or should it be that a moderate/liberal/moderate/whatever Democrat can return the country to the sound traditional values of destroying both the traditional American family and countless unborn children?
Sorry. Cheap shot, I know, but where Hillary is concerned I just can't help myself. For my own part I really could care less whether a woman becomes President of the United States. Big whoop. Just because we'd have a female chief executive wouldn't make the Europeans hate us any less. In fact, the primary difference between Hillary and Bill is that Hillary is only slightly more likely to land Air Force One wherever her favorite hairdresser might happen to be. That and the fact that she will probably have learned from Bill's lessons on proper intern care and keeping. Otherwise, I would fully expect to see a continuation of whatever agenda Bill never finished when he had the office and Hillary was probably creating behind the scenes anyway.
No, far more worrisome to me is that pesky social agenda of hers. In foreign policy matters, her stance on Iraq is what it is, and I can't see her getting in Iran's face, either. Likewise North Korea. Lots of saber-rattling, I'd like to bet, and lots of "dialogue," which is what career politicians do that allows bad guys to build and test weapons designed to make our property values plummet for the next hundred years or so. Business as usual on the foreign front.
But the real damage another Clinton presidency would wreak is in our domestic policy. Support of gay marriage is a given in a Clinton-II presidency. "Right to choice" (read: slaughter of unborn children) and entitlement programs galore are the spawn of a Clinton administration.
This is not to say that these policies wouldn't have a champion in any other Democratic candidate. My fear is that Clinton would see her presumed victory as a mandate from nature; the voters elected a woman to this office, which by extension means that they want me to enact these policies. Now. Hillary has shown herself to be at her energetic peak when she's grappling with social legislation, and I can't see that changing in the White House. I can't help but think that anyone else would show at least some restraint before crumbling our society.
The other part of my fear, of course, is that the Republicans will find themselves unable to create a significant challenge to whomever floats to the top of the Democratic ticket next year. I certainly am crossing my fingers for Mitt Romney, if he's the choice to counter McCain. "Anyone but McCain" is my campaign slogan for the coming election. I've written previously about Romney's real challenges as a candidate, hoping against hope that I will be proven wrong and that he really can stay above the political fallouts that seem to beset anyone who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. If Giuliani runs, that will only cement my support for the Romney campaign because at that point Romney becomes the only "true" conservative in the field. We certainly can't pin that label on John McCain. Rudy is really just a Democrat in a conservative-looking suit, so I can't see him carrying the banner for the party, either.
(Notice that I do not call Romney a "pure" conservative. I have mentioned before that there are no "pure" conservatives or liberals anymore. Just those that lean way over to one side of an argument or another. It may appear to be a semantics problem to you, but it makes perfect sense to me to differentiate between "pure" and "true" when describing political ideologies. Here at the Woundup, "pure" means someone who stays on the conservative side of every issue, no matter what that issue may be. A "true" conservative, on the other hand, stays conservative on enough issues to be well identified as a conservative. I may be splitting hairs, but when you have hair like mine you tend to split 'em rather than lose 'em.)
For these reasons I do not look forward to the coming campaigns with any gusto. Maybe I'm just getting old and tired, but a body can only take so much of a steady diet of hateful rhetoric between candidates before we just want to line them all up against a wall in front of a firing squad.
Besides, with John Kerry not running this time, where will we turn for entertainment?
Friday, January 12, 2007
Boxer Insults Rice? Big Hairy Deal.
Goodness gracious me. In what is sure to become the next way-overblown non-issue in American politics, Barbara Boxer (for whom I hold absolutely no respect or affection) appears to have insulted Condoleezza Rice yesterday.
I mention this only because suddenly I'm getting hit after hit from people who've been searching the net for articles related to "boxer insults rice," and I found it hilarious that I was getting hits since I hadn't yet written about this incident. In fact, had I NOT gotten those hits I probably would have left this where it firmly belongs: in the realm of "nothing to see here, folks."
Given the reports as published so far, I'm guessing that Boxer should be taken at face value on this one. She probably really was just trying to assert that neither she nor Rice are truly in a position to understand the "real" cost of our war, as measured in human terms. Boxer has no children or grandchildren that are currently eligible to be "sent" to war. Rice is a single woman who also would not experience that sort of personal loss (potentially, of course).
On the surface, the comments by Boxer seem insensitive at worst. Yet bloggers, columnists, and conservative apologists are already lining up to decry the comments as "insults," or "flash points."
Where Boxer blew it was in stating the obvious: She really isn't in a position to understand the "cost" that she was attempting to put in human terms. Only families who have loved ones in that conflict have that perspective. (The fact that a large majority of those families support what their loved ones are attempting is telling. Congress just isn't listening.) In short, when Boxer says things like that, we get the feeling that her empathy for families of the military is really just concern that she's gonna lose more voters before the next election.
Who among us can really say what that cost ultimately will be? I have a son-in-law in the military, and even though he is in no danger of being deployed to Iraq, he does occasionally have to see the casualties of the conflict in his work. That by itself can be traumatic, but how can we possibly measure even that apparently "small" cost?
Short answer: we can't. And neither can Congress.
Did Boxer insult Condi Rice? Perhaps. Is this something to get excited about?
Hey, wake me when it's over.
By the way, the mystery of the search hits lies with a post I'd written just about a year ago. It was actually meant to be a humorous scan of Drudge reports for that day, wherein the most excitable piece of news (according to me, anyway) was a scandal at Krispy Kreme. Included in the "fluff" I chose to pass over was "Boxer insults Rice." Funny thing is, I don't even remember what the alleged insult was at the time, although it may have had something to do with Martin Luther King. Anyway, that's why folks keep popping in here today.
Just wanted to give them something a bit more substantive to come away with.
I mention this only because suddenly I'm getting hit after hit from people who've been searching the net for articles related to "boxer insults rice," and I found it hilarious that I was getting hits since I hadn't yet written about this incident. In fact, had I NOT gotten those hits I probably would have left this where it firmly belongs: in the realm of "nothing to see here, folks."
Given the reports as published so far, I'm guessing that Boxer should be taken at face value on this one. She probably really was just trying to assert that neither she nor Rice are truly in a position to understand the "real" cost of our war, as measured in human terms. Boxer has no children or grandchildren that are currently eligible to be "sent" to war. Rice is a single woman who also would not experience that sort of personal loss (potentially, of course).
On the surface, the comments by Boxer seem insensitive at worst. Yet bloggers, columnists, and conservative apologists are already lining up to decry the comments as "insults," or "flash points."
Where Boxer blew it was in stating the obvious: She really isn't in a position to understand the "cost" that she was attempting to put in human terms. Only families who have loved ones in that conflict have that perspective. (The fact that a large majority of those families support what their loved ones are attempting is telling. Congress just isn't listening.) In short, when Boxer says things like that, we get the feeling that her empathy for families of the military is really just concern that she's gonna lose more voters before the next election.
Who among us can really say what that cost ultimately will be? I have a son-in-law in the military, and even though he is in no danger of being deployed to Iraq, he does occasionally have to see the casualties of the conflict in his work. That by itself can be traumatic, but how can we possibly measure even that apparently "small" cost?
Short answer: we can't. And neither can Congress.
Did Boxer insult Condi Rice? Perhaps. Is this something to get excited about?
Hey, wake me when it's over.
By the way, the mystery of the search hits lies with a post I'd written just about a year ago. It was actually meant to be a humorous scan of Drudge reports for that day, wherein the most excitable piece of news (according to me, anyway) was a scandal at Krispy Kreme. Included in the "fluff" I chose to pass over was "Boxer insults Rice." Funny thing is, I don't even remember what the alleged insult was at the time, although it may have had something to do with Martin Luther King. Anyway, that's why folks keep popping in here today.
Just wanted to give them something a bit more substantive to come away with.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
They Obviously Had It Coming
So it turns out that members of a Yale barbershop group were attacked while on tour in California. So far, so good. Barbershoppers are regularly attacked in California, where diversity is not so much celebrated as it is mandated. But here's the money quote from the article:
Had they worn Ché berets and sung "Tiptoe Through the Tulips," no one would have batted an eye.
Sheesh.
Members of the a cappella Baker's Dozen were performing at a party in San Francisco at the new year when their rendition of the "Star Spangled Banner" apparently sparked taunts and threats from fellow partygoers.Oh, for heaven's sake. What were they thinking? They sang the "Star Spangled Banner?" In San Francisco?? They may as well have put on George Bush masks and paraded down Market Street! Of course they were beaten up!
Had they worn Ché berets and sung "Tiptoe Through the Tulips," no one would have batted an eye.
Sheesh.
No One Is Surprised
Heavy sigh.
Drudge points to this article indicating that Democrats in Congress (surprise!) are attempting to block President Bush's proposed increase of troops to be deployed in two critical areas of the Iraqi war.
I am willing to concede the following points:
1. The war has gone on long enough.
2. No one wants to send more troops.
3. Beefing up troop counts in critical areas certainly smacks of dragging this war out longer than might otherwise seem necessary.
Having said all that, however, I also would state the following:
1. Trying to force a timeline for pull out at this point in the conflict only strengthens al Qaeda's position and does nothing to ensure stability in the area.
2. Proposing, as Kennedy has done, that we only allow more troops to be sent in if there are guarantees to pull troops out is a ludicrous thought. Kennedy's proposal further dilutes troop strength in areas that today may only be marginally stable.
But, hey. The Dems are in control now. If they want to block Bush's proposal, so be it. I just hope they're ready to answer the inevitable questions when we finish pulling out of the region and terrorism seems to plague us still. The question will ultimately shift from "why are we there?" to "what did leaving accomplish?"
I'd suggest a good marketing campaign.
Drudge points to this article indicating that Democrats in Congress (surprise!) are attempting to block President Bush's proposed increase of troops to be deployed in two critical areas of the Iraqi war.
I am willing to concede the following points:
1. The war has gone on long enough.
2. No one wants to send more troops.
3. Beefing up troop counts in critical areas certainly smacks of dragging this war out longer than might otherwise seem necessary.
Having said all that, however, I also would state the following:
1. Trying to force a timeline for pull out at this point in the conflict only strengthens al Qaeda's position and does nothing to ensure stability in the area.
2. Proposing, as Kennedy has done, that we only allow more troops to be sent in if there are guarantees to pull troops out is a ludicrous thought. Kennedy's proposal further dilutes troop strength in areas that today may only be marginally stable.
But, hey. The Dems are in control now. If they want to block Bush's proposal, so be it. I just hope they're ready to answer the inevitable questions when we finish pulling out of the region and terrorism seems to plague us still. The question will ultimately shift from "why are we there?" to "what did leaving accomplish?"
I'd suggest a good marketing campaign.
New Jersey to (Finally) Allow Idiots to Vote
or, "Haven't They All Been Elected to the State Legislature Already?"
(H/T: Dave Barry)
It isn't often that a state political machine offers insights to its inner workings. Heck, once upon a time someone told me that California is a state run by liberals for the benefit of other liberals, but I've never really believed that. I mean, I sure as heck don't know what goes on in Sacramento, and neither, I suspect, do the politicians.
Anyway, via Dave Barry's blog we find this beautiful peek "behind the scenes" in New Jersey. Apparently, the only way the current vacuum bag of leaders can stay in power is if they allow idiots to vote. Thus, they must remove the restrictions against "idiots" from their constitution so that those with certain mental illnesses will be allowed to vote.
I'd say we should adopt such a policy here in California, but I'm pretty sure we've been allowing them to vote here for decades.
Please don't get me wrong: I have nothing against those with mental challenges, per se. I'm just dying of curiosity to see who in New Jersey will make the determination as to who would be eligible (or ineligible, for that matter) to vote in their state.
This just screams out for discrimination lawsuits.
Oughta be fun to watch.
(H/T: Dave Barry)
It isn't often that a state political machine offers insights to its inner workings. Heck, once upon a time someone told me that California is a state run by liberals for the benefit of other liberals, but I've never really believed that. I mean, I sure as heck don't know what goes on in Sacramento, and neither, I suspect, do the politicians.
Anyway, via Dave Barry's blog we find this beautiful peek "behind the scenes" in New Jersey. Apparently, the only way the current vacuum bag of leaders can stay in power is if they allow idiots to vote. Thus, they must remove the restrictions against "idiots" from their constitution so that those with certain mental illnesses will be allowed to vote.
I'd say we should adopt such a policy here in California, but I'm pretty sure we've been allowing them to vote here for decades.
Please don't get me wrong: I have nothing against those with mental challenges, per se. I'm just dying of curiosity to see who in New Jersey will make the determination as to who would be eligible (or ineligible, for that matter) to vote in their state.
This just screams out for discrimination lawsuits.
Oughta be fun to watch.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
#329 - To Blog or not to Blog
Cam is taking another hiatus from his blogging efforts for the immediate future. I can understand where he's coming from.
Blogging is definitely one of those high maintenance activities that, if not balanced properly, can turn into a really bad marriage. When one partner becomes "needy," the other invariably suffers. Thus I can understand his desire to turn off the blog machine for awhile and take a few steps back. Time to regroup; recharge the ol' batteries; take a deep breath and take care of long-neglected business.
Like any new toy, my blogs have taken more than their fair share of my time over the past several months. Fortunately, I've settled into a new pattern that means I spend less time blogging, and more time enjoying the events about which I intend to blog. Someday. But I also refuse to put myself under any personal editorial pressure. There's just no reason for it, and what I have to say isn't all that important except to myself and my loved ones. Plus a few hangers-on who happen to say nice things to me occasionally. Aw, heck, even my two or three detractors are appreciated, if in a weird, perverse sort of way.
In Cam's situation, blogging has (temporarily, I'm pretty certain) become something of a millstone around the neck. He's probably on the cusp of remembering some things he's needed to give some attention for a long while now, and by golly he's determined to do so. Then Nancy Pelosi will nominate Howard Dean to replace John Bolton at the U. N., and he'll be unable to help himself. Did I mention that Nancy plans to have Il Divo sing "Auld Lang Syne*" at the Capitol New Year's Eve party?
Anyway, he'll be back.
In the meantime, I have to chuckle whilst echoing Cam's sentiments in his "farewell" post. The Republican party, he says, has "lost its way." Out with the old; in with the new. I chuckle because, Republican though we may be, we're not so all-fired dedicated to the party that we wouldn't mind seeing a good shakeup in the party elite right about now.
The heart of the matter is the two-faced approach taken by nearly all professional pols before and after an election. In the off-season - that time of year when no one is running for anything but their latest ethics violations - all politicians talk the tough conservative/liberal rhetoric. They'll make the most provocative statements they can think of to remind everyone of just how conservative/liberal they can really be. Then, come election time everyone moves hard-center so as to appease as many voters as possible. With few notable exceptions, the provocative rhetoric gets toned waaaay down just about everywhere except in the shouting matches between old and new media types. The pols are getting better (since Kerry redefined "open mouth, insert foot") about shutting the heck up and letting us fight their battles for them. Then they'll cozy up with whomever appears to be winning and make that their ticket to election.
All of this takes concerted effort if you wish to be a dedicated blogger with any aspirations to participating in the national debate. That effort can be mentally fatiguing, especially in a year when your party does not do well at the polls. Yes, it's a huge let-down that we lost control of Congress in this election. But it's an even bigger disappointment that our current garbage bag of party leadership seem not to have learned any lessons from this latest rout. I don't know what they're expecting in 2008, but unless Romney adds walking on water to his bag of tricks, I don't smell a Republican win two years from now. Not with our party leadership as currently constituted.
Here in California, Republicans - the traditional ones - are apparently all but extinct. With Schwarzenegger showing more and more of his Kennedy stripes with each passing month, I don't wonder that at some point he'll just give up the pretense and change his ticket to Democrat once he leaves the Governor's office. That means our poster boy for conservative causes is himself becoming a lost cause. Behind whom will we rally next time around? There are no shining stars in the party right now, unless McClintock suddenly grows a spine and begins positioning himself to make a run at a serious office, like U. S. Senator. So far, I don't see anyone having the gumption to stand up to the Lib Sisters and take 'em on issues alone.
Thus, I, too, have undertaken a brief sabbatical from political blogging. This is not to say that I don't care right now. Far from it. However, there's not much to debate at the moment. No one is taking a true leadership role in any of our current political hot-buttons. Iraq either is or is not a "quagmire." We've either lost, or will stay for as long as it takes. We're either fighting al Qaeda, or a war against terror. The definitions are becoming hazier with each passing day. Border control is vital, but no one seems anxious to anger our neighbors to the south. Certainly no one in office is willing to be the bad guy these days. Thus we have far too little support coming from those we elected to represent our interests.
That said, I'm certainly not removing myself from the blogging arena. Writing is a need of mine. It helps me focus my thoughts and keeps my communication skills limbered up. I've been writing for a long time now, and having somewhere to keep a record of my thoughts and see how they interact with others is a real treat for me. Even if I only reach a handful of real readers, it's still a kick.
This blog ain't going anywhere anytime soon. There's still plenty of stuff out there to write about.
And, as I say, Cam will be back.
* By the way, I'm kidding about Il Divo singing at the Capitol. But you just know Cam would blog about that!
Blogging is definitely one of those high maintenance activities that, if not balanced properly, can turn into a really bad marriage. When one partner becomes "needy," the other invariably suffers. Thus I can understand his desire to turn off the blog machine for awhile and take a few steps back. Time to regroup; recharge the ol' batteries; take a deep breath and take care of long-neglected business.
Like any new toy, my blogs have taken more than their fair share of my time over the past several months. Fortunately, I've settled into a new pattern that means I spend less time blogging, and more time enjoying the events about which I intend to blog. Someday. But I also refuse to put myself under any personal editorial pressure. There's just no reason for it, and what I have to say isn't all that important except to myself and my loved ones. Plus a few hangers-on who happen to say nice things to me occasionally. Aw, heck, even my two or three detractors are appreciated, if in a weird, perverse sort of way.
In Cam's situation, blogging has (temporarily, I'm pretty certain) become something of a millstone around the neck. He's probably on the cusp of remembering some things he's needed to give some attention for a long while now, and by golly he's determined to do so. Then Nancy Pelosi will nominate Howard Dean to replace John Bolton at the U. N., and he'll be unable to help himself. Did I mention that Nancy plans to have Il Divo sing "Auld Lang Syne*" at the Capitol New Year's Eve party?
Anyway, he'll be back.
In the meantime, I have to chuckle whilst echoing Cam's sentiments in his "farewell" post. The Republican party, he says, has "lost its way." Out with the old; in with the new. I chuckle because, Republican though we may be, we're not so all-fired dedicated to the party that we wouldn't mind seeing a good shakeup in the party elite right about now.
The heart of the matter is the two-faced approach taken by nearly all professional pols before and after an election. In the off-season - that time of year when no one is running for anything but their latest ethics violations - all politicians talk the tough conservative/liberal rhetoric. They'll make the most provocative statements they can think of to remind everyone of just how conservative/liberal they can really be. Then, come election time everyone moves hard-center so as to appease as many voters as possible. With few notable exceptions, the provocative rhetoric gets toned waaaay down just about everywhere except in the shouting matches between old and new media types. The pols are getting better (since Kerry redefined "open mouth, insert foot") about shutting the heck up and letting us fight their battles for them. Then they'll cozy up with whomever appears to be winning and make that their ticket to election.
All of this takes concerted effort if you wish to be a dedicated blogger with any aspirations to participating in the national debate. That effort can be mentally fatiguing, especially in a year when your party does not do well at the polls. Yes, it's a huge let-down that we lost control of Congress in this election. But it's an even bigger disappointment that our current garbage bag of party leadership seem not to have learned any lessons from this latest rout. I don't know what they're expecting in 2008, but unless Romney adds walking on water to his bag of tricks, I don't smell a Republican win two years from now. Not with our party leadership as currently constituted.
Here in California, Republicans - the traditional ones - are apparently all but extinct. With Schwarzenegger showing more and more of his Kennedy stripes with each passing month, I don't wonder that at some point he'll just give up the pretense and change his ticket to Democrat once he leaves the Governor's office. That means our poster boy for conservative causes is himself becoming a lost cause. Behind whom will we rally next time around? There are no shining stars in the party right now, unless McClintock suddenly grows a spine and begins positioning himself to make a run at a serious office, like U. S. Senator. So far, I don't see anyone having the gumption to stand up to the Lib Sisters and take 'em on issues alone.
Thus, I, too, have undertaken a brief sabbatical from political blogging. This is not to say that I don't care right now. Far from it. However, there's not much to debate at the moment. No one is taking a true leadership role in any of our current political hot-buttons. Iraq either is or is not a "quagmire." We've either lost, or will stay for as long as it takes. We're either fighting al Qaeda, or a war against terror. The definitions are becoming hazier with each passing day. Border control is vital, but no one seems anxious to anger our neighbors to the south. Certainly no one in office is willing to be the bad guy these days. Thus we have far too little support coming from those we elected to represent our interests.
That said, I'm certainly not removing myself from the blogging arena. Writing is a need of mine. It helps me focus my thoughts and keeps my communication skills limbered up. I've been writing for a long time now, and having somewhere to keep a record of my thoughts and see how they interact with others is a real treat for me. Even if I only reach a handful of real readers, it's still a kick.
This blog ain't going anywhere anytime soon. There's still plenty of stuff out there to write about.
And, as I say, Cam will be back.
* By the way, I'm kidding about Il Divo singing at the Capitol. But you just know Cam would blog about that!
Friday, December 08, 2006
#328 - It's All About the Money
Sorry for the absence of blogging lately. It's a busy time of year and I actually try to spend as much free time as possible with my family. It's a holiday season, but beyond that I have no excuse.
That doesn't mean I'm not trolling the news every day. Most of the time I just zip past most of what Drudge deems to be noteworthy. I have no idea what constitutes a "standard" at the Drudge Report, but I've sure never been able to figure him out.
Anyway, this morning Drudge pointed to this little gem about the father of Chelsea Clinton's boyfriend getting tossed in the clink for fraud in connection with those Nigerian e-mail scams. And not in the way that immediately sprang to my mind, either.
The very first time I received one of those e-mails I must admit to being somewhat nonplussed. How on earth did this guy get my name, and why is he offering to cut me in on this deal? That lasted for about, oh, fifteen seconds. Then my Internet Survival Instincts kicked in and I immediately began looking for background on the scam. Sure enough, at the time it was on the list of fraud schemes that the Secret Service was keeping an eye on. I don't think they even bother anymore. Back then, though, I was encouraged to forward the e-mail to the Secret Service fraud investigators as part of their ongoing investigation. I felt like a useful citizen for a few minutes afterward.
From that time, of course, I have successfully ignored anything coming into my e-mail that even smacks of being a scam. Even when I get those rather authentic-looking phishes with the logo of my somewhat obscure credit union in them I don't so much as blink. I just let my spam filter quietly and efficiently drop them into Spam Outer Darkness.
So to read that this former congressman (whose wife also happens to be a current congressperson) and friend of the Clintons actually was connected to one of these schemes, I was ready to cheer that they'd finally nailed one of the idiots responsible for so much of the spam that overloads my filters every day.
Not quite. You see, I've always just assumed that the only people dumb enough to fall for these schemes were the same ones who read Weekly World News or the Los Angeles Times and actually believed what they were reading. I mean, how gullible can ya get?
Then to find that Ed Mezvinsky, a former congressman (who would be assumed to have a level of intelligence above paramecium) actually fell for one of these scams - not once, but multiple times - is just too much to be believed.
Apparently, as with gambling or narcotics, these scams are addicting. This man's personal greed and avarice were such that he began defrauding clients and relatives in order to support his habit.
I mean, at what point did he fail to understand that these schemes were never meant to benefit him??
Ah, well. This one gets to spend time in prison contemplating his sins. As a friend of the Clintons, I'm assuming he'll contemplate them right back into another run for office. He's probably assuming Hillary will be in office then, and he'd like to be invited to more state dinners.
Preferably with Nigerian diplomats.
That doesn't mean I'm not trolling the news every day. Most of the time I just zip past most of what Drudge deems to be noteworthy. I have no idea what constitutes a "standard" at the Drudge Report, but I've sure never been able to figure him out.
Anyway, this morning Drudge pointed to this little gem about the father of Chelsea Clinton's boyfriend getting tossed in the clink for fraud in connection with those Nigerian e-mail scams. And not in the way that immediately sprang to my mind, either.
The very first time I received one of those e-mails I must admit to being somewhat nonplussed. How on earth did this guy get my name, and why is he offering to cut me in on this deal? That lasted for about, oh, fifteen seconds. Then my Internet Survival Instincts kicked in and I immediately began looking for background on the scam. Sure enough, at the time it was on the list of fraud schemes that the Secret Service was keeping an eye on. I don't think they even bother anymore. Back then, though, I was encouraged to forward the e-mail to the Secret Service fraud investigators as part of their ongoing investigation. I felt like a useful citizen for a few minutes afterward.
From that time, of course, I have successfully ignored anything coming into my e-mail that even smacks of being a scam. Even when I get those rather authentic-looking phishes with the logo of my somewhat obscure credit union in them I don't so much as blink. I just let my spam filter quietly and efficiently drop them into Spam Outer Darkness.
So to read that this former congressman (whose wife also happens to be a current congressperson) and friend of the Clintons actually was connected to one of these schemes, I was ready to cheer that they'd finally nailed one of the idiots responsible for so much of the spam that overloads my filters every day.
Not quite. You see, I've always just assumed that the only people dumb enough to fall for these schemes were the same ones who read Weekly World News or the Los Angeles Times and actually believed what they were reading. I mean, how gullible can ya get?
Then to find that Ed Mezvinsky, a former congressman (who would be assumed to have a level of intelligence above paramecium) actually fell for one of these scams - not once, but multiple times - is just too much to be believed.
Apparently, as with gambling or narcotics, these scams are addicting. This man's personal greed and avarice were such that he began defrauding clients and relatives in order to support his habit.
I mean, at what point did he fail to understand that these schemes were never meant to benefit him??
Ah, well. This one gets to spend time in prison contemplating his sins. As a friend of the Clintons, I'm assuming he'll contemplate them right back into another run for office. He's probably assuming Hillary will be in office then, and he'd like to be invited to more state dinners.
Preferably with Nigerian diplomats.
Monday, November 27, 2006
#327 - Dr. Phil Chimes In (and Out) (UPDATED)
So the Dr. Phil Franchise jumped into the homeschool debate. I only bring this up because the good doctor unfortunately smacks of "credibility" whenever he tackles a controversial subject. It has little to do with whether his opinions are in any way correct. It has far more to do with Dr. Phil having more of a "National Enquirer" kind of audience.
You know the folks I'm talking about. These are the folks who hear something on one of those CBS sound-bite reports ("homeschooling causes child abuse!") and the next thing you know this obscure prejudice has become firmly engrained in the listener's psyche. No amount of empirical evidence to the contrary will shake them, either. These are the same people responsible for most of the conspiracy theories ("JFK was killed by abused homeschoolers!") in the world today.
You might guess by now that I give little, if any, credence to Dr. Phil's opinions of homeschooling. You would be correct.
But, to be truthful, I really could care less what the overly vaunted Dr. thinks about anything. Hey, his weight loss strategies are not bad, but that doesn't mean that everything that comes out of the man's mouth is something with which I automatically agree. After all, the man is a clinical psychologist, which means he gets paid by the word. The more words he comes up with, the more money he makes. More power to him.
That said, I also understand that there are many in the homeschooling community (see the HSLDA's harrumph here) who have and will take umbrage at Dr. Phil's statements. More particularly, he seems to think that homeschool is fine up to a point, and that point is high school. By high school, he opines, the kids are in more need of association with peers (and peer pressure by extension, I guess) in order to develop properly. Or as properly as any psychologist is capable of understanding.
All this takes me back to why I homeschool.
Primary of which is, I don't homeschool because (or in spite) of Dr. Phil. Really. Nothing that Dr. Phil says has any bearing whatsoever on why, how, or for how long we intend to homeschool our children. Neither should he have any bearing on that process. Dr. Phil, being a psychologist, is a mere resource. Someone to whom one might turn if they were conflicted about something and just didn't seem able to overcome the obstacles. But for a family in our position - one where Mom and Dad are in 100% complete agreement about homeschooling - such a resource is not required.
Nor do I need Dr. Phil to validate our decision. (I could make some sort of statement that I don't need anyone to validate our decision, but that sounds altogether too maudlin, even for me.)
This, then, becomes the single greatest weakness in the homeschool "movement" (for lack of a better adjective). While there are a great many hard-working, dedicated homeschooling families who have produced countless well-adjusted and properly educated kids, there are also those on the fringe who vacillate. These are the families that people like Dr. Phil tend to interview.
That's just good TV, I'm afraid. Dr. Phil would get absolutely nowhere having my family on his show because we're just too darned unremarkable as homeschoolers go. We are not separatist nutcases who homeschool to spite the government; we simply don't trust the government to adequately and safely educate our children. We do not "unschool" our children; neither do we force them to sit bleary-eyed in a classroom trying to keep up with the super-achievers or being dragged down by the underachievers. Homework is a non-issue. Socialization likewise, unless the Mother of All Experts would like to pooh-pooh church and family as primary socialization networks. Our student-to-teacher ratio is 2:1, unless Daddy steps in and helps in which case it's more like 1.5:1. Find that in any public school today.
No, if Dr. Phil showcased my family on his show, we would only be depicted as an exception rather than the rule.
Want the real scoop on homeschoolers? Try talking to some. Don't ask Dr. Phil which ones, though.
UPDATE: Just by way of clarification. I've been surfing around on this issue (LOTS of emotional response to DP's show!) and have found that Dr. Phil came down pretty heavy against "unschooling." Just for the record, Mrs. Woody and I are not unschoolers. We follow more "classical" homeschooling lines. Also, the definition of unschooling has shifted somewhat since I first got involved in the homeschooling environment. Twenty years ago, unschooling literally was the process a family went through upon taking children out of public school in preparation for schooling at home. Sort of a public school detox, if you will. These days the term apparently is used nearly exclusively for those folks who wish to take a completely unstructured approach to their childrens' education. That's just not our style. We have well-established, very firm educational goals for our girls, so the current definition of unschooling truly does not apply here. I choose not to judge unschooling one way or another, but I'm absolutely certain that it wouldn't fit in our family dynamic at all.
You know the folks I'm talking about. These are the folks who hear something on one of those CBS sound-bite reports ("homeschooling causes child abuse!") and the next thing you know this obscure prejudice has become firmly engrained in the listener's psyche. No amount of empirical evidence to the contrary will shake them, either. These are the same people responsible for most of the conspiracy theories ("JFK was killed by abused homeschoolers!") in the world today.
You might guess by now that I give little, if any, credence to Dr. Phil's opinions of homeschooling. You would be correct.
But, to be truthful, I really could care less what the overly vaunted Dr. thinks about anything. Hey, his weight loss strategies are not bad, but that doesn't mean that everything that comes out of the man's mouth is something with which I automatically agree. After all, the man is a clinical psychologist, which means he gets paid by the word. The more words he comes up with, the more money he makes. More power to him.
That said, I also understand that there are many in the homeschooling community (see the HSLDA's harrumph here) who have and will take umbrage at Dr. Phil's statements. More particularly, he seems to think that homeschool is fine up to a point, and that point is high school. By high school, he opines, the kids are in more need of association with peers (and peer pressure by extension, I guess) in order to develop properly. Or as properly as any psychologist is capable of understanding.
All this takes me back to why I homeschool.
Primary of which is, I don't homeschool because (or in spite) of Dr. Phil. Really. Nothing that Dr. Phil says has any bearing whatsoever on why, how, or for how long we intend to homeschool our children. Neither should he have any bearing on that process. Dr. Phil, being a psychologist, is a mere resource. Someone to whom one might turn if they were conflicted about something and just didn't seem able to overcome the obstacles. But for a family in our position - one where Mom and Dad are in 100% complete agreement about homeschooling - such a resource is not required.
Nor do I need Dr. Phil to validate our decision. (I could make some sort of statement that I don't need anyone to validate our decision, but that sounds altogether too maudlin, even for me.)
This, then, becomes the single greatest weakness in the homeschool "movement" (for lack of a better adjective). While there are a great many hard-working, dedicated homeschooling families who have produced countless well-adjusted and properly educated kids, there are also those on the fringe who vacillate. These are the families that people like Dr. Phil tend to interview.
That's just good TV, I'm afraid. Dr. Phil would get absolutely nowhere having my family on his show because we're just too darned unremarkable as homeschoolers go. We are not separatist nutcases who homeschool to spite the government; we simply don't trust the government to adequately and safely educate our children. We do not "unschool" our children; neither do we force them to sit bleary-eyed in a classroom trying to keep up with the super-achievers or being dragged down by the underachievers. Homework is a non-issue. Socialization likewise, unless the Mother of All Experts would like to pooh-pooh church and family as primary socialization networks. Our student-to-teacher ratio is 2:1, unless Daddy steps in and helps in which case it's more like 1.5:1. Find that in any public school today.
No, if Dr. Phil showcased my family on his show, we would only be depicted as an exception rather than the rule.
Want the real scoop on homeschoolers? Try talking to some. Don't ask Dr. Phil which ones, though.
UPDATE: Just by way of clarification. I've been surfing around on this issue (LOTS of emotional response to DP's show!) and have found that Dr. Phil came down pretty heavy against "unschooling." Just for the record, Mrs. Woody and I are not unschoolers. We follow more "classical" homeschooling lines. Also, the definition of unschooling has shifted somewhat since I first got involved in the homeschooling environment. Twenty years ago, unschooling literally was the process a family went through upon taking children out of public school in preparation for schooling at home. Sort of a public school detox, if you will. These days the term apparently is used nearly exclusively for those folks who wish to take a completely unstructured approach to their childrens' education. That's just not our style. We have well-established, very firm educational goals for our girls, so the current definition of unschooling truly does not apply here. I choose not to judge unschooling one way or another, but I'm absolutely certain that it wouldn't fit in our family dynamic at all.
Saturday, November 25, 2006
#326 - A Troubled Path In (Not To) the White House
ccwbass at Way Off Bass [Full Disclosure Statement: Yes, he is my literal brother by birth. Deal with it.] points out the rising tide of interest in Mitt Romney's seemingly inevitable campaign for President.
In this case, "interest" may not necessarily represent a good thing, depending on which side of Romney's de facto campaign you happen to be. I, of course, think it can only be a good thing to have a faithful Latter-day Saint in the White House. So much should be obvious. But I advise caution on one point:
Having a Latter-day Saint in the White House does not equal having an infallible man in the White House.
I say this without having given Brother Romney a whole lot of study. I say this more from the perspective of one who has come away from election after election being disappointed in the reality versus the promise of any given candidate - particularly those who have ended up in the White House.
In 1976 I was just barely old enough (I'd made the deadline by something like a whole week) to vote in the general election. In fact, I turned 18 between the primary and the general, so I hadn't even participated fully in the decision-making process that year. It goes without saying that my only recollection of that election was the choice between Ford or Carter for President. Even though a purely nascent Republican at the time, I remember instinctively mistrusting Carter. Perhaps it was his smile. I well remember the old joke that said "never trust a smiling politician." The problem is, they all smile when they're running for office.
Anyway, Carter made it to the office having ridden a wave of anti-Establishment sentiment. "I will clean house," he'd said, hoping that we would believe that Nixon's criminal misuse of the office was somehow the only thing that needed fixing. Ford had been the "caretaker" President, and never could get folks behind him. His "healing act" of pardoning Nixon was, I suspect, the true death knell of his too-short term in office. Inflation and other national woes might have been overlooked but for that.
There is no doubt that Carter is a good man. If we measured him strictly by his adherence to his beliefs (and isn't this what Romney will be subjected to over and over again?) he stands as a man of far more integrity than, say, Clinton. Reagan was another man of integrity who simply let his government get away from him. His personal beliefs never wavered, but he had many unscrupulous people working for him. This had the effect of tainting his presidency with hints of scandal while he himself seemed able to rise above them to the end of his term.
Both Bushes have been men of integrity as to their personal beliefs, but both men have also been products of the professional political machine. In other words, while their intentions have been honorable, they both have shown blindness to some principles so they could defend their actions to pursue other means. This makes them good but misguided men.
As one who sees another Clinton in office as one of the predicted signs of the Apocalypse, I must look once again to the Republican slate of candidates in 2008. McCain will court the moderates because he knows that's where the safer high ground lies. But Mitt Romney has a triple disadvantage where the national press is concerned. He is not only a conservative (as opposed to McCain's moderate), but he is a right wing conservative by association. Worse still, in the eyes of a rather large voting bloc, he is a Mormon right-winger, which will have him continually being roasted and barbecued by the Southern Baptist Convention, among others.
Fortunately, the SBC has not had a wonderful track record of predicting winners or losers in any given election. They will be, however, a force to be reckoned with in the press, which is where this coming election is most likely to be fought.
But let us assume for a moment that Romney somehow keeps it clean and finds himself sitting in the White House. Mission accomplished, right?
Not entirely.
The first thing Romney will find himself fighting is the long-established, well-oiled machine that is Washington politics. He will find himself - as every president has ever done - having to dance with the devil to get things accomplished. And the "devil" does not necessarily represent the guys who voted for the Donkeys, if you get my drift. As Reagan found, the devil often masquerades as a trusted advisor who is left to manage things pretty much on his (or her) own and conveniently fails to inform the Commander in Chief when treading a treacherous path. Thus the Chief Executive becomes guilty by association, and any attempt to correct such things "quietly" always becomes a scandal of cover-up.
Could such a thing happen to MItt Romney? Of course. And this would be the bad thing. Not just because such a thing might happen, but because such a thing might happen to a "Mormon" president of the United States.
I say this because it has always amazed me that the press reports things two ways: Either a man bit a dog (news), or a Mormon man bit a dog (bigger news!). It never fails. No matter how significant the crime, it always becomes somehow more significant if committed by a Mormon. Always.
You know that scene in the book "All the President's Men" where the crooks are brought before the judge at their arraignment and one of them, when asked his name and occupation, mumbles "CIA" under his breath? Remember how that catapulted Watergate from "just another break-in" status to "full-blown constitutional crisis" status in, like, fifty pages? This is what happens whenever the term "Mormon" is applied to any report of a crime, scandal, or misunderstanding as reported in the press.
So, yes, I root for a Romney campaign. Given the current choice, I'd much rather have a Romney than a McCain in office come 2009. But I'm also realistic enough to realize that no matter who takes that office is going to have their hands full if they wish to both govern and yet remain a person of integrity.
It just goes with the territory.
In this case, "interest" may not necessarily represent a good thing, depending on which side of Romney's de facto campaign you happen to be. I, of course, think it can only be a good thing to have a faithful Latter-day Saint in the White House. So much should be obvious. But I advise caution on one point:
Having a Latter-day Saint in the White House does not equal having an infallible man in the White House.
I say this without having given Brother Romney a whole lot of study. I say this more from the perspective of one who has come away from election after election being disappointed in the reality versus the promise of any given candidate - particularly those who have ended up in the White House.
In 1976 I was just barely old enough (I'd made the deadline by something like a whole week) to vote in the general election. In fact, I turned 18 between the primary and the general, so I hadn't even participated fully in the decision-making process that year. It goes without saying that my only recollection of that election was the choice between Ford or Carter for President. Even though a purely nascent Republican at the time, I remember instinctively mistrusting Carter. Perhaps it was his smile. I well remember the old joke that said "never trust a smiling politician." The problem is, they all smile when they're running for office.
Anyway, Carter made it to the office having ridden a wave of anti-Establishment sentiment. "I will clean house," he'd said, hoping that we would believe that Nixon's criminal misuse of the office was somehow the only thing that needed fixing. Ford had been the "caretaker" President, and never could get folks behind him. His "healing act" of pardoning Nixon was, I suspect, the true death knell of his too-short term in office. Inflation and other national woes might have been overlooked but for that.
There is no doubt that Carter is a good man. If we measured him strictly by his adherence to his beliefs (and isn't this what Romney will be subjected to over and over again?) he stands as a man of far more integrity than, say, Clinton. Reagan was another man of integrity who simply let his government get away from him. His personal beliefs never wavered, but he had many unscrupulous people working for him. This had the effect of tainting his presidency with hints of scandal while he himself seemed able to rise above them to the end of his term.
Both Bushes have been men of integrity as to their personal beliefs, but both men have also been products of the professional political machine. In other words, while their intentions have been honorable, they both have shown blindness to some principles so they could defend their actions to pursue other means. This makes them good but misguided men.
As one who sees another Clinton in office as one of the predicted signs of the Apocalypse, I must look once again to the Republican slate of candidates in 2008. McCain will court the moderates because he knows that's where the safer high ground lies. But Mitt Romney has a triple disadvantage where the national press is concerned. He is not only a conservative (as opposed to McCain's moderate), but he is a right wing conservative by association. Worse still, in the eyes of a rather large voting bloc, he is a Mormon right-winger, which will have him continually being roasted and barbecued by the Southern Baptist Convention, among others.
Fortunately, the SBC has not had a wonderful track record of predicting winners or losers in any given election. They will be, however, a force to be reckoned with in the press, which is where this coming election is most likely to be fought.
But let us assume for a moment that Romney somehow keeps it clean and finds himself sitting in the White House. Mission accomplished, right?
Not entirely.
The first thing Romney will find himself fighting is the long-established, well-oiled machine that is Washington politics. He will find himself - as every president has ever done - having to dance with the devil to get things accomplished. And the "devil" does not necessarily represent the guys who voted for the Donkeys, if you get my drift. As Reagan found, the devil often masquerades as a trusted advisor who is left to manage things pretty much on his (or her) own and conveniently fails to inform the Commander in Chief when treading a treacherous path. Thus the Chief Executive becomes guilty by association, and any attempt to correct such things "quietly" always becomes a scandal of cover-up.
Could such a thing happen to MItt Romney? Of course. And this would be the bad thing. Not just because such a thing might happen, but because such a thing might happen to a "Mormon" president of the United States.
I say this because it has always amazed me that the press reports things two ways: Either a man bit a dog (news), or a Mormon man bit a dog (bigger news!). It never fails. No matter how significant the crime, it always becomes somehow more significant if committed by a Mormon. Always.
You know that scene in the book "All the President's Men" where the crooks are brought before the judge at their arraignment and one of them, when asked his name and occupation, mumbles "CIA" under his breath? Remember how that catapulted Watergate from "just another break-in" status to "full-blown constitutional crisis" status in, like, fifty pages? This is what happens whenever the term "Mormon" is applied to any report of a crime, scandal, or misunderstanding as reported in the press.
So, yes, I root for a Romney campaign. Given the current choice, I'd much rather have a Romney than a McCain in office come 2009. But I'm also realistic enough to realize that no matter who takes that office is going to have their hands full if they wish to both govern and yet remain a person of integrity.
It just goes with the territory.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
#324 - A (Very) Little Humor
Step-Dad Z-Meister has waaaaaay more friends than a normal retiree should be allowed. I base this on the number of emailed satires he forwards to me, nearly always from someone new (to me, at least).
This first one just made me chuckle. At least the punch line did.
More along the lines of something that will likely get me some snarky responses from more moderate readers comes this snorter. For the record, I actually know the guy that passed this one along. This fellow (name withheld to protect the libelous) is one who both worked on my teeth and sang tenor with me in the Ventura County Master Chorale. Heaven only knows where he got it:
This first one just made me chuckle. At least the punch line did.
Regardless of where one stands on the issue of the U.S. involvement in Iraq, here's a sobering statistic.Not altogether far-fetched, I think.
There has been a monthly average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2,112 deaths.
That gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.
The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 Persons for the same period.
That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. Capital than you are in Iraq.
Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington
More along the lines of something that will likely get me some snarky responses from more moderate readers comes this snorter. For the record, I actually know the guy that passed this one along. This fellow (name withheld to protect the libelous) is one who both worked on my teeth and sang tenor with me in the Ventura County Master Chorale. Heaven only knows where he got it:
A Lady wrote a lot of letters to the White House complaining about the treatment of a captive insurgents (terrorists) being held in Guantanamo Bay.Thanks, Bob!
She received back the following reply:The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20016
Dear Concerned Citizen,
Thank you for your recent letter roundly criticizing our treatment of the Taliban and Al Quaeda detainees currently being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Our administration takes these matters seriously and your opinion was heard loud and clear here in Washington.
You'll be pleased to learn that, thanks to the concerns of citizens like yourself, we are creating a new division of the Terrorist Retraining Program, to be called the "Liberals Accept Responsibility for Killers" program, or LARK for short.
In accordance with the guidelines of this new program, we have decided to place one terrorist under your personal care.
Your personal detainee has been selected and scheduled for transportation under heavily armed guard to your residence next Monday.
Ali Mohammed Ahmed bin Mahmud (you can just call him Ahmed) is to be cared for pursuant to the standards you personally demanded in your letter of complaint. It will likely be necessary for you to hire some assistant care-givers.
We will conduct weekly inspections to ensure that your standards of care for Ahmed are commensurate with those you so strongly recommended in your letter.
Although Ahmed is a sociopath and extremely violent, we hope that your sensitivity to what you described as his "attitudinal problem" will help him overcome these character flaws.
Perhaps you are correct in describing these problems as mere cultural differences. We understand that you plan to offer counselling and home schooling.
Your adopted terrorist is extremely proficient in hand-to-hand combat and can extinguish human life with such simple items as a pencil or nail clippers. We advise that you do not ask him to demonstrate these skills at your next yoga group. He is also expert at making a wide variety of explosive devices from common household products, so you may wish to keep those items locked up, unless (in your opinion) this might offend him.
Ahmed will not wish to interact with you or your daughters (except sexually), since he views females as a sub-human form of property. This is a particularly sensitive subject for him and he has been known to show violent tendencies around women who fail to comply with the new dress code that he will recommend as more appropriate attire.
I'm sure you will come to enjoy the anonymity offered by the burka over time.
Just remember that it is all part of "respecting his culture and his religious beliefs" -- wasn't that how you put it?
Thanks again for your letter. We truly appreciate it when folks like you keep us informed of the proper way to do our job. You take good care of Ahmed - and remember, we'll be watching.
Good luck!
Cordially, your friend,
Don Rumsfeld*
*Now doing "an outstanding job" as emeritus consultant to the new guy.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
#323 - Hoffa Reappears. Sorta.
It happened while I was still in high school. (Note: there are disputations as to what, exactly, "in" high school means, but that's not for this story.) Jimmy Hoffa, former Teamster boss and Mafia beneficiary disappeared quite suddenly in July of 1975. This was news that riveted a nation because Hoffa was one of those larger-than-life characters that I'd grown up hearing about. He was a favorite target of Robert F. Kennedy when Kennedy served in his brother's cabinet in the 60's. He was constantly associated with the Mafia, whether deserved or not. Turns out he probably wasn't in the Mafia, but when dealing with the Mafia close is bad enough.
Then, of course, there were the wild rumors and speculation. If the Mafia got him, where'd they bury him? My personal favorite was either the end zone or one of the cement supports of Giants Stadium. I particularly loved the "buried in cement" scenario because it always reminded me of Hoffa being tossed, Jack Lemmon-like, into a giant gloppita-gloppita machine.
So Hoffa became a perfect metaphor for disappearing without a trace, preferably by less than savory means. I found this to be a comfortable disappearance. Here was a man for whom I had no respect disappearing probably because of ties with one or more crime families in a case that is still considered unsolved.
Except for the confession.
Turns out there was a confession, and many people now find it to be highly credible. Hoffa was apparently done in by someone he trusted and had frequently used as his own muscle in some of his shadier dealings. He either did not know or somehow overlooked the fact that this same man was himself a hit man. Poetic justice, methinks.
So, after literally decades of fanciful speculation and amateur detective work, the "truth" comes out in this hit man's own death-bed confession. I've never read the book, but if I get bored sometime I might look for it.
Apparently Hoffa was murdered the same night he was supposed to meet with Mafiosos to "clear the air" between them. Instead, he gets two bullets in the back of the head, and a quick ride to a local funeral home where he is incinerated and, presumably, scattered to the wind.
Mystery apparently solved.
I believe I'll miss it.
Then, of course, there were the wild rumors and speculation. If the Mafia got him, where'd they bury him? My personal favorite was either the end zone or one of the cement supports of Giants Stadium. I particularly loved the "buried in cement" scenario because it always reminded me of Hoffa being tossed, Jack Lemmon-like, into a giant gloppita-gloppita machine.
So Hoffa became a perfect metaphor for disappearing without a trace, preferably by less than savory means. I found this to be a comfortable disappearance. Here was a man for whom I had no respect disappearing probably because of ties with one or more crime families in a case that is still considered unsolved.
Except for the confession.
Turns out there was a confession, and many people now find it to be highly credible. Hoffa was apparently done in by someone he trusted and had frequently used as his own muscle in some of his shadier dealings. He either did not know or somehow overlooked the fact that this same man was himself a hit man. Poetic justice, methinks.
So, after literally decades of fanciful speculation and amateur detective work, the "truth" comes out in this hit man's own death-bed confession. I've never read the book, but if I get bored sometime I might look for it.
Apparently Hoffa was murdered the same night he was supposed to meet with Mafiosos to "clear the air" between them. Instead, he gets two bullets in the back of the head, and a quick ride to a local funeral home where he is incinerated and, presumably, scattered to the wind.
Mystery apparently solved.
I believe I'll miss it.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
#322 - Well, No Wonder...
Christmas is coming. Rapidly. However, the internet shopping junkies have already been trolling for deals, and the Woundup keeps popping up on their radar screens.
I suppose that's because folks began coming here by accident looking for Woody's Roundup® toys and such. My apologies. As I mentioned before, you won't find anything here about the Roundup. That's partly because I'm too old for that stuff, partly because my Woodyettes just aren't interested in that stuff, and partly because I fear Disney® Lawyers™ far too much to even mention Woody's Roundup©™® with impunity.
No, shoppers, at the moment the only shopping advice you'll find here is why you should avoid Il Divo™®etc. According to the Cranky Reviewer, Il Divo (so I quit attributing... so sue me) causes brain cancer, infertility, and is responsible for single-handedly destroying civilization as we know it. Or something like that. The Cranky Reviewer's reviews frankly begin to run together in my fevered brain at this festive time of year.
So, anyway, sorry if you came here under false pretenses.
Merry Christmas©!
I suppose that's because folks began coming here by accident looking for Woody's Roundup® toys and such. My apologies. As I mentioned before, you won't find anything here about the Roundup. That's partly because I'm too old for that stuff, partly because my Woodyettes just aren't interested in that stuff, and partly because I fear Disney® Lawyers™ far too much to even mention Woody's Roundup©™® with impunity.
No, shoppers, at the moment the only shopping advice you'll find here is why you should avoid Il Divo™®etc. According to the Cranky Reviewer, Il Divo (so I quit attributing... so sue me) causes brain cancer, infertility, and is responsible for single-handedly destroying civilization as we know it. Or something like that. The Cranky Reviewer's reviews frankly begin to run together in my fevered brain at this festive time of year.
So, anyway, sorry if you came here under false pretenses.
Merry Christmas©!
Monday, November 13, 2006
#321 - Life By Committee - Revisited
Dredging through Drudge this evening I came across a reference to a highly disturbing article. A Bishop in the Church of England has indicated that children who are severely deformed or disabled at birth should be allowed to die under certain circumstances. At first, this struck me as sounding awfully familiar. But there's a small difference in this case. Holland's Groningen Protocol actually codifies circumstances under which life should be terminated - effectively placing the Dutch government in the role traditionally assigned to God, or courts (as when dealing with convicted murderers). In this case, however, Anglican Bishop Tom Butler of Southwick appears to be arguing for a more traditional approach to this deeply emotional issue. He indicates that
Reading further, however, I found this rather chilling statement by the Reverend Bishop:
Look, unless you're born rich or put off having children until you've made your pile, no one is ever ready for all the burden and responsibilities that go along with raising offspring. Even the rich ones have their challenges laid out for them, unless they prefer to abdicate everything to the care of their nanny. But the parent who, when presented with a desperately sick child, has as their first thought, "How will we pay for all of this?" is one who should have reconsidered becoming a parent in the first place.
Admittedly, I have only ever known a small handful of people who have had to go through these decisions in their own lives. Some, like the couple I mentioned previously, are friends. Others are extended family. A few are merely chance acquaintances. But in every single case when discussing the subject, their first and foremost thought was always, "What would be best for this child?" Thoughts of financial burden or worries about how to rearrange their lives to accomodate such a child are always secondary. For a true parent it has little to do with money or inconvenience, and everything to do with wishing - indeed, hoping against hope - that their precious baby didn't have to suffer so.
So while I think I understand that the Bishop was merely trying to provide some practical guidance in this instance, his concerns for financial considerations in what is already a highly emotionally charged decision for parents make the Anglican Church seem just a little cold-blooded.
It's not Groningen, but it could be.
...there are occasions when it is compassionate to leave a severely disabled child to die.With this particular statement I actually agree. When writing about the Groningen Protocol, I recounted the story of a young couple with whom I was acquainted whose very premature baby was born with multiple deformities, none the least of which was a brain that had developed with no more than a stem. After long consultations with family, doctors, and local church leaders they made the painful decision to not attempt any extraordinary lifesaving procedures; not even a respirator, if memory serves. The baby lived barely a week, during which they snuggled her, named her, blessed her, bonded with her as best they could, and generally enjoyed this small life for as long as God had granted them. It was a very significant experience for me, and I learned much about how we should protect both the lives as well as the spiritual welfare of our children and loved ones. Their family "portrait" probably still hangs on their family picture wall.
Reading further, however, I found this rather chilling statement by the Reverend Bishop:
[The Bishop] has also argued that the high financial cost of keeping desperately ill babies alive should be a factor in life or death decisions.While I believe I know what prompted this statement, it unfortunately sounds far too Groningen-like for my taste.
Look, unless you're born rich or put off having children until you've made your pile, no one is ever ready for all the burden and responsibilities that go along with raising offspring. Even the rich ones have their challenges laid out for them, unless they prefer to abdicate everything to the care of their nanny. But the parent who, when presented with a desperately sick child, has as their first thought, "How will we pay for all of this?" is one who should have reconsidered becoming a parent in the first place.
Admittedly, I have only ever known a small handful of people who have had to go through these decisions in their own lives. Some, like the couple I mentioned previously, are friends. Others are extended family. A few are merely chance acquaintances. But in every single case when discussing the subject, their first and foremost thought was always, "What would be best for this child?" Thoughts of financial burden or worries about how to rearrange their lives to accomodate such a child are always secondary. For a true parent it has little to do with money or inconvenience, and everything to do with wishing - indeed, hoping against hope - that their precious baby didn't have to suffer so.
So while I think I understand that the Bishop was merely trying to provide some practical guidance in this instance, his concerns for financial considerations in what is already a highly emotionally charged decision for parents make the Anglican Church seem just a little cold-blooded.
It's not Groningen, but it could be.
#320 - More Public Service
To all you yahoos good people who arrive here looking for Woody's Drive-In in Salt Lake City, this link's for you.
I've visited Woody's a few times over the years. Mrs. Woody's brother happens to live in the area, and it's a sort of tradition for us. It's a cholesterol palace, but, hey, it's no Chuck-A-Rama either.
The food is pretty good and the atmosphere is friendly. Not a bad place to eat, but a heck of a commute from Anaheim, California.
I've visited Woody's a few times over the years. Mrs. Woody's brother happens to live in the area, and it's a sort of tradition for us. It's a cholesterol palace, but, hey, it's no Chuck-A-Rama either.
The food is pretty good and the atmosphere is friendly. Not a bad place to eat, but a heck of a commute from Anaheim, California.
#319 - Two Questions
(H/T: Dave Barry)
First, why is this considered news? This sort of thing happens all the time in the entertainment biz. This is why Trump invented pre-nups in the first place.
Second, whom does she think she's kidding?
She has a "wholesome image?"
[checks dictionary]
Umm... only if Bill Clinton is re-writing the dictionary. No, I believe Ms. Spears burned that particular bridge a looong time ago.
Makes for fun blog fodder, though.
First, why is this considered news? This sort of thing happens all the time in the entertainment biz. This is why Trump invented pre-nups in the first place.
Second, whom does she think she's kidding?
Britney fears the raunchy footage will destroy her wholesome image[.]
She has a "wholesome image?"
[checks dictionary]
Umm... only if Bill Clinton is re-writing the dictionary. No, I believe Ms. Spears burned that particular bridge a looong time ago.
Makes for fun blog fodder, though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
