Monday, January 26, 2004
Which Tastes Best -- the Red M&M or the Brown M&M?
Do we really have to go through all this again -- all the debates, sound bites, 30 seconds of teeth and handshakes 6 times an hour, every newsman's top story, every papers front page?
Now I see why so many countries put up with kings and dictators -- no campaigns!
Now I sympathize with my mother-in-law who once said she was going to vote for the most handsome candidate. She said it was because she didn't want to look at the other guy's ugly face every day on the news for the next four years. It seems as good a reason as not, to vote for one person over another.
All that money, all that campaigning, to convince us there is a right side, a better party, a superior candidate.
Nowadays, the pro-economy and fiscally responsible Republicans are spending like Johnson in Vietnam. Yes, homeland security is expensive, but what happened to everyone biting the bullet, victory gardens, war bonds, paper & scrap drives, gas and food rations? Instead, we just go to that furniture store down the road and run up a houseful of bills with no payments and no interest for 3 years! -- then what?
And remember the conservative fat-cat Southern Democrat with suspenders and a big old Cuban cigar blowing smoke in our faces? The one who violently opposed any kind of civil rights, workers' rights, equal rights for women, anything that might take power away from the white plantation owners? He miraculously flip-flopped into the party of the unions and minorities. How did he do that? And how come so many people conveniently forgot what the Demos stood for in the 50's and 60's? Are people so easily brainwashed by a few repetitious slogans? The answer must be "YES".
We are all busy. We all have important lives. Guess we would much rather parrot a slogan or discuss a sound bite and pretend we have political understanding then to have to really think about our choices. And that is precisely why we have no choices. The political pundits cram some Crisco down our throats (regular or buttered -- it all feels the same). They give us what they assume we want, the look, the voice, the wife, the slogan, the hook.
If only we could have real options. Like other countries that have viable exciting races involving communist, socialist, true conservative and true liberal parties. Now that would be exciting.
But the Demos and the Repubes have convinced us that interest in a third party is a waste of our votes -- indeed, throwing away our votes -- an unconscionable derelict of an American duty. They had me convinced I should be humiliated to have voted for Ross Perot. But suddenly, I am proud. And this year, I am ready to look down the ballot just a bit further. Who is this years Independent, Libertarian, Green, etc? Are there any serious candidates out there?
Do we really have to go through all this again -- all the debates, sound bites, 30 seconds of teeth and handshakes 6 times an hour, every newsman's top story, every papers front page?
Now I see why so many countries put up with kings and dictators -- no campaigns!
Now I sympathize with my mother-in-law who once said she was going to vote for the most handsome candidate. She said it was because she didn't want to look at the other guy's ugly face every day on the news for the next four years. It seems as good a reason as not, to vote for one person over another.
All that money, all that campaigning, to convince us there is a right side, a better party, a superior candidate.
Nowadays, the pro-economy and fiscally responsible Republicans are spending like Johnson in Vietnam. Yes, homeland security is expensive, but what happened to everyone biting the bullet, victory gardens, war bonds, paper & scrap drives, gas and food rations? Instead, we just go to that furniture store down the road and run up a houseful of bills with no payments and no interest for 3 years! -- then what?
And remember the conservative fat-cat Southern Democrat with suspenders and a big old Cuban cigar blowing smoke in our faces? The one who violently opposed any kind of civil rights, workers' rights, equal rights for women, anything that might take power away from the white plantation owners? He miraculously flip-flopped into the party of the unions and minorities. How did he do that? And how come so many people conveniently forgot what the Demos stood for in the 50's and 60's? Are people so easily brainwashed by a few repetitious slogans? The answer must be "YES".
We are all busy. We all have important lives. Guess we would much rather parrot a slogan or discuss a sound bite and pretend we have political understanding then to have to really think about our choices. And that is precisely why we have no choices. The political pundits cram some Crisco down our throats (regular or buttered -- it all feels the same). They give us what they assume we want, the look, the voice, the wife, the slogan, the hook.
If only we could have real options. Like other countries that have viable exciting races involving communist, socialist, true conservative and true liberal parties. Now that would be exciting.
But the Demos and the Repubes have convinced us that interest in a third party is a waste of our votes -- indeed, throwing away our votes -- an unconscionable derelict of an American duty. They had me convinced I should be humiliated to have voted for Ross Perot. But suddenly, I am proud. And this year, I am ready to look down the ballot just a bit further. Who is this years Independent, Libertarian, Green, etc? Are there any serious candidates out there?
Saturday, January 24, 2004
The House of Selig
I must admit that I was caught up in the hype this past October. For the first time since I was 12 years old, I actually cared about professional baseball. I know, I know, sad but true. It was much to my wife's distaste, but between the prospect of at least one curse being broken in either Chicago or Boston and my general distaste for buying a great team (New York) or basing a team sport on one person (San Francisco) coupled with my relief of not having to see Roy Rogers hat this year, I couldn't take my eyes off of the television. Not even the ridiculous advertising broadcast on the blue screen behind home plate could take away from the theatrics. That is of course until Boston and Chicago lost. However, the damage was done. The sport that I loved to play as a child had returned to me in all of its former glory.
So why the dissertation on the wonders of baseball in the middle of January? Two little words that plague the sport: Pete Rose. Last week it was revealed to the world (via making a profit with his new "tell all" book) that he did indeed bet on baseball prior to being banned from the sport in the 1980's. Now, I am not interested in moralizing what he did. It does not interest me as to debate the extent to which his deplorable behavior whittled away at the foundation of America's pastime. My problem with this whole scenario has to do with the debate as to whether or not Pete Rose should be allowed into the Baseball Hall of Fame.
Pete Rose's affirmation of gambling was, by all accounts, an declaration of years of systemic despicable behavior including those years in which he, quite literally, gambled with the career he had -- the career that most of the rest of us consider a dream. I do not excuse his behavior, nor do I attempt to make sense of it. I cannot fathom putting yourself, your career and your life at risk, especially when you consider the gift that his career really was. But I cannot understand why he has been excluded from the Baseball Hall of Fame, either. Pete Rose remains the most prolific hitter in the history of baseball and as a player, and later as a coach, was one of the great figures in the game's history. No one questions this. And yet, the commissioner of baseball has yet to rule on whether or not he will be reinstated to the game after he was banned for life. The baseball writers association who make the determinations as to who enters the Hall of Fame have denounced his actions. Many writers have gone on to say they would boycott any ballot with Pete Rose's name on it. They associate Pete Rose with the Chicago Black Sox (8 players in 1919 who were banned forever from baseball when they were accused of throwing the world series for $100,000 -- they were all acquitted of any criminal charges, but remain banned from baseball). In short, the prospect of Pete Rose being in the Hall of Fame to them is akin to having a whore as the pope.
The whole scenario makes me laugh. Not so much that so many people are against Pete Rose being in the Hall of Fame; that much is understandable. What is funny is that from the inception of this scandal back in the late 1980's, baseball is attempting to take the moral high road! BASEBALL!!!! THE MORAL HIGH ROAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Is there anything that is more obscenely perverse and yet hilarious? Pete Rose is not allowed in the Hall of Fame. But Babe Ruth is in the Hall of Fame. The "Sultan of Swat" is one of the biggest hitters ever. He was also considerably overweight (especially for a professional athlete), smoked like a chimney, drank like a sailor and womanized. Or then there is Ty Cobb, the notorious Detroit Tiger (whose hitting record Pete Rose broke) not only was an incredible hitter (over two days once, he switched his grip on his bat like Babe Ruth to prove that it didn't take any talent to hit homeruns, but it did to hit -- he knocked 5 out of the park in those two days) but was also considered the meanest guy in baseball, and a racist. He once was suspended for climbing into the stands and getting into a fight with a fan. Perhaps most ironically, he was also forced to quit baseball after allegations that he (and others) fixed a game in 1919. He was later reinstated when witnesses wouldn't testify. In fact, he was the first person inducted into the Hall of Fame, getting 222 out of 226 votes. These are only two of many stars with somewhat questionable pasts who reside in Cooperstown.
But maybe the argument should be restricted to modern players? How about Darryl Strawberry? Multiple instances of drug usage and possession leading in multiple suspensions (but never expulsion). How about Ken Caminiti, who admitted recently to using steroids prior to and during his 1996 MVP season. Estimates of steroid use among big leaguers is anywhere between 30% and 85% of all players. ALL PLAYERS!!! Barry Bonds, the current record holder for most homeruns hit in a single season (beating out Mark McGuire's record set a year earlier - but "tainted" when a steroid-like substance was found in his system), said in 2002 of testing for steroids, "Doctors ought to quit worrying about what ballplayers are taking. What players take doesn’t matter. It’s nobody else’s business." In November of 2003 when Barry Bonds personal trainer Greg Anderson was found to have anabolic steroids and other performance enhancing drugs within his possession, Bonds did a big mea culpa, but never admitted to using.
But I digress. If you are to use MLB's argument that baseball is somehow too sacred for including Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame, one begins to question exactly what kind of double standard exists. When MLB won't include a sensible drug testing policy for its players because it fears the lost revenue for up to 85% of its players not playing due to various drug violations (including steroids), how can anyone take Major League Baseball seriously on this? When you look at the sordid history of this great sport, how can MLB even think for an instant that Pete Rose is somehow worse than any of the other multitude of colorful figures that live in the history of Cooperstown? Of all of the challenges that face modern MLB, how can we say that the greatest hitter of all time isn't allowed a place in history, as if Pete Rose didn't exist? Imagining that his personal problems are somehow worse than those of Ruth, Bonds or Shoeless Joe Jackson?
Yes, by all means decry that Pete Rose is a deplorable person. Please, if you desire, put a large plaque next to his display in Cooperstown that says that he was banned from baseball for gambling. Require that his entry into Cooperstown is only contingent on him providing x number of hours per year doing community service speaking out against gambling and then only upon his death will he be considered for the Hall of Fame. There are concessions that he should make. But how can we justify excluding him from the Hall of Fame when he was one of the best to ever play the game? Worst of all, what are we to tell our kids who emulate players when playing "pickle" and dream of walking out to thousands of screaming fans in the house that Ruth built? If we take the lead from MLB, then it's, "Son, if you wanna make it to Cooperstown someday, feel free to drink, snort, smoke or inject yourself with whatever it takes to get you there. Be whatever SOB you wanna be. Get a good agent. But whatever you do, DON'T gamble. You don't wanna end up like Pete Rose."
I must admit that I was caught up in the hype this past October. For the first time since I was 12 years old, I actually cared about professional baseball. I know, I know, sad but true. It was much to my wife's distaste, but between the prospect of at least one curse being broken in either Chicago or Boston and my general distaste for buying a great team (New York) or basing a team sport on one person (San Francisco) coupled with my relief of not having to see Roy Rogers hat this year, I couldn't take my eyes off of the television. Not even the ridiculous advertising broadcast on the blue screen behind home plate could take away from the theatrics. That is of course until Boston and Chicago lost. However, the damage was done. The sport that I loved to play as a child had returned to me in all of its former glory.
So why the dissertation on the wonders of baseball in the middle of January? Two little words that plague the sport: Pete Rose. Last week it was revealed to the world (via making a profit with his new "tell all" book) that he did indeed bet on baseball prior to being banned from the sport in the 1980's. Now, I am not interested in moralizing what he did. It does not interest me as to debate the extent to which his deplorable behavior whittled away at the foundation of America's pastime. My problem with this whole scenario has to do with the debate as to whether or not Pete Rose should be allowed into the Baseball Hall of Fame.
Pete Rose's affirmation of gambling was, by all accounts, an declaration of years of systemic despicable behavior including those years in which he, quite literally, gambled with the career he had -- the career that most of the rest of us consider a dream. I do not excuse his behavior, nor do I attempt to make sense of it. I cannot fathom putting yourself, your career and your life at risk, especially when you consider the gift that his career really was. But I cannot understand why he has been excluded from the Baseball Hall of Fame, either. Pete Rose remains the most prolific hitter in the history of baseball and as a player, and later as a coach, was one of the great figures in the game's history. No one questions this. And yet, the commissioner of baseball has yet to rule on whether or not he will be reinstated to the game after he was banned for life. The baseball writers association who make the determinations as to who enters the Hall of Fame have denounced his actions. Many writers have gone on to say they would boycott any ballot with Pete Rose's name on it. They associate Pete Rose with the Chicago Black Sox (8 players in 1919 who were banned forever from baseball when they were accused of throwing the world series for $100,000 -- they were all acquitted of any criminal charges, but remain banned from baseball). In short, the prospect of Pete Rose being in the Hall of Fame to them is akin to having a whore as the pope.
The whole scenario makes me laugh. Not so much that so many people are against Pete Rose being in the Hall of Fame; that much is understandable. What is funny is that from the inception of this scandal back in the late 1980's, baseball is attempting to take the moral high road! BASEBALL!!!! THE MORAL HIGH ROAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Is there anything that is more obscenely perverse and yet hilarious? Pete Rose is not allowed in the Hall of Fame. But Babe Ruth is in the Hall of Fame. The "Sultan of Swat" is one of the biggest hitters ever. He was also considerably overweight (especially for a professional athlete), smoked like a chimney, drank like a sailor and womanized. Or then there is Ty Cobb, the notorious Detroit Tiger (whose hitting record Pete Rose broke) not only was an incredible hitter (over two days once, he switched his grip on his bat like Babe Ruth to prove that it didn't take any talent to hit homeruns, but it did to hit -- he knocked 5 out of the park in those two days) but was also considered the meanest guy in baseball, and a racist. He once was suspended for climbing into the stands and getting into a fight with a fan. Perhaps most ironically, he was also forced to quit baseball after allegations that he (and others) fixed a game in 1919. He was later reinstated when witnesses wouldn't testify. In fact, he was the first person inducted into the Hall of Fame, getting 222 out of 226 votes. These are only two of many stars with somewhat questionable pasts who reside in Cooperstown.
But maybe the argument should be restricted to modern players? How about Darryl Strawberry? Multiple instances of drug usage and possession leading in multiple suspensions (but never expulsion). How about Ken Caminiti, who admitted recently to using steroids prior to and during his 1996 MVP season. Estimates of steroid use among big leaguers is anywhere between 30% and 85% of all players. ALL PLAYERS!!! Barry Bonds, the current record holder for most homeruns hit in a single season (beating out Mark McGuire's record set a year earlier - but "tainted" when a steroid-like substance was found in his system), said in 2002 of testing for steroids, "Doctors ought to quit worrying about what ballplayers are taking. What players take doesn’t matter. It’s nobody else’s business." In November of 2003 when Barry Bonds personal trainer Greg Anderson was found to have anabolic steroids and other performance enhancing drugs within his possession, Bonds did a big mea culpa, but never admitted to using.
But I digress. If you are to use MLB's argument that baseball is somehow too sacred for including Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame, one begins to question exactly what kind of double standard exists. When MLB won't include a sensible drug testing policy for its players because it fears the lost revenue for up to 85% of its players not playing due to various drug violations (including steroids), how can anyone take Major League Baseball seriously on this? When you look at the sordid history of this great sport, how can MLB even think for an instant that Pete Rose is somehow worse than any of the other multitude of colorful figures that live in the history of Cooperstown? Of all of the challenges that face modern MLB, how can we say that the greatest hitter of all time isn't allowed a place in history, as if Pete Rose didn't exist? Imagining that his personal problems are somehow worse than those of Ruth, Bonds or Shoeless Joe Jackson?
Yes, by all means decry that Pete Rose is a deplorable person. Please, if you desire, put a large plaque next to his display in Cooperstown that says that he was banned from baseball for gambling. Require that his entry into Cooperstown is only contingent on him providing x number of hours per year doing community service speaking out against gambling and then only upon his death will he be considered for the Hall of Fame. There are concessions that he should make. But how can we justify excluding him from the Hall of Fame when he was one of the best to ever play the game? Worst of all, what are we to tell our kids who emulate players when playing "pickle" and dream of walking out to thousands of screaming fans in the house that Ruth built? If we take the lead from MLB, then it's, "Son, if you wanna make it to Cooperstown someday, feel free to drink, snort, smoke or inject yourself with whatever it takes to get you there. Be whatever SOB you wanna be. Get a good agent. But whatever you do, DON'T gamble. You don't wanna end up like Pete Rose."
Friday, January 23, 2004
Comments, anyone?
Quick note -- commenting is now back online, although it seems that the hundred or so comments that we've received in recent months have been lost. So, if you had something to say about any of the past few articles, be sure to click the add/view comments link on the end of each article and be heard!
Quick note -- commenting is now back online, although it seems that the hundred or so comments that we've received in recent months have been lost. So, if you had something to say about any of the past few articles, be sure to click the add/view comments link on the end of each article and be heard!
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
Iowha...?
Anyone who watched the acceptance and concession speeches tonight from the Iowa caucuses, and as a result doesn't love Edwards and loathe Dean, is, to me, a bit beyond hope, politically speaking. Anger can only take you so far. I mean, look at this guy. And he sounded worse. No class. No decency. Nothing but rage and sour grapes and arrogance and childish temper tantrums. What an ass.
In a way, I'm torn. With Dean finishing a distant third (after being all but assured a wide victory in the polls until he kept opening his mouth this past week), that's a pretty severe (though not insurmountable) blow to his campaign. Since I firmly, honestly believe he would be one of the worst presidents in our nation's history, part of me is breathing a sigh of relief that such a nightmare scenario is now less likely. But my selfish, Bush-supporting side is sad, because really, everyone knows Dean is unelectable, and wouldn't be able to secure a single southern state, and would therefore lose in an electoral landslide to Bush. I'm not a big Kerry fan, either, but I certainly acknowledge he's more of a threat to Bush than Dean was, so I bet the White House shares a bit of my unease here.
Now, as for Edwards, with a close second place finish, he's gone from being an also-ran to a major contender. I've always said Edwards was the biggest threat to Bush's reelection, because he's decent, honorable, interesting, intelligent, and, well, you all know what a relatively strong Bush supporter I am, and yet if it were a race between those two, I might have to go with Edwards. If generally right-leaning me could be persuaded, imagine how the moderates and indepedents will feel.
In the footnote section, Clinton-backed General Clark and Joe Lieberman both finished below "uncommitted" in the caucus, so I'm guessing unless one of them pulls off a miracle in New Hampshire, they're as cooked as Kucinich and Sharpton. Rounding out the field, fourth-place winning Adam-West-channeling-John-Wayne candidate Gephardt is announcing he's dropping out today, so I guess we'll at least be free of his bizarre arm sweeps and hand gestures for the upcoming Thursday debate.
The plot thickens.
Anyone who watched the acceptance and concession speeches tonight from the Iowa caucuses, and as a result doesn't love Edwards and loathe Dean, is, to me, a bit beyond hope, politically speaking. Anger can only take you so far. I mean, look at this guy. And he sounded worse. No class. No decency. Nothing but rage and sour grapes and arrogance and childish temper tantrums. What an ass.
In a way, I'm torn. With Dean finishing a distant third (after being all but assured a wide victory in the polls until he kept opening his mouth this past week), that's a pretty severe (though not insurmountable) blow to his campaign. Since I firmly, honestly believe he would be one of the worst presidents in our nation's history, part of me is breathing a sigh of relief that such a nightmare scenario is now less likely. But my selfish, Bush-supporting side is sad, because really, everyone knows Dean is unelectable, and wouldn't be able to secure a single southern state, and would therefore lose in an electoral landslide to Bush. I'm not a big Kerry fan, either, but I certainly acknowledge he's more of a threat to Bush than Dean was, so I bet the White House shares a bit of my unease here.
Now, as for Edwards, with a close second place finish, he's gone from being an also-ran to a major contender. I've always said Edwards was the biggest threat to Bush's reelection, because he's decent, honorable, interesting, intelligent, and, well, you all know what a relatively strong Bush supporter I am, and yet if it were a race between those two, I might have to go with Edwards. If generally right-leaning me could be persuaded, imagine how the moderates and indepedents will feel.
In the footnote section, Clinton-backed General Clark and Joe Lieberman both finished below "uncommitted" in the caucus, so I'm guessing unless one of them pulls off a miracle in New Hampshire, they're as cooked as Kucinich and Sharpton. Rounding out the field, fourth-place winning Adam-West-channeling-John-Wayne candidate Gephardt is announcing he's dropping out today, so I guess we'll at least be free of his bizarre arm sweeps and hand gestures for the upcoming Thursday debate.
The plot thickens.
Sunday, January 18, 2004
A Lott of Pickering Bickering
In May 2001, President Bush nominated popular Mississippi Judge Charles Pickering to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, prompting a nearly three year confirmation battle which "ended" when the President recently slid him in on a technicality -- that is, with a "recess appointment," when Congress was not in session and therefore can't confirm nor oppose a candidate. Recess appointments are a bit limited in that they only last until the next congress can vote on them (in this case, January 2005), but until then, he's in. The difficulties in Pickering's initial nomination were similar to those surrounding Owen, Pryor, and Estrada, in that although a majority of the Senate (56-58%) would have confirmed each nominee, a full 60% of the Senate must vote to break a filibuster in the debate on a candidate, a loophole which has been described as everything from a necessary check and balance to an unconstitutional "hijacking" of the nomination process. Naturally, after years of pulling out all the stops to deny Pickering this up-or-down vote, the Democrats are furious over Bush's decision.
Trent Lott, the Republican senator who pushed Pickering's candicacy with the most zeal, predictably praised Bush's action.
In a historical context, of course, Republicans under Clinton blocked many, many more nominees than Democrats have under Bush, and so the right's outrage over this handful always seemed, to me, a little overblown. In turn, the language of prominent Democrats has also been out of line, notably Kennedy's insensitive description of the group of highly educated (and largely minority or female) candidates as "neanderthals", and recently leaked Democrat memos which illustrated the left's fear of Estrada specifically because he was a Latino candidate, reflecting continued paranoia over allowing Republicans to ever appear helpful to minorities in any way, which might risk a loss of essential minority votes.
The concerns over Pickering largely stem from his 1959 law review article (Pickering was 21) entitled "Criminal Law Miscegenation/Incest," which pointed out the loopholes in then-current laws prohibiting the marriage of black and white Mississippians. Mississippi legislators used his article to close the loopholes, assuring interracial marriages stayed banned, and Pickering rose to a bit of prominence. What's sometimes lost in this historical analysis is that the larger point of Pickering's article was that it would be silly to bother fixing the problems, because "recent decisions in the fields of education, transportation, and recreation would cause one to wonder how long the Supreme Court will allow any statute to stand which uses the term 'race' to draw a distinction." It took no position on whether the law was valid or invalid, merely that it was poorly written. Now, I don't think one could call Pickering a champion of civil rights here, but he's hardly the wannabe Klansman the left has portrayed him as. Indeed, his vigorous prosecution of KKK Wizards (when no one else was willing to fight them), being among the first prosecutors to hire black staffers, and, as a private attorney, crossing racial lines and defending black clients, made him well-known and respected to local black leaders, and ostracized by the still-strong 60s and 70s pro-segregation crowd. Considering that even several current Senate and House Democrats were among the ones who opposed 1960s Civil Rights Legislation, and the nearly forgotten historical fact that Republicans supported the Civil Rights acts over the objections of Democrats, rejection of Pickering on "racial" grounds seems a bit hypocritical, or at least disingenous, additionally considering the overwhelming bi-partisian and bi-racial support for his nomination from his home state.
Now, as for the more recent controversy, there's a valid debate over which side is being more ridiculous -- Republicans for acting like this is the first time Senators have blocked unpopular nominees, or Democrats for acting like this is the first time a President has used the recess appointment to get around the blocks. After all, in December 2000, President Clinton used the same tactic to install Roger Gregory on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, after Republicans blocked his nomination earlier that year. But here's the funny part. After seven months of serving on this temporary pass, Gregory, the first black judge to ever serve on that court, was the first candidate to be nominated for full confirmation by newly elected President Bush. And indeed, the senate overwhelmingly confirmed Gregory, by a vote of 93-1. 93-1!
So who was this 1 maverick senator who refused to confirm such a bi-partisan choice so highly supported by not one, but two sitting Presidents? Why, aforementioned Pickering-booster Trent Lott, of course! But why? Did he disagree with Gregory's positions? Abilities? Skin color? Nope -- because (get this) on principle, he vowed to vote against "any approval of federal judges" that were installed by use of a recess appointment!
And people wonder why I love politics.
In May 2001, President Bush nominated popular Mississippi Judge Charles Pickering to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, prompting a nearly three year confirmation battle which "ended" when the President recently slid him in on a technicality -- that is, with a "recess appointment," when Congress was not in session and therefore can't confirm nor oppose a candidate. Recess appointments are a bit limited in that they only last until the next congress can vote on them (in this case, January 2005), but until then, he's in. The difficulties in Pickering's initial nomination were similar to those surrounding Owen, Pryor, and Estrada, in that although a majority of the Senate (56-58%) would have confirmed each nominee, a full 60% of the Senate must vote to break a filibuster in the debate on a candidate, a loophole which has been described as everything from a necessary check and balance to an unconstitutional "hijacking" of the nomination process. Naturally, after years of pulling out all the stops to deny Pickering this up-or-down vote, the Democrats are furious over Bush's decision.
Trent Lott, the Republican senator who pushed Pickering's candicacy with the most zeal, predictably praised Bush's action.
In a historical context, of course, Republicans under Clinton blocked many, many more nominees than Democrats have under Bush, and so the right's outrage over this handful always seemed, to me, a little overblown. In turn, the language of prominent Democrats has also been out of line, notably Kennedy's insensitive description of the group of highly educated (and largely minority or female) candidates as "neanderthals", and recently leaked Democrat memos which illustrated the left's fear of Estrada specifically because he was a Latino candidate, reflecting continued paranoia over allowing Republicans to ever appear helpful to minorities in any way, which might risk a loss of essential minority votes.
The concerns over Pickering largely stem from his 1959 law review article (Pickering was 21) entitled "Criminal Law Miscegenation/Incest," which pointed out the loopholes in then-current laws prohibiting the marriage of black and white Mississippians. Mississippi legislators used his article to close the loopholes, assuring interracial marriages stayed banned, and Pickering rose to a bit of prominence. What's sometimes lost in this historical analysis is that the larger point of Pickering's article was that it would be silly to bother fixing the problems, because "recent decisions in the fields of education, transportation, and recreation would cause one to wonder how long the Supreme Court will allow any statute to stand which uses the term 'race' to draw a distinction." It took no position on whether the law was valid or invalid, merely that it was poorly written. Now, I don't think one could call Pickering a champion of civil rights here, but he's hardly the wannabe Klansman the left has portrayed him as. Indeed, his vigorous prosecution of KKK Wizards (when no one else was willing to fight them), being among the first prosecutors to hire black staffers, and, as a private attorney, crossing racial lines and defending black clients, made him well-known and respected to local black leaders, and ostracized by the still-strong 60s and 70s pro-segregation crowd. Considering that even several current Senate and House Democrats were among the ones who opposed 1960s Civil Rights Legislation, and the nearly forgotten historical fact that Republicans supported the Civil Rights acts over the objections of Democrats, rejection of Pickering on "racial" grounds seems a bit hypocritical, or at least disingenous, additionally considering the overwhelming bi-partisian and bi-racial support for his nomination from his home state.
Now, as for the more recent controversy, there's a valid debate over which side is being more ridiculous -- Republicans for acting like this is the first time Senators have blocked unpopular nominees, or Democrats for acting like this is the first time a President has used the recess appointment to get around the blocks. After all, in December 2000, President Clinton used the same tactic to install Roger Gregory on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, after Republicans blocked his nomination earlier that year. But here's the funny part. After seven months of serving on this temporary pass, Gregory, the first black judge to ever serve on that court, was the first candidate to be nominated for full confirmation by newly elected President Bush. And indeed, the senate overwhelmingly confirmed Gregory, by a vote of 93-1. 93-1!
So who was this 1 maverick senator who refused to confirm such a bi-partisan choice so highly supported by not one, but two sitting Presidents? Why, aforementioned Pickering-booster Trent Lott, of course! But why? Did he disagree with Gregory's positions? Abilities? Skin color? Nope -- because (get this) on principle, he vowed to vote against "any approval of federal judges" that were installed by use of a recess appointment!
And people wonder why I love politics.
Tuesday, January 13, 2004
Pot or Not?
John Walters, the President's Drug Czar, said that today's marijuana has a THC level of 30%. That compares to the 1960's variety of about 1%. He also said one out of five accidents are caused by drugged-up drivers. And he said one of the greatest problems in fighting the drug war is that too many parents think smoking pot is no big deal. So, I decided to rethink this question. . . . . . . . . . (been thinking for a long time) . . . . . . . . ahhhhhhh.
I am a parent, and I will choose to think It (smoking pot) is a very big deal. Even if the 30% THC potency is for only the rich and the average street dope is 10% THC, I will think It a very big deal.
First, compare It to the cigarette industry. Every once in a while, Kools will come out with a buy-one-get-one-free or even a buy-one-get-two-free special. After years of not smoking, it's still hard to resist the ON-SALE aspect. And I believe the on-sale Kools are deliberately more tasty, more potent, more addictive, more of what a smoker craves. This is my fifth time quitting, and the only thing that keeps me from going back is the knowledge that they are manipulating me and I hate being manipulated more than I crave Kools.
In the Fifties, cigarette smoking was the bad-guy James Dean image. The pack of Camels went right along with the greasy hair and tightly pegged pants. Overtly sexy, overtly rebellious. Pot was barely there unless you were a musician or an inner city Cool Cat.
Then the Baby Boomers went to college, studied philosophy and history, and saw there were many sides to "truth." In the Sixties a small group of beatnicks became hippies, and part of the attraction of pot was its exclusivity to this cult. It was like a secret handshake for that small inner circle of people that held similar ideals (or music, of course) and it made a statement to the authorities. It said we didn't believe all the propaganda and lies they spewed during the McCarthy Era and the Cold War Era about war, society, poverty, racism, anything. We could define ourselves by our very peaceful Ghandi-like, idealistic views of a world that really could be as good as it should be -- not just the way it was. We searched for mind-expansion through chemistry -- ha ha ha, ho ho ho, hee hee hee, har har har, what a hoot! But we really took ourselves very very seriously.
Then the Seventies came. Every other guy started growing long hair, smoking pot, wearing bell-bottomed jeans and t-shirts hoping to partake in some "free-love". You used to be able trust that a hippy had the same standards and goals that started the movement. But in the Seventies, many of the guys with long hair were just racist, hate-filled red-necks that believed in war but were too cowardly to stand up and fight for what they believed in. It was very hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys. To them, pot was just a replacement for, or more often, a companion to, beer.
The Eighties were even worse. The debutante had her coming out party and the I-Me-Mine Generation was implanted solidly into our society. Feel good, look good, have fun, get high, spend as much time and money on oneself as possible. Movers and Shakers. Oh, what a group! At least they gave us a strong economy. All the spending and wasting and using gave a job to everyone that wanted one. They went way past pot to coke and who knows what.
Did the Nineties calm down? It seemed to, at first, but maybe I just stopped looking. I was too busy raising kids. My son had a great group of computer friends that chatted on BBS's and came in the middle of the night to save a crashed hard drive so he could finish his homework. Life seemed good, until my daughter turned into a teenager. (Yikes!) By the Nineties, little kids smoked cigarettes AND pot, AND drank, AND snorted cocaine, AND had sex, AND AND AND. Never have a teenage daughter in the Nineties. It was horrible. I wouldn't even let her ride a bicycle or walk home from school -- I was so scared. So she spent her Saturday evenings in a nice drug-free coffee house (boy, was I naive).
I don't know if all these self-destructive behaviors are nature's plan to weed out the weak and feeble-minded, or if it's just another example of the mafia/drug cartel's business-as-usual feeding off the suffering of a stupefied humankind. Are we losing our most vulnerable, our gentlest fragile souls to an imaginary world of synthetic adventures and hallucinatory accomplishments? Or are we just sweeping aside the whiners who are unfit for reality anyway? Guess we need to get our minimum wagers from somewhere.
We have all seen the ex-hippies, the middle aged wrinkled balding children of the sixties with their fried brains and dysfunctional night vision meander through town still thinking they are cool. And cool is all that counts. To them. I guess John met one in Lansing just the other night.
And we've all seen the new hippies with their inept work ethic. I don't care how cool they think they are, I really resent having these stoners control any moment of my day. (Do you hear that little miss Why-Don't-You-Chill-Out?) Remember the commercial with the giggling surgeons passing a joint with one hand and a scalpel with the other hand and YOU are the one on the operating table?
It is very hard to recognize truth in this world of psychology-infested commercialism. Maybe it is "just pot" and it is only as bad as alcohol. It may be stronger, but one can smoke less?
No!
It is not "just pot," and either way, it doesn't matter if it is or is not "just the same" as drinking. This much I have come to realize.
Anytime you use anything to simulate or hallucinate a pleasant emotion instead of finding ways to actually be happy, focused, and satisfied, you are depriving yourself the opportunity to grow up, and to learn who you really are and what you can really do with this life. What is your real purpose? When you live out of reality, you accomplish nothing. You solve nothing. You become nothing. There is no way, and certainly no need, to solve a problem if you know you will feel better on Saturday Night with a toke or two. Instead of making your life better, you just learn to tolerate it. Is that what you want?
How about seeing a return of the sixties without the pot/booze/drugs -- groups of young people striving to make the world the way it should be, not just more and more the way it is.
That's what I want.
John Walters, the President's Drug Czar, said that today's marijuana has a THC level of 30%. That compares to the 1960's variety of about 1%. He also said one out of five accidents are caused by drugged-up drivers. And he said one of the greatest problems in fighting the drug war is that too many parents think smoking pot is no big deal. So, I decided to rethink this question. . . . . . . . . . (been thinking for a long time) . . . . . . . . ahhhhhhh.
I am a parent, and I will choose to think It (smoking pot) is a very big deal. Even if the 30% THC potency is for only the rich and the average street dope is 10% THC, I will think It a very big deal.
First, compare It to the cigarette industry. Every once in a while, Kools will come out with a buy-one-get-one-free or even a buy-one-get-two-free special. After years of not smoking, it's still hard to resist the ON-SALE aspect. And I believe the on-sale Kools are deliberately more tasty, more potent, more addictive, more of what a smoker craves. This is my fifth time quitting, and the only thing that keeps me from going back is the knowledge that they are manipulating me and I hate being manipulated more than I crave Kools.
In the Fifties, cigarette smoking was the bad-guy James Dean image. The pack of Camels went right along with the greasy hair and tightly pegged pants. Overtly sexy, overtly rebellious. Pot was barely there unless you were a musician or an inner city Cool Cat.
Then the Baby Boomers went to college, studied philosophy and history, and saw there were many sides to "truth." In the Sixties a small group of beatnicks became hippies, and part of the attraction of pot was its exclusivity to this cult. It was like a secret handshake for that small inner circle of people that held similar ideals (or music, of course) and it made a statement to the authorities. It said we didn't believe all the propaganda and lies they spewed during the McCarthy Era and the Cold War Era about war, society, poverty, racism, anything. We could define ourselves by our very peaceful Ghandi-like, idealistic views of a world that really could be as good as it should be -- not just the way it was. We searched for mind-expansion through chemistry -- ha ha ha, ho ho ho, hee hee hee, har har har, what a hoot! But we really took ourselves very very seriously.
Then the Seventies came. Every other guy started growing long hair, smoking pot, wearing bell-bottomed jeans and t-shirts hoping to partake in some "free-love". You used to be able trust that a hippy had the same standards and goals that started the movement. But in the Seventies, many of the guys with long hair were just racist, hate-filled red-necks that believed in war but were too cowardly to stand up and fight for what they believed in. It was very hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys. To them, pot was just a replacement for, or more often, a companion to, beer.
The Eighties were even worse. The debutante had her coming out party and the I-Me-Mine Generation was implanted solidly into our society. Feel good, look good, have fun, get high, spend as much time and money on oneself as possible. Movers and Shakers. Oh, what a group! At least they gave us a strong economy. All the spending and wasting and using gave a job to everyone that wanted one. They went way past pot to coke and who knows what.
Did the Nineties calm down? It seemed to, at first, but maybe I just stopped looking. I was too busy raising kids. My son had a great group of computer friends that chatted on BBS's and came in the middle of the night to save a crashed hard drive so he could finish his homework. Life seemed good, until my daughter turned into a teenager. (Yikes!) By the Nineties, little kids smoked cigarettes AND pot, AND drank, AND snorted cocaine, AND had sex, AND AND AND. Never have a teenage daughter in the Nineties. It was horrible. I wouldn't even let her ride a bicycle or walk home from school -- I was so scared. So she spent her Saturday evenings in a nice drug-free coffee house (boy, was I naive).
I don't know if all these self-destructive behaviors are nature's plan to weed out the weak and feeble-minded, or if it's just another example of the mafia/drug cartel's business-as-usual feeding off the suffering of a stupefied humankind. Are we losing our most vulnerable, our gentlest fragile souls to an imaginary world of synthetic adventures and hallucinatory accomplishments? Or are we just sweeping aside the whiners who are unfit for reality anyway? Guess we need to get our minimum wagers from somewhere.
We have all seen the ex-hippies, the middle aged wrinkled balding children of the sixties with their fried brains and dysfunctional night vision meander through town still thinking they are cool. And cool is all that counts. To them. I guess John met one in Lansing just the other night.
And we've all seen the new hippies with their inept work ethic. I don't care how cool they think they are, I really resent having these stoners control any moment of my day. (Do you hear that little miss Why-Don't-You-Chill-Out?) Remember the commercial with the giggling surgeons passing a joint with one hand and a scalpel with the other hand and YOU are the one on the operating table?
It is very hard to recognize truth in this world of psychology-infested commercialism. Maybe it is "just pot" and it is only as bad as alcohol. It may be stronger, but one can smoke less?
No!
It is not "just pot," and either way, it doesn't matter if it is or is not "just the same" as drinking. This much I have come to realize.
Anytime you use anything to simulate or hallucinate a pleasant emotion instead of finding ways to actually be happy, focused, and satisfied, you are depriving yourself the opportunity to grow up, and to learn who you really are and what you can really do with this life. What is your real purpose? When you live out of reality, you accomplish nothing. You solve nothing. You become nothing. There is no way, and certainly no need, to solve a problem if you know you will feel better on Saturday Night with a toke or two. Instead of making your life better, you just learn to tolerate it. Is that what you want?
How about seeing a return of the sixties without the pot/booze/drugs -- groups of young people striving to make the world the way it should be, not just more and more the way it is.
That's what I want.
Monday, January 12, 2004
The Evil of Two Lessers
Sorry I've been MIA for a bit; I assure my loyal ludicrosity readers that I've got some killer columns coming up. :)
In the meantime, let me share with you an image of Howard Dean after tonight's debate, apparently trying to engage Al Sharpton in conversation. Sharpton pointed out tonight that for all of Dean's rhetoric (and claims of being, get this, the "only white politician that ever talks about race"), Dean never -- not once -- appointed a single African American or Latino to his cabinet in twelve years of governing. Combined with saying several times that he wanted to be "the candidate for guys with Confederate flags on their pickup trucks," and his insistence to this day that only minority-filled inner cities should be subjected to gun control laws and restrictions, while rural white guys shouldn't even have restrictions on automatic assault weapons (giving him a 100% NRA rating, higher even than President Bush), could someone please tell me how this is the "future of the Democratic party?" A creepy, cowardly, clueless, extremist, racist prick?
I really was hoping the Democratic party would put up someone decent and reasonable -- I could have supported Lieberman, or even Edwards -- men who at least seem to know what they're talking about, who could build consensus, who could attract moderates, who could get things done. Even my most adamant Dean-supporting friends concede he's not very presidential, and his positions (the ones that don't change week to week based on new focus group polling) range from sigh-inducingly dull to extreme and indefensible.
In a country of 300 million people, it looks like we'll have to choose between Bush and Dean, to lead us. Those are, apparently, the two greatest individuals we as a nation could come up with.
Think we could try a little harder next time?
Sorry I've been MIA for a bit; I assure my loyal ludicrosity readers that I've got some killer columns coming up. :)
In the meantime, let me share with you an image of Howard Dean after tonight's debate, apparently trying to engage Al Sharpton in conversation. Sharpton pointed out tonight that for all of Dean's rhetoric (and claims of being, get this, the "only white politician that ever talks about race"), Dean never -- not once -- appointed a single African American or Latino to his cabinet in twelve years of governing. Combined with saying several times that he wanted to be "the candidate for guys with Confederate flags on their pickup trucks," and his insistence to this day that only minority-filled inner cities should be subjected to gun control laws and restrictions, while rural white guys shouldn't even have restrictions on automatic assault weapons (giving him a 100% NRA rating, higher even than President Bush), could someone please tell me how this is the "future of the Democratic party?" A creepy, cowardly, clueless, extremist, racist prick?
I really was hoping the Democratic party would put up someone decent and reasonable -- I could have supported Lieberman, or even Edwards -- men who at least seem to know what they're talking about, who could build consensus, who could attract moderates, who could get things done. Even my most adamant Dean-supporting friends concede he's not very presidential, and his positions (the ones that don't change week to week based on new focus group polling) range from sigh-inducingly dull to extreme and indefensible.
In a country of 300 million people, it looks like we'll have to choose between Bush and Dean, to lead us. Those are, apparently, the two greatest individuals we as a nation could come up with.
Think we could try a little harder next time?
Wednesday, January 07, 2004
While on the Subject of...
A woman came into our break lounge in total disgust. An upper upper management gentleman had used the unisex toilet, and as usual, he failed to lift the seat. He urinated all over the toilet seat, the sides of the toilet, the floor. It is as if he has such little respect for the people that work in our building, he insists on this urination ritual at every visit. How disgusting. How droll.
I let the woman rant and rave for several minutes, encouraged by our appropriately appalled co-workers, and then I began to turn the conversation into one of those life-long pet peeves that had finally found a forum. Why do women who sincerely believe themselves to be well-bred think nothing of peeing all over public restrooms, hovering precariously over the bowl for the misguided sake of sanitary class? Those who consider themselves really superior will take a minute to wipe dry the urine, but many just leave the vulgar yellow droplets to hang around. Wet or dry, what makes them think others want to see or sit in urine?
(You men didn’t know that about women, did you?)
Women who consider themselves totally sophisticated, well-traveled, intelligent, and well mannered, pee all over toilet seats. We ostracize our sons and husbands for the same behavior. We may even file a grievance if a high-positioned supervisor does it. But we are expected to forgive (or ignore) the fact that women pee on toilet seats because at least they followed the number one ladies bathroom etiquette rule: Don’t ever sit on a public toilet seat.
Unless you have to. Unless you are too sick, too short, too old, too young. Unless you are handicapped.
Which brings to mind another horrific problem. Non-handicapped women use the handicap facilities because they are roomier or sometimes the only stalls available. Unfortunately, as everywhere else, they pee all over the toilet seats. And sanitary tissue seat covers are inexplicably wall mounted high and unreachable to a wheelchair bound patron. She must either dry off the seat and try to cover the seat with toilet paper that slips and falls onto the floor, or she just hopes she won’t catch anything because Dear Abby said the only thing you can catch on a toilet seat is crabs. Gee, that makes those of us who are physically challenged feel so much better.
So tell me, why can’t women lift up the toilet seat? Why is that so absurd? Take a piece of toilet tissue so you don’t have to actually touch it, then LIFT IT UP. If you are not going to use it, if you're a man or a woman, LIFT IT UP. It’s a seat -- if you are not going to sit on it, LIFT IT UP.
A woman came into our break lounge in total disgust. An upper upper management gentleman had used the unisex toilet, and as usual, he failed to lift the seat. He urinated all over the toilet seat, the sides of the toilet, the floor. It is as if he has such little respect for the people that work in our building, he insists on this urination ritual at every visit. How disgusting. How droll.
I let the woman rant and rave for several minutes, encouraged by our appropriately appalled co-workers, and then I began to turn the conversation into one of those life-long pet peeves that had finally found a forum. Why do women who sincerely believe themselves to be well-bred think nothing of peeing all over public restrooms, hovering precariously over the bowl for the misguided sake of sanitary class? Those who consider themselves really superior will take a minute to wipe dry the urine, but many just leave the vulgar yellow droplets to hang around. Wet or dry, what makes them think others want to see or sit in urine?
(You men didn’t know that about women, did you?)
Women who consider themselves totally sophisticated, well-traveled, intelligent, and well mannered, pee all over toilet seats. We ostracize our sons and husbands for the same behavior. We may even file a grievance if a high-positioned supervisor does it. But we are expected to forgive (or ignore) the fact that women pee on toilet seats because at least they followed the number one ladies bathroom etiquette rule: Don’t ever sit on a public toilet seat.
Unless you have to. Unless you are too sick, too short, too old, too young. Unless you are handicapped.
Which brings to mind another horrific problem. Non-handicapped women use the handicap facilities because they are roomier or sometimes the only stalls available. Unfortunately, as everywhere else, they pee all over the toilet seats. And sanitary tissue seat covers are inexplicably wall mounted high and unreachable to a wheelchair bound patron. She must either dry off the seat and try to cover the seat with toilet paper that slips and falls onto the floor, or she just hopes she won’t catch anything because Dear Abby said the only thing you can catch on a toilet seat is crabs. Gee, that makes those of us who are physically challenged feel so much better.
So tell me, why can’t women lift up the toilet seat? Why is that so absurd? Take a piece of toilet tissue so you don’t have to actually touch it, then LIFT IT UP. If you are not going to use it, if you're a man or a woman, LIFT IT UP. It’s a seat -- if you are not going to sit on it, LIFT IT UP.
