Sunday, June 27, 2004
Carrie won’t answer her phone
My daughter Carrie is barely past her teens. She has lived the last decade with a phone apparently attached to her ear. At one time, I suspected it was an ear ring since who could possibly think of that many things to talk about? Carrie once told me that she and her friends would just go through the alphabet if they ran out of things to talk about i.e. what words start with the letter "A," etc., to trigger conversations. Yikes! My poor phone bills!
Last night, Carrie happened to call me. Lately, she has not been returning my calls. She said she doesn’t answer her phone anymore. And she doesn’t listen to the messages. Not from me, not from her friends, not from anyone.
Carrie said she is afraid to answer her phone and she is afraid to listen to her voice mail – she is getting very nasty phone calls from credit card companies. And every time they call they get meaner and nastier.
Credit Card companies? How could she possibly have a credit card? She hasn’t worked in years. She is a college student. I was horrified enough when I heard about John’s credit cards.
When John was a college student, he worked summers and part time during the school year. I understand why the banks gave him credit. But I thought it was like $300 or something manageable. Actually, he had a couple of credit cards. And although he had never earned more then $4,000 a year by his junior year in college he had amassed a credit card debt of $4,500. I was furious. How dare the credit card companies run up his debt to more than 112% of his annual income? That is outrageous. That is greedy. That is intentionally destroying a young person’s future by intentionally destroying the young person’s credit.
My bank manager at that time said the credit card business was the sole reason 20% of the banks in America were still in business. The money they made off credit cards kept them profitable. Obviously, very profitable. Else, why would we have banks on almost every corner? The banker also said that there were really only seven major banking firms that own most of the banking chains, and most were not even American owned, in fact, most were owned by Arabs.
I don’t know if that is still true. But the 9/11 attacks sure made me look at destructive attacks against Americans–subtle and not. Destroying a person’s credit in a society like America is a hugely subversive act. Bad credit means paying inflated prices for insurance, being denied home ownership, and sometimes is used to deny employment. Bad credit is devastating in America.
So why does the average household carry $8000 in bank credit card debt? And why do they pay an average of $1,000 in annual interest. Why do 80% of teens (ages 18-20) have credit cards? The average college student has $3000 in credit card debt by their fourth year. 25% of the adult population has some history of credit problems. In 1991, 1.3 million credit card holders declared bankruptcy. In 1992, Americans owed $660 Billion to these bank cards. It just keeps getting worse.
I wonder how to start a movement.
First, I want a 10% of annual income ceiling on accumulated credit card debt.
Second, I want some sort of parental input on credit to non-working students.
Third, I want some serious warnings and education directed at young people in the schools and directed at parents who live in a dream world where greed and treachery don’t feed on young people.
Fourth, I want my daughter to be able to answer her phone and talk to her friends and family.
My daughter Carrie is barely past her teens. She has lived the last decade with a phone apparently attached to her ear. At one time, I suspected it was an ear ring since who could possibly think of that many things to talk about? Carrie once told me that she and her friends would just go through the alphabet if they ran out of things to talk about i.e. what words start with the letter "A," etc., to trigger conversations. Yikes! My poor phone bills!
Last night, Carrie happened to call me. Lately, she has not been returning my calls. She said she doesn’t answer her phone anymore. And she doesn’t listen to the messages. Not from me, not from her friends, not from anyone.
Carrie said she is afraid to answer her phone and she is afraid to listen to her voice mail – she is getting very nasty phone calls from credit card companies. And every time they call they get meaner and nastier.
Credit Card companies? How could she possibly have a credit card? She hasn’t worked in years. She is a college student. I was horrified enough when I heard about John’s credit cards.
When John was a college student, he worked summers and part time during the school year. I understand why the banks gave him credit. But I thought it was like $300 or something manageable. Actually, he had a couple of credit cards. And although he had never earned more then $4,000 a year by his junior year in college he had amassed a credit card debt of $4,500. I was furious. How dare the credit card companies run up his debt to more than 112% of his annual income? That is outrageous. That is greedy. That is intentionally destroying a young person’s future by intentionally destroying the young person’s credit.
My bank manager at that time said the credit card business was the sole reason 20% of the banks in America were still in business. The money they made off credit cards kept them profitable. Obviously, very profitable. Else, why would we have banks on almost every corner? The banker also said that there were really only seven major banking firms that own most of the banking chains, and most were not even American owned, in fact, most were owned by Arabs.
I don’t know if that is still true. But the 9/11 attacks sure made me look at destructive attacks against Americans–subtle and not. Destroying a person’s credit in a society like America is a hugely subversive act. Bad credit means paying inflated prices for insurance, being denied home ownership, and sometimes is used to deny employment. Bad credit is devastating in America.
So why does the average household carry $8000 in bank credit card debt? And why do they pay an average of $1,000 in annual interest. Why do 80% of teens (ages 18-20) have credit cards? The average college student has $3000 in credit card debt by their fourth year. 25% of the adult population has some history of credit problems. In 1991, 1.3 million credit card holders declared bankruptcy. In 1992, Americans owed $660 Billion to these bank cards. It just keeps getting worse.
I wonder how to start a movement.
First, I want a 10% of annual income ceiling on accumulated credit card debt.
Second, I want some sort of parental input on credit to non-working students.
Third, I want some serious warnings and education directed at young people in the schools and directed at parents who live in a dream world where greed and treachery don’t feed on young people.
Fourth, I want my daughter to be able to answer her phone and talk to her friends and family.
Thursday, June 24, 2004
How do Americans get their information?
Increasingly, I wonder how the same world events, local events can be reported so differently depending on who's doing the reporting. (I am sure that this is nothing new, and all message givers have always had their own biases and agendas that lead to a less than "factual" message.)
What I think has changed, is the lack of discussion -- debate that used to go on that truly brought out both viewpoints. Where one could see faulty thinking, half truths and that made the listener question their own interpretations and do some actual hard core thinking, maybe even some self research.
The "right" listens to "right"-leaning radio shows. They watch the news with the same orientation, they read the newspapers that have the same interpretation as they do. Substitute "left" in this sentence and the same applies. If there is an exchange of views, there is nothing of the open, safe, forum that really leads to a good debate, a debate that is not won by denigrating the opponent or by using outrageously subjective or misleading arguments.
I used to love to listen to Rush when he had a caller that disagreed but really knew his stuff, and I came away with some new thought provoking insight. But increasingly, people seldom want to expose themselves to viewpoints with which they don't already agree.
So, Americans get their information from people, TV, radio, newspapers with the same view point as theirs, with the same interpretations as theirs, and with the same thinking as theirs. And we wonder why there are never any candidates with new thinking, solutions, questions, answers, ideas, or insight.
Increasingly, I wonder how the same world events, local events can be reported so differently depending on who's doing the reporting. (I am sure that this is nothing new, and all message givers have always had their own biases and agendas that lead to a less than "factual" message.)
What I think has changed, is the lack of discussion -- debate that used to go on that truly brought out both viewpoints. Where one could see faulty thinking, half truths and that made the listener question their own interpretations and do some actual hard core thinking, maybe even some self research.
The "right" listens to "right"-leaning radio shows. They watch the news with the same orientation, they read the newspapers that have the same interpretation as they do. Substitute "left" in this sentence and the same applies. If there is an exchange of views, there is nothing of the open, safe, forum that really leads to a good debate, a debate that is not won by denigrating the opponent or by using outrageously subjective or misleading arguments.
I used to love to listen to Rush when he had a caller that disagreed but really knew his stuff, and I came away with some new thought provoking insight. But increasingly, people seldom want to expose themselves to viewpoints with which they don't already agree.
So, Americans get their information from people, TV, radio, newspapers with the same view point as theirs, with the same interpretations as theirs, and with the same thinking as theirs. And we wonder why there are never any candidates with new thinking, solutions, questions, answers, ideas, or insight.
Friday, June 18, 2004
Quick Aretha Note
After much denying on Aretha's part, one of her producers finally admitted that her NBA Finals performance was, in fact, lip-synched. So I guess that settles that!
(I'm also happy to report that Linda's ludicrosity.com article, according to google, was the first online news source to bring it up! Not implying that anyone took their lead from us, of course, but it's still nice to know.)
Now the question is, does it matter? Certain teen superstars have made a career of lip-synching (I especially love Britney's once-a-minute, adjust-the-headset-mike conceit). And maybe the reason Aretha's was so obvious is because she doesn't have a lot of experience "faking it." Perhaps if her voice was off that night, she thought her fans would rather hear a good recording than a bad live performance. (And really, she may have been right.) It's not as if she grabbed a CD from ages ago -- it was just from last year, so I'm sure she's still "got it".
Unlike the Lakers. :)
After much denying on Aretha's part, one of her producers finally admitted that her NBA Finals performance was, in fact, lip-synched. So I guess that settles that!
(I'm also happy to report that Linda's ludicrosity.com article, according to google, was the first online news source to bring it up! Not implying that anyone took their lead from us, of course, but it's still nice to know.)
Now the question is, does it matter? Certain teen superstars have made a career of lip-synching (I especially love Britney's once-a-minute, adjust-the-headset-mike conceit). And maybe the reason Aretha's was so obvious is because she doesn't have a lot of experience "faking it." Perhaps if her voice was off that night, she thought her fans would rather hear a good recording than a bad live performance. (And really, she may have been right.) It's not as if she grabbed a CD from ages ago -- it was just from last year, so I'm sure she's still "got it".
Unlike the Lakers. :)
Thursday, June 17, 2004
Commission Impossible
From tonight's Capital Report Interview on CNBC:
GLORIA BORGER: In hindsight, Mr. Vice President, are you disappointed in the quality of the intelligence that you received before launching an attack against Iraq?
Vice Pres. CHENEY: I can't say that, Gloria. I think the decision we made was exactly the right one. Everything I know today, everything the president knows today, we would have done exactly the same thing. Saddam Hussein was an evil man. He'd launched two wars. He'd produced and used weapons of mass destruction in the past. He had provided safe harbor and sanctuary for terrorists. He was paying $25,000 a pop to the families of suicide bombers who'd kill Israelis. He hosted Abu Nidal in Baghdad, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, had established a relationship with Al Qaeda. This was an evil man who had tried previously to expand his influence in the area and we did exactly the right thing.
Now could we have better intelligence? You always want better intelligence. If you had complete knowledge on these kinds of decisions and issues, you wouldn't need a president to make the decision; some robot could. The President has to make judgments. You go to the president of the United States and you lay down a very strong case that this guy is all the things I've said plus had reconstituted his weapons of mass destruction program, tell him it's a slam dunk case and you've got the ongoing evidence of a relationship with Al Qaeda and we had 9/11. 9/11 changed a lot. Remember what happened after 9/11. We said henceforth we will no longer make a distinction between the terrorists and states that sponsor or have safe harbor sanctuary for terrorists. If you're going to host a terrorist, you're going to be held responsible for their actions just as much as the terrorists are, which is what we did in Afghanistan. And it's very important for us to remember that when 9/11 occurred, it forced us to look at the world a new way, that part of the world in particular, where in fact Saddam Hussein operated.
Amen, Cheney. What people keep missing in this whole Iraq/Al Qaeda issue is context. People see a misleading headline such as "9-11 Commission Finds no Ties Between Iraq and Al Qaeda" and don't bother to read the article. There are two separate questions -- whether Iraq and Al Qaeda collaborated on 9-11, and whether Iraq and Al Qaeda had a relationship at all. The first is separate from the second, and the lack of distinction in recent political discourse is contributing to why the public is confused. Many on the political left are more interested in deceiving the public (to discredit Bush) than discovering the truth. If this wasn't an election year, you can bet some of the methods of reporting would be different.
Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda independent of 9-11 have been well-documented. Obviously, we don't always know what was said. Although there's evidence of numerous connections and meetings, there's some debate as to whether it was in the context of collaboration, planning, conversation, etc. We know bin Laden met with Iraqi intelligence in 1995 and 1996 for assistance with making weapons; we know about Zarqawi's relationship and think we know about Atta's. But in many cases, we just knew the two forces were talking to each other; so in essence, the debate is whether the Bush administration theory that they were conspirators is supported by the facts. What's getting lost is the fact that not finding a lot of evidence to support one theory isn't the same as finding evidence to support an opposing theory.
Regardless, the action in Iraq had more to do with the timetables set up under Bush I, Clinton, and U.N. resolutions -- specifically, noncompliance of resolutions 660 and 678 (in 1990), 687 (in 1991), 1284 (in 1999), and 1441 (in 2002) made his ouster justified (hell, even mandated/required) by international law. The fact that a few European countries were derelect in their duty to fulfill these obligations (often because they had economic interests in Saddam's Iraq) does not make the decided action less justified. The only people who are upset that Iraq wasn't involved in 9-11 are those who mistakenly believe that was why we went in -- they were only related in the sense that, as Bush put it, it's clear that the stakes are higher now, that the problems of other nations could be problems in our backyard as well. Whether Iraq would have ever attacked us personally is somewhat of a non-issue, since it was never claimed that Iraq was an imminent threat -- only that we should pre-emptively act, as Bush repeatedly stated, before the threat was imminent. If we also knew Iraq was having conversations with Al Qaeda, the PLO, and Abu Nidal, it's not unreasonable to assume they may have had some similar interests or goals. But again, whether or not Saddam and Al Qaeda had relations or not is somewhat of a non-issue, since the resolutions Iraq was in breach of spanned 12 years and probably would/should have been acted on whether 9-11 happened or not.
Update: The Drudge Report reminds us today of Clinton's Justice Department's detailing of the link between Al Qaeda and Iraq in 1998, during the original Grand Jury Indictment of bin Laden (read the full text here.) Documents like this (and there are many) help illustrate how the Bush-haters' attempts at partisan revisionist history just won't work on the literate.
From tonight's Capital Report Interview on CNBC:
GLORIA BORGER: In hindsight, Mr. Vice President, are you disappointed in the quality of the intelligence that you received before launching an attack against Iraq?
Vice Pres. CHENEY: I can't say that, Gloria. I think the decision we made was exactly the right one. Everything I know today, everything the president knows today, we would have done exactly the same thing. Saddam Hussein was an evil man. He'd launched two wars. He'd produced and used weapons of mass destruction in the past. He had provided safe harbor and sanctuary for terrorists. He was paying $25,000 a pop to the families of suicide bombers who'd kill Israelis. He hosted Abu Nidal in Baghdad, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, had established a relationship with Al Qaeda. This was an evil man who had tried previously to expand his influence in the area and we did exactly the right thing.
Now could we have better intelligence? You always want better intelligence. If you had complete knowledge on these kinds of decisions and issues, you wouldn't need a president to make the decision; some robot could. The President has to make judgments. You go to the president of the United States and you lay down a very strong case that this guy is all the things I've said plus had reconstituted his weapons of mass destruction program, tell him it's a slam dunk case and you've got the ongoing evidence of a relationship with Al Qaeda and we had 9/11. 9/11 changed a lot. Remember what happened after 9/11. We said henceforth we will no longer make a distinction between the terrorists and states that sponsor or have safe harbor sanctuary for terrorists. If you're going to host a terrorist, you're going to be held responsible for their actions just as much as the terrorists are, which is what we did in Afghanistan. And it's very important for us to remember that when 9/11 occurred, it forced us to look at the world a new way, that part of the world in particular, where in fact Saddam Hussein operated.
Amen, Cheney. What people keep missing in this whole Iraq/Al Qaeda issue is context. People see a misleading headline such as "9-11 Commission Finds no Ties Between Iraq and Al Qaeda" and don't bother to read the article. There are two separate questions -- whether Iraq and Al Qaeda collaborated on 9-11, and whether Iraq and Al Qaeda had a relationship at all. The first is separate from the second, and the lack of distinction in recent political discourse is contributing to why the public is confused. Many on the political left are more interested in deceiving the public (to discredit Bush) than discovering the truth. If this wasn't an election year, you can bet some of the methods of reporting would be different.
Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda independent of 9-11 have been well-documented. Obviously, we don't always know what was said. Although there's evidence of numerous connections and meetings, there's some debate as to whether it was in the context of collaboration, planning, conversation, etc. We know bin Laden met with Iraqi intelligence in 1995 and 1996 for assistance with making weapons; we know about Zarqawi's relationship and think we know about Atta's. But in many cases, we just knew the two forces were talking to each other; so in essence, the debate is whether the Bush administration theory that they were conspirators is supported by the facts. What's getting lost is the fact that not finding a lot of evidence to support one theory isn't the same as finding evidence to support an opposing theory.
Regardless, the action in Iraq had more to do with the timetables set up under Bush I, Clinton, and U.N. resolutions -- specifically, noncompliance of resolutions 660 and 678 (in 1990), 687 (in 1991), 1284 (in 1999), and 1441 (in 2002) made his ouster justified (hell, even mandated/required) by international law. The fact that a few European countries were derelect in their duty to fulfill these obligations (often because they had economic interests in Saddam's Iraq) does not make the decided action less justified. The only people who are upset that Iraq wasn't involved in 9-11 are those who mistakenly believe that was why we went in -- they were only related in the sense that, as Bush put it, it's clear that the stakes are higher now, that the problems of other nations could be problems in our backyard as well. Whether Iraq would have ever attacked us personally is somewhat of a non-issue, since it was never claimed that Iraq was an imminent threat -- only that we should pre-emptively act, as Bush repeatedly stated, before the threat was imminent. If we also knew Iraq was having conversations with Al Qaeda, the PLO, and Abu Nidal, it's not unreasonable to assume they may have had some similar interests or goals. But again, whether or not Saddam and Al Qaeda had relations or not is somewhat of a non-issue, since the resolutions Iraq was in breach of spanned 12 years and probably would/should have been acted on whether 9-11 happened or not.
Update: The Drudge Report reminds us today of Clinton's Justice Department's detailing of the link between Al Qaeda and Iraq in 1998, during the original Grand Jury Indictment of bin Laden (read the full text here.) Documents like this (and there are many) help illustrate how the Bush-haters' attempts at partisan revisionist history just won't work on the literate.
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
Aretha - Did You or Didn't You?
I love Aretha Franklin with all my heart. I love her music, I love her story, I love the way she conducts herself. I am proud she is a neighbor to Detroit area residents. But tonight. Well, I hope I am wrong. But I really believe she lip-synced the National Anthem opening the June 15, 2004 NBA Championship game.
Could that be true? I worship Aretha. I looked forward to her version of the National Anthem almost as much as I looked forward to watching the Detroit Pistons’ great teamship beat the LA Lakers’ egomania. I anticipated every note and every rift.
But even if you had an excuse for the visuals being a little ahead of the audio, some issue of echo or technical problem on ABCs end, what about the other times where the visuals were behind the audio, or when it seemed her mouth moved in ways that weren't reflected in the vocals at all?
Aretha is just human. Ben Wallace, Rip Hamilton, Prince, Billips, and Rasheed are all just human. The Pistons are great because they work hard every minute. They don’t make every basket, but they sure do try and they work hard at making sure the Lakers have to strive for their baskets, too. That Midwest work ethic demands we do the best we can do every minute. It’s what we get paid to do. It’s how we created the middle class in the factories of Detroit. Work hard, get paid for it, and spend your money on stuff other people worked hard to make.
Aretha, girl, I would rather hear you sing flat on occasion. I would rather hear you strain. Hear you work hard. In fact that is why I have always loved to hear you sing. You have always shared the strain and successes of you life in the notes you sang. Does that make sense to you? I don’t think anyone would watch the Pistons & Lakers battle it out if we knew they were going to make every basket. There is nothing exciting in that.
And there is nothing exciting in lip-sync.
I love Aretha Franklin with all my heart. I love her music, I love her story, I love the way she conducts herself. I am proud she is a neighbor to Detroit area residents. But tonight. Well, I hope I am wrong. But I really believe she lip-synced the National Anthem opening the June 15, 2004 NBA Championship game.
Could that be true? I worship Aretha. I looked forward to her version of the National Anthem almost as much as I looked forward to watching the Detroit Pistons’ great teamship beat the LA Lakers’ egomania. I anticipated every note and every rift.
But even if you had an excuse for the visuals being a little ahead of the audio, some issue of echo or technical problem on ABCs end, what about the other times where the visuals were behind the audio, or when it seemed her mouth moved in ways that weren't reflected in the vocals at all?
Aretha is just human. Ben Wallace, Rip Hamilton, Prince, Billips, and Rasheed are all just human. The Pistons are great because they work hard every minute. They don’t make every basket, but they sure do try and they work hard at making sure the Lakers have to strive for their baskets, too. That Midwest work ethic demands we do the best we can do every minute. It’s what we get paid to do. It’s how we created the middle class in the factories of Detroit. Work hard, get paid for it, and spend your money on stuff other people worked hard to make.
Aretha, girl, I would rather hear you sing flat on occasion. I would rather hear you strain. Hear you work hard. In fact that is why I have always loved to hear you sing. You have always shared the strain and successes of you life in the notes you sang. Does that make sense to you? I don’t think anyone would watch the Pistons & Lakers battle it out if we knew they were going to make every basket. There is nothing exciting in that.
And there is nothing exciting in lip-sync.
Friday, June 11, 2004
Open Your Piehole
While getting into my car yesterday I noticed a bumper sticker plastered to side window of a nearby minivan. It read, "Support our troops, or shut your piehole." This is a sentiment seems to be one that is all too common in our society. While I have seen thousands upon thousands of different variations on the theme, "Support our troops" over the past few years, I can't help but wonder, "Who isn't?" The number of Americans who don't support our troops is shockingly low. Bob Dole, while speaking at a rally for Rolling Thunder (a group of veterans who recently voiced their support for GWB – a great irony to those of us who are still wondering how a dentist appointment in Alabama is proof of active duty against the Vietcong), claimed, "80-90% of Americans support our troops." I actually think this is a frighteningly low estimate. I think the actual number of people in this country who support our troops is well above 95%. But then again, that's my opinion. The attitude of Americans by and large is that overwhelming support. Look at the flags that fly all over our country, the daily news coverage of the troops coming home, the video and internet messages that are beamed to and from the Middle East, the tributes paid to the fallen, the list goes on and on. Even the protests that are more and more dotting the landscape of American society don't label our troops as "baby killers" and "murderers" as they did in Vietnam. The truth is that Americans DO support our troops and resoundingly so.
The problem with the aforementioned bumper sticker is really two fold. The first is that even if you don't support the troops, what those troops put their life on the line for is the ability of everyone in this country to stand up, open their "piehole" and NOT support our troops. Freedom of speech would be a lot easier if it just protected speech that everyone agreed on. But it doesn't. But then again, that's why we are privileged to have it.
The second problem is much more insidious. George W. Bush and his merry band of cronies have duped too many people in this nation to equate "questioning our leaders" with "you are un-American and don't support our troops in their hour of need." Often using Nixonian "dirty trick" techniques and a 24 hour news channel to help, they keep telling people that if you question what our president decides, then you are against the United States. If you disagree with and venture to question Bush about the reasons that we are in the war in Iraq, then you will likely be publicly hailed as a "whackjob." Even if you show Bush (and his cronies) the string of "revisions" to history they have made since the inception of this conflict, you will get blank stares and a meeting with some of Ashcroft's finest. Orwell would be happy that he came within twenty years of being right.
The point is this: questioning our leaders is not un-American nor does it signify that we don't support our troops. Rather, questioning our leaders is not only our right, but also our responsibility. Supporting those that fight for us is not only a responsibility but also an honor. And saying that anyone who questions the war, our role in it and/or the leaders who put us there is un-American is in itself un-American. I support our troops wholeheartedly and will gladly support getting them whatever they need to do their job effectively and as safely as possible. But I won't shut my piehole. To do so would simply be un-American.
While getting into my car yesterday I noticed a bumper sticker plastered to side window of a nearby minivan. It read, "Support our troops, or shut your piehole." This is a sentiment seems to be one that is all too common in our society. While I have seen thousands upon thousands of different variations on the theme, "Support our troops" over the past few years, I can't help but wonder, "Who isn't?" The number of Americans who don't support our troops is shockingly low. Bob Dole, while speaking at a rally for Rolling Thunder (a group of veterans who recently voiced their support for GWB – a great irony to those of us who are still wondering how a dentist appointment in Alabama is proof of active duty against the Vietcong), claimed, "80-90% of Americans support our troops." I actually think this is a frighteningly low estimate. I think the actual number of people in this country who support our troops is well above 95%. But then again, that's my opinion. The attitude of Americans by and large is that overwhelming support. Look at the flags that fly all over our country, the daily news coverage of the troops coming home, the video and internet messages that are beamed to and from the Middle East, the tributes paid to the fallen, the list goes on and on. Even the protests that are more and more dotting the landscape of American society don't label our troops as "baby killers" and "murderers" as they did in Vietnam. The truth is that Americans DO support our troops and resoundingly so.
The problem with the aforementioned bumper sticker is really two fold. The first is that even if you don't support the troops, what those troops put their life on the line for is the ability of everyone in this country to stand up, open their "piehole" and NOT support our troops. Freedom of speech would be a lot easier if it just protected speech that everyone agreed on. But it doesn't. But then again, that's why we are privileged to have it.
The second problem is much more insidious. George W. Bush and his merry band of cronies have duped too many people in this nation to equate "questioning our leaders" with "you are un-American and don't support our troops in their hour of need." Often using Nixonian "dirty trick" techniques and a 24 hour news channel to help, they keep telling people that if you question what our president decides, then you are against the United States. If you disagree with and venture to question Bush about the reasons that we are in the war in Iraq, then you will likely be publicly hailed as a "whackjob." Even if you show Bush (and his cronies) the string of "revisions" to history they have made since the inception of this conflict, you will get blank stares and a meeting with some of Ashcroft's finest. Orwell would be happy that he came within twenty years of being right.
The point is this: questioning our leaders is not un-American nor does it signify that we don't support our troops. Rather, questioning our leaders is not only our right, but also our responsibility. Supporting those that fight for us is not only a responsibility but also an honor. And saying that anyone who questions the war, our role in it and/or the leaders who put us there is un-American is in itself un-American. I support our troops wholeheartedly and will gladly support getting them whatever they need to do their job effectively and as safely as possible. But I won't shut my piehole. To do so would simply be un-American.
Wednesday, June 09, 2004
Nancy's Face
I have heard it said that the quality of a man may best be judged by looking into the countenance of his wife’s face.
As I watched Nancy Reagan today, I saw that it is true.
Nancy Reagan looked upon her husband’s casket as it was carried up the west steps of the Capitol. And her expression was one of deep affection and one of true respect.
You can believe or not believe that Ronald Reagan was a great president; that he was a good and moral man; that he was a strong leader; that his love and pride of America were a contagion that once spread and fortified our nation. But you cannot doubt that he was a loving and respectful husband.
The fortieth president was admired by the one who knew him best.
I have heard it said that the quality of a man may best be judged by looking into the countenance of his wife’s face.
As I watched Nancy Reagan today, I saw that it is true.
Nancy Reagan looked upon her husband’s casket as it was carried up the west steps of the Capitol. And her expression was one of deep affection and one of true respect.
You can believe or not believe that Ronald Reagan was a great president; that he was a good and moral man; that he was a strong leader; that his love and pride of America were a contagion that once spread and fortified our nation. But you cannot doubt that he was a loving and respectful husband.
The fortieth president was admired by the one who knew him best.
Tuesday, June 08, 2004
Quest for the Perfect Parallel
Last week, before Reagan's departure to the ultimate "shining city" obliterated all other news coverage, a curious change in rhetoric began sweeping over the political landscape. Whereas Bush and his supporters often likened the fight against terrorism (and therefore Iraq) to fighting "evil", in a general "evil is bad" sort of way, the D-Day anniversary begged for new comparisons to the Second World War. Condi Rice and Donni Rumsfeld stepped up these comparisons earlier this year (especially as it related to reconstruction efforts), and Bush himself has echoed the arguments in recent speeches, including his Air Force Academy address last Wednesday.
Some of the parallels strain credulity, specifically with regards to Rumsfeld's observation that disgruntled post-SS officers caused problems similar to the current Saddam loyalists and Iraqi insurgents -- true to a point, but we're talking about a few isolated incidents in Germany versus almost daily fighting in so-called "post-war" Iraq. Incidents against U.S. forces were rare in Japan, too, although Japan had suffered so much near the end they were more demoralized than angry. (Well, that, and MacArthur's first order was to completely disarm the Japanese populace, so that probably helped, too.)
But many other comparisons end up in Bush's favor. Unlike Germany and Japan, for example, Iraq sits on oil reserves which will provide an enormous amount of wealth for the nation, and make it less dependent on foreign aid than the post-WWII axis. (It also helps that Saddam was deposed with a shocking minimum of collateral damage to the country.) As Minnesota congressman Gil Gutknecht has pointed out, "it took three years to get an independent central bank in Germany. In Iraq, it took two months. It took 14 months to get police established in Germany. In Iraq, it took two months. It took 14 months to get a cabinet in Germany. In Iraq, it took four months." Indeed, the incredible speed and success of this occupation make post-war Germany and Japan seem molasses-slow. Also more than after WWII, despite the pain of the insurgencies, the Iraqi people are overwhelmingly supportive of the U.S. efforts, repeatedly stating than the removal of Saddam was worth any subsequent hardship by a 2 to 1 margin (62% to 30%), and that Iraq will certainly be better off in five years than if the coalition hadn't acted by more than an 8 to 1 margin (67% to 8%). And one can expect those numbers to increase when the governing council has full sovereignty.
All those decrying why we should have the right to "force democracy" on other peoples (how's that for an oxymoron) should find me a person currently living in Japan who hates how it all worked out for them. Theirs was a greater cultural and political shift than is now being tried in Iraq (and had just as many naysayers worldwide claiming the nations' respective peoples just "couldn't culturally adjust" to democracy, which really is quite insulting when you think about it.) The plan for post-war Japan immediately included such foreign concepts as a woman's right to vote, the disarming of the nation's weapons (civilian and military), holding free elections, redistribution of land wealth, forming labor unions, free exercise of religion, open instruction in schools, and tons of other changes similar to what we've done in Iraq and that were if anything a lot more radical for the Japanese. The occupation and interim government of Japan was essentially run by one man, General MacArthur, in many ways much more "unilateral" than anything Bush has done in the past two years (though there was more worldwide support, albeit only vocal.) And this occupation lasted seven years.
Of course, it is easy to point out that, unlike Iraq, Japan did in fact personally attack us, at Pearl Harbor. Perhaps an ambitious ludicrosity commenter would say "ah, but these comparisons you make seem more in tune with our invasion, occupation, and rebuilding of Afghanistan, not Iraq." But consider where this argument would logically take you, a la Susan Sarandon: "Iraq didn't attack us on 9-11. Iraq may have been led by a madman bent on world domination, tried exercising too much 'breathing room' and assassinating a world leader, was accumulating more illegal weapons programs in defiance of international law, was brutalizing its own people and committing acts of genocide against the Kurdish people through mass extermination, but they hadn't directly attacked us so it was none of our business." It doesn't take a stretch to word-swap Germany for Iraq, Pearl Harbor for 9-11, and the Jews for the Kurds before you've just talked yourself out of attacking Hitler. Sure, Saddam was more of a 1939 Hitler than a 1943 Hitler, but remember the whole point of this "pre-emption" was that it's better to wage a little war now than suffer through a big war later.
And does anyone really wish we hadn't entered WWII a few years earlier?
Last week, before Reagan's departure to the ultimate "shining city" obliterated all other news coverage, a curious change in rhetoric began sweeping over the political landscape. Whereas Bush and his supporters often likened the fight against terrorism (and therefore Iraq) to fighting "evil", in a general "evil is bad" sort of way, the D-Day anniversary begged for new comparisons to the Second World War. Condi Rice and Donni Rumsfeld stepped up these comparisons earlier this year (especially as it related to reconstruction efforts), and Bush himself has echoed the arguments in recent speeches, including his Air Force Academy address last Wednesday.
Some of the parallels strain credulity, specifically with regards to Rumsfeld's observation that disgruntled post-SS officers caused problems similar to the current Saddam loyalists and Iraqi insurgents -- true to a point, but we're talking about a few isolated incidents in Germany versus almost daily fighting in so-called "post-war" Iraq. Incidents against U.S. forces were rare in Japan, too, although Japan had suffered so much near the end they were more demoralized than angry. (Well, that, and MacArthur's first order was to completely disarm the Japanese populace, so that probably helped, too.)
But many other comparisons end up in Bush's favor. Unlike Germany and Japan, for example, Iraq sits on oil reserves which will provide an enormous amount of wealth for the nation, and make it less dependent on foreign aid than the post-WWII axis. (It also helps that Saddam was deposed with a shocking minimum of collateral damage to the country.) As Minnesota congressman Gil Gutknecht has pointed out, "it took three years to get an independent central bank in Germany. In Iraq, it took two months. It took 14 months to get police established in Germany. In Iraq, it took two months. It took 14 months to get a cabinet in Germany. In Iraq, it took four months." Indeed, the incredible speed and success of this occupation make post-war Germany and Japan seem molasses-slow. Also more than after WWII, despite the pain of the insurgencies, the Iraqi people are overwhelmingly supportive of the U.S. efforts, repeatedly stating than the removal of Saddam was worth any subsequent hardship by a 2 to 1 margin (62% to 30%), and that Iraq will certainly be better off in five years than if the coalition hadn't acted by more than an 8 to 1 margin (67% to 8%). And one can expect those numbers to increase when the governing council has full sovereignty.
All those decrying why we should have the right to "force democracy" on other peoples (how's that for an oxymoron) should find me a person currently living in Japan who hates how it all worked out for them. Theirs was a greater cultural and political shift than is now being tried in Iraq (and had just as many naysayers worldwide claiming the nations' respective peoples just "couldn't culturally adjust" to democracy, which really is quite insulting when you think about it.) The plan for post-war Japan immediately included such foreign concepts as a woman's right to vote, the disarming of the nation's weapons (civilian and military), holding free elections, redistribution of land wealth, forming labor unions, free exercise of religion, open instruction in schools, and tons of other changes similar to what we've done in Iraq and that were if anything a lot more radical for the Japanese. The occupation and interim government of Japan was essentially run by one man, General MacArthur, in many ways much more "unilateral" than anything Bush has done in the past two years (though there was more worldwide support, albeit only vocal.) And this occupation lasted seven years.
Of course, it is easy to point out that, unlike Iraq, Japan did in fact personally attack us, at Pearl Harbor. Perhaps an ambitious ludicrosity commenter would say "ah, but these comparisons you make seem more in tune with our invasion, occupation, and rebuilding of Afghanistan, not Iraq." But consider where this argument would logically take you, a la Susan Sarandon: "Iraq didn't attack us on 9-11. Iraq may have been led by a madman bent on world domination, tried exercising too much 'breathing room' and assassinating a world leader, was accumulating more illegal weapons programs in defiance of international law, was brutalizing its own people and committing acts of genocide against the Kurdish people through mass extermination, but they hadn't directly attacked us so it was none of our business." It doesn't take a stretch to word-swap Germany for Iraq, Pearl Harbor for 9-11, and the Jews for the Kurds before you've just talked yourself out of attacking Hitler. Sure, Saddam was more of a 1939 Hitler than a 1943 Hitler, but remember the whole point of this "pre-emption" was that it's better to wage a little war now than suffer through a big war later.
And does anyone really wish we hadn't entered WWII a few years earlier?
Friday, June 04, 2004
I See Fat People
My eldest sister lives on the East Coast. For years, she has expressed shock at what she sees in getting off planes in the Midwest: She sees Fat People.
She says people on the East and West Coasts don't tolerate obesity the way we do in the Midwest.
Well, I will say it loud and say it proud -- I am from Detroit! I am Fat! And I live in The Number One Fat-City! The other night, we even made Ted Koppel's Nightline! He concluded Detroiters are poor and poor people are fatter because they have fewer choices. Yea, right, Ted. Life is so simple when you are a journalist.
Actually, the only times I have been thin and in good shape are the times when I was too poor to buy food or the times I worked in factories and was too busy to eat. (I really enjoyed my brief factory years, that athletic side of my self! The power to hit a tennis ball straight across the net. The confidence I could survive anything.) The trainer at the Y said that I would have to work out eight hours a day (like Cher) to return to that kind of condition. In another world, I would have to be mobile and active.
Unfortunately, I work in an office. Daily we discus diets in my world of aging women. It is a topic that comes up more than politics and wars, celebrity shenanigans, science, company policies, more than anything else. We talk about losing weight and how to do it.
Personally, I have tried in the following order: Calories, Grapefruit & baby food, Tops, Weight Watchers, 3-Day Diets, Dexatrim, Aerobics, Swimming, Walking, SlimFast, Total Gym, Hypnosis, Metabolift, Eight glasses of water, walking again, Atkins, Calories again, Swimming again, The Gazelle, Meridia (that's a drug that made me cry a lot), and I am just about to try South Beach Diet because I am too chicken to let them cut my stomach for that gastric bypass surgery. Telling you, all this -- it seems really stupid. Doesn't it?
I have heard that I have survivor genes that store fat for times of famine. I have read that I eat to replace love. I have read that there is a mysterious fat-factor in my cells. My doctor says I eat more calories then I burn and not to eat so much. I have watched the thin girls at work eat candy, french fries, potato chips & popcorn all day long everyday; while I eat celery and almonds and drink water.
I don't really know why I am fat. Or why you are thin. Why she is short. Nor why he's a prick. I don't know why they are bigots and we are tolerant. I don't know why some people have cute faces and some people have crooked faces. Why do some people have a natural love of all life and others hate everyone and everything? With six billion people and no two people the same, I guess someone has to be fat. Aren't you glad it's I, and not you?
My eldest sister lives on the East Coast. For years, she has expressed shock at what she sees in getting off planes in the Midwest: She sees Fat People.
She says people on the East and West Coasts don't tolerate obesity the way we do in the Midwest.
Well, I will say it loud and say it proud -- I am from Detroit! I am Fat! And I live in The Number One Fat-City! The other night, we even made Ted Koppel's Nightline! He concluded Detroiters are poor and poor people are fatter because they have fewer choices. Yea, right, Ted. Life is so simple when you are a journalist.
Actually, the only times I have been thin and in good shape are the times when I was too poor to buy food or the times I worked in factories and was too busy to eat. (I really enjoyed my brief factory years, that athletic side of my self! The power to hit a tennis ball straight across the net. The confidence I could survive anything.) The trainer at the Y said that I would have to work out eight hours a day (like Cher) to return to that kind of condition. In another world, I would have to be mobile and active.
Unfortunately, I work in an office. Daily we discus diets in my world of aging women. It is a topic that comes up more than politics and wars, celebrity shenanigans, science, company policies, more than anything else. We talk about losing weight and how to do it.
Personally, I have tried in the following order: Calories, Grapefruit & baby food, Tops, Weight Watchers, 3-Day Diets, Dexatrim, Aerobics, Swimming, Walking, SlimFast, Total Gym, Hypnosis, Metabolift, Eight glasses of water, walking again, Atkins, Calories again, Swimming again, The Gazelle, Meridia (that's a drug that made me cry a lot), and I am just about to try South Beach Diet because I am too chicken to let them cut my stomach for that gastric bypass surgery. Telling you, all this -- it seems really stupid. Doesn't it?
I have heard that I have survivor genes that store fat for times of famine. I have read that I eat to replace love. I have read that there is a mysterious fat-factor in my cells. My doctor says I eat more calories then I burn and not to eat so much. I have watched the thin girls at work eat candy, french fries, potato chips & popcorn all day long everyday; while I eat celery and almonds and drink water.
I don't really know why I am fat. Or why you are thin. Why she is short. Nor why he's a prick. I don't know why they are bigots and we are tolerant. I don't know why some people have cute faces and some people have crooked faces. Why do some people have a natural love of all life and others hate everyone and everything? With six billion people and no two people the same, I guess someone has to be fat. Aren't you glad it's I, and not you?
Thursday, June 03, 2004
The Scale
Recently a friend was asked the purely academic question, "How would you rate your life, on a scale of 1 to 10?" His answer, with which he seemed perfectly content, was "7." This is a question many of us fail to give conscious consideration to, and merely skim along, reacting to each individual bump and peak, as we go. If asked on a particular day how we are, most of us will simply respond with "fine," "well," or "okay." These are blanket responses--the socially acceptable means of encompassing everything that our lives at that point have had to offer. But how many of us can truly answer that question with "great" or "excellent." Chances are, if we did gush such a response, the reaction it would elicit would hardly be a shared joy. More likely it would be cause for alarm or a cut off from caffeine. This leads me to wonder, are we ever truly happy?
The friend to whom I was referring earlier, for a medical follow-up study, is asked this same question every year. "How would you rate your life?" Last year he gave the same response, so too, I would believe, did he the year before. And the year before that. His circumstances have changed -- he has lived in Britain, South America, the US; been in a relationship, been single; been working in a job he hates, one he hates; taken care of sick relatives, and spent days surrounded by those he loves. And yet, his response would hardly change. Why is it we believe that we should never admit to contentment, happiness, or a perfect 10? I am not simply pinning this on the isolated incident of my friend. It seems that many twenty-somethings I know--whether in the US or UK--cannot admit to being truly happy. But this begs the question, are they truly lacking or is it that we simply find ourselves unable to think that rose-tinted glasses could be the real thing?
It made me very sad when I was told "7" as a passing comment. The friend didn't find it so, 'said that's just how things are. But it made me want to get on a plane, fly to where he is, ply him lavishly with hugs and pints, and go for handheld walks in a sunny park, with the breeze blowing...but wait. Even writing this made me cringe. Why is it that sentimentality or cheeriness, for most of us, makes our teeth itch. Why can't we just be happy and, when we're not -- or even when we're at a 6 or a 7 (not sobbing, but not ecstatic either) -- can't we see nothing wrong with being nostalgic about those times we were at a 10, and striving to get back to that place. For some people, it's the memory certain time in their lives, for others, a whimsical song or voice, and others still, a favourite meal, book, or tightly-wrapped arms.
I will admit, I am one of the cynics. I would never admit to a jubillant 10, and I would feign nausea at anyone who did. But I do have these little tokens of 10, somewhere below the surface. So I have a proposition for those of us apathetic gen-Xers. It may be that your priorites are no longer a house, a spouse, 2.4 rugrats, a job, and a weekday Volvo. Perhaps it is not your career or your love life that raises your life above a 7, but work out what it is or what it has been. And when you feel at a loss, think back to an incident when you did feel a 10 and hold onto it. Sometimes that first kiss, home-cooked meal, or special voice from years past is all we need to get us through that dip in the road.
Recently a friend was asked the purely academic question, "How would you rate your life, on a scale of 1 to 10?" His answer, with which he seemed perfectly content, was "7." This is a question many of us fail to give conscious consideration to, and merely skim along, reacting to each individual bump and peak, as we go. If asked on a particular day how we are, most of us will simply respond with "fine," "well," or "okay." These are blanket responses--the socially acceptable means of encompassing everything that our lives at that point have had to offer. But how many of us can truly answer that question with "great" or "excellent." Chances are, if we did gush such a response, the reaction it would elicit would hardly be a shared joy. More likely it would be cause for alarm or a cut off from caffeine. This leads me to wonder, are we ever truly happy?
The friend to whom I was referring earlier, for a medical follow-up study, is asked this same question every year. "How would you rate your life?" Last year he gave the same response, so too, I would believe, did he the year before. And the year before that. His circumstances have changed -- he has lived in Britain, South America, the US; been in a relationship, been single; been working in a job he hates, one he hates; taken care of sick relatives, and spent days surrounded by those he loves. And yet, his response would hardly change. Why is it we believe that we should never admit to contentment, happiness, or a perfect 10? I am not simply pinning this on the isolated incident of my friend. It seems that many twenty-somethings I know--whether in the US or UK--cannot admit to being truly happy. But this begs the question, are they truly lacking or is it that we simply find ourselves unable to think that rose-tinted glasses could be the real thing?
It made me very sad when I was told "7" as a passing comment. The friend didn't find it so, 'said that's just how things are. But it made me want to get on a plane, fly to where he is, ply him lavishly with hugs and pints, and go for handheld walks in a sunny park, with the breeze blowing...but wait. Even writing this made me cringe. Why is it that sentimentality or cheeriness, for most of us, makes our teeth itch. Why can't we just be happy and, when we're not -- or even when we're at a 6 or a 7 (not sobbing, but not ecstatic either) -- can't we see nothing wrong with being nostalgic about those times we were at a 10, and striving to get back to that place. For some people, it's the memory certain time in their lives, for others, a whimsical song or voice, and others still, a favourite meal, book, or tightly-wrapped arms.
I will admit, I am one of the cynics. I would never admit to a jubillant 10, and I would feign nausea at anyone who did. But I do have these little tokens of 10, somewhere below the surface. So I have a proposition for those of us apathetic gen-Xers. It may be that your priorites are no longer a house, a spouse, 2.4 rugrats, a job, and a weekday Volvo. Perhaps it is not your career or your love life that raises your life above a 7, but work out what it is or what it has been. And when you feel at a loss, think back to an incident when you did feel a 10 and hold onto it. Sometimes that first kiss, home-cooked meal, or special voice from years past is all we need to get us through that dip in the road.
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
Quick Note
As I sat outside on my deck, swinging on my porch swing at 3:30am, eating a bowl of microwaved creamed corn (with salt and pepper and cinnamon) and drinking a chocolate martini out of a wine goblet, while listening to the unabridged novel "Fatal" by Michael Palmer on my MP3 player, it occurred to me that even with 6 billion people in the world, I was still unique enough to be the only person on the planet doing precisely that.
There's something kind of neat, kind of important, in this realization. Maybe tomorrow I'll figure it out.
As I sat outside on my deck, swinging on my porch swing at 3:30am, eating a bowl of microwaved creamed corn (with salt and pepper and cinnamon) and drinking a chocolate martini out of a wine goblet, while listening to the unabridged novel "Fatal" by Michael Palmer on my MP3 player, it occurred to me that even with 6 billion people in the world, I was still unique enough to be the only person on the planet doing precisely that.
There's something kind of neat, kind of important, in this realization. Maybe tomorrow I'll figure it out.
