Canal Water Review

For J

2005-10-12T15:10:00.000-05:00

Some of it may annoy you, but I think you'll find the paragraph I mean. And I mean it.

Progressive Prize?

2005-10-12T12:52:00.000-05:00

It's starting to get exciting now that we have some actual indictments (Delay, et al) and the prospect of more (Rove, et al) in front of us. No one is more excited than I to look toward the day that all of these threads of corruption and incompetence are pulled together so that even the most oblivious American can see that we have been led down a fairly long and rather thorny garden path these past few years.

Howsomever, I do think progressives run the risk of taking our eyes off of a very important prize if we give in to our disaster fatigue and think we have done all we should do if we've made our donations, volunteered a bit of time, and snarked about Brownie. There were four (count them: Alabama, Missisissippi, Louisiana, Texas) states battered, some worse than others, by the double whammy of Katrina and Rita. Some parts of those states were literally leveled. In all four of those states, the ugly facts of racism and extreme poverty once again (after way too long a time of invisibility) raised their heads so that, unfortunately, the whole world could see them.

There are scandals to be found in the aftermath of these hurricanes. More corruption. More incompetence. More fodder for future election speeches.

In the meantime, there are very real people who live--or lived--in those areas whose lives and livelihoods were simply destroyed. Choose your motivation: humanitarian, pragmatic, political, whatever. Then think about these areas as places where an opportunity exists--but not for long--to correct past errors, reinvent the future, make things better, do it right for a change.

How should we then act on such an opportunity?

Two TPMCafe-folk have offered suggestions: BamaGirl in "The Perfect Opportunity" and progressivesouth in "Progressives: Are We Blowing a Katrina Moment?" As both point out--and I attempt to round out--these are red states with significant numbers of Democratic voters. This is a prize worth considering. . . .

To that end, I also urge you to take action to urge your own congresscritters to make sure that funds allocated to these areas are done so with proper fiscal controls, that contracts be allocated to local entities to the greatest extent possible so that local residents can join in the work of rebuilding their own communities, that they look for ways to improve (not gut) federal programs that are intended to assist those who are in need of just such a safety net.

Republicans have already jumped on the opportunities offered by Katrina and Rita to push their own agenda. We went through this after 9/11. It would speak to our own incompetence if we were to allow this to happen yet again.

[Modified from post at TPMCafe]

Change in comments section

2005-10-04T13:35:00.000-05:00

I've turned on the word verification for comments, since this site has started to receive some spam.

As for spammers themselves, I wish for you all the heartbreak of psoriasis.

Medicare Part D

2005-07-21T11:35:00.000-05:00

The new Medicare prescription drug benefit is a trainwreck waiting to happen. Last night, I reviewed the health insurance information that my husband receives so that he can make decisions about our health plan for the coming fiscal year. He is a retired employee of a state agency. I was much relieved to see that the information provided about Medicare Part D boiled down to: Don't sign up!

As a retired state employee, his insurance (and, thankfully, mine) provides better prescription coverage than Medicare Part D. What is even better is the commitment expressed by the agency that they will not seek to capitalize on the availability of Medicare Part D to reduce their costs. This is gold.

Here's why.

Medicare Part D will provide prescription drug coverage for eligible persons (seniors over age 65 and eligible disabled persons) effective January 1, 2006. The benefit requires that the participant pay first for Medicare Part B premiums ($78.20 in 2005) and then for Medicare Part D premiums ("about" $37 in 2006). This is all before receiving any medications. Then there is a $250 deductible. After that, the benefit is 75 percent of the cost of medications up to a certain point, i.e., when the participant has spent $2000 on the 25 percent of remaining cost. The initial cost is therefore, considerably higher than the $2250 usually discussed as the price of the benefit.

Once this point has been reached, the participant falls into what is called "the doughnut hole." While still paying premiums for Medicare Parts B and D, the participant must also pay 100 percent of the cost of medications until he/she has paid a total of $5100 (not counting the continuing premiums) in "true out of pocket costs."

After reaching the point of "catastrophic coverage," Medicare Part D will pick up 95 percent of the costs of medications.

This means that anyone needing serious amounts of medications will pay more like $7000 before receiving substantial help from Medicare. And this is all for medications for which Medicare is pretty much paying full retail price, no price-lowering negotiations allowed.

Somehow I'm not seeing Medicare Part D keeping a whole of folks from thinking about buying their medications in Canada.

Cross Posting from TPMCafe

2005-07-21T10:59:00.000-05:00

I've been spending so much time at TPMCafe that I've had little time to post here. I am, I must say, delighted at the level of discussion and the richness of ideas that I find there. Still, I am a bit distressed that I seem to be wandering away from my home base, so to speak, and neglecting what I had intended to be the purpose of this blog--generally pointing out those things that do and do not suck canal water in this modern world. When at TPMCafe, I do see that some folks publish stuff on their home blog and then republish it at the Cafe. I have felt uncomfortable with that, but I do think I have to get over it. There are only so many hours in a day for reading and writing.

That being said, I think I'll start reposting stuff that I've written for TPMCafe here, as a means to catch up and also as a means to highlight what might otherwise get lost in such a rich web site. Just to make it all the more confusing, I think I'll post them for the dates on which they were posted at TPMCafe.

Rove V. Cooper: Duelling Emails

2005-07-16T11:29:00.000-05:00

Originally posted at TPMCafe.

Karl Rove and Matthew Cooper had a telephone conversation on July 11, 2003. Each of them followed up on their conversation with an email to another person in their respective organizations. Cooper emailed his bureau chief, Michael Duffy. Rove emailed Stephen Hadley in the security section. Unless it is standard operating procedure in both organizations to document every telephone conversation in such a manner, it would seem that both understood that they had participated, however briefly (less than two minutes), in a significant interaction with potential national security implications.

Michael Isikoff, writing for Newsweek's July 18 [2005]issue (usually published a week earlier than the date stamp), gives us some information about Cooper's email (direct quotes emphasized):

It was 11:07 on a Friday morning, July 11, 2003, and Time magazine correspondent Matt Cooper was tapping out an e-mail to his bureau chief, Michael Duffy. "Subject: Rove/P&C," (for personal and confidential), Cooper began. "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation ..." Cooper proceeded to spell out some guidance on a story that was beginning to roil Washington. He finished, "please don't source this to rove or even WH [White House]" and suggested another reporter check with the CIA.
. . .
In a brief conversation with Rove, Cooper asked what to make of the flap over Wilson's criticisms. NEWSWEEK obtained a copy of the e-mail that Cooper sent his bureau chief after speaking to Rove. (The e-mail was authenticated by a source intimately familiar with Time's editorial handling of the Wilson story, but who has asked not to be identified because of the magazine's corporate decision not to disclose its contents.) Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.) The e-mail characterizing the conversation continues: "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger ... "

John Solomon, writing for the Associated Press (July 16 [2005], 10:18 a.m.)quotes from Rove's email to Stephen Hadley (direct quotes emphasized):

Rove told then-deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley in the July 11, 2003, e-mail that he had spoken with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper and tried to caution him away from some allegations that CIA operative Valerie Plame's husband was making about faulty Iraq intelligence.

"I didn't take the bait," Rove wrote in the message, disclosed to The Associated Press. In the memo, Rove recounted how Cooper tried to question him
about whether President Bush had been hurt by the new allegations Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had been making.
. . .

"Matt Cooper called to give me a heads-up that he's got a welfare reform story coming," Rove wrote Hadley, who has since risen to the top job of national security adviser.

"When he finished his brief heads-up he immediately launched into Niger. Isn't this damaging? Hasn't the president been hurt? I didn't take the bait, but I said if I were him I wouldn't get Time far out in front on this."

While it would be better to have the full texts of the emails to review, there are a couple of points that might be gleaned from the evidence that we do have.

First, while Cooper was reporting new information in an emerging story to his Bureau Chief and requesting additional investigation from other reporters, Rove was reporting one more activity in what was evidently a larger effort to minimize that story and preserve the credibility of claims that Saddam Hussein was seeking resources in Africa for manufacturing nuclear weapons. Rove was reporting to a national security advisor. He didn't provide any context for his reference to Niger ("He immediately launched into Niger." Niger what? Niger's economy? Niger's national dance troup?), indicating that the subject of "Niger" was under discussion and the context already known. Unless Hadley is the mysterious second source for Novak's article (notice how I don't really need to provide context for that reference?), then there was a wider group of individuals in the White House who were looking at strategies to deal with Joseph Wilson's thorn in their side.

Yes, we pretty much "knew" this; this email simply confirms it. The next question is who participated in this group, and what was the full scope of their strategy to deal with Wilson and the whole issue of Niger?

Second, Rove's email to Hadley does not seem to deal with the issue of Wilson's wife, by name or otherwise. Instead, Rove documents a two-minute conversation that includes discussion of a welfare reform story as well as "Niger" just before he is due to leave on a family vacation. That is, if nothing else, an admirable display of attention to detail on a day which one would expect to be fairly hectic in terms of tying up loose ends and making sure that the house didn't burn down, so to speak, while one is away. More than that, however, it points to how important the issue was at the time that even so short a conversation needed to be documented. That it does not include reference to the details of the imputation of nepotism against the Wilsons and the disclosure of a covert operative's identity suggests that (1) Rove recognized that the latter was illegal and didn't want it documented and/or (2) he was creating plausible deniability for himself should his disclosures ever become an issue. It is the latter element that is most interesting here.

How is that so? When Rove talked to Cooper, he warned Cooper that Time should not get too "far out in front on this." He knew that Novak was going to be publishing an article that carried some serious water for the administration very soon. (Indeed, it may have hit the wire that very day.) He also knew that plans were in the works to have CIA Chief George Tenet fall on his sword for the administration, take the blame for the infamous sixteen words in the State of the Union address, and, at the same time, toss a grenade at Wilson by pointing out that there were still concerns about Hussein's aspirations for nuclear capability. That happened within days. If challenged, Rove could say, as his supporters seem to be doing now, that he was merely warning Time away from a story that the administration already expected to have under control and that, indeed, he never really gave much attention to the issue of Wilson's wife. Moreover, that wasn't what he was talking about, so, if it slipped out, he didn't even notice it, which, of course, is why he neglected to mention it in his email to Hadley. No smear here, move along.

Of course, I could be pulling too much from the words (and omissions) of these emails, especially given that we don't have the full texts to look at. Nonetheless, two men talk, two men think their discussion is important enough to document, two men see the same discussion as important for very different reasons. You gotta wonder.

Points about the Plame Case

2005-07-06T20:24:00.000-05:00

Originally published at TPMCafe as part of an ongoing discussion of elements of the Valerie Plame case.

First, in what manner is Karl Rove to be considered a whistleblower? The implication of the information provided about Wilson being sent to Niger at his wife's suggestion, while false, is that something akin to nepotism occurred so that the spouse of a government employee could get a free trip to a foreign country. For this, Rove would have needed anonymity to protect himself from retribution for being a whistleblower?

If the whole argument about "protecting sources" and the subsequent defense of Miller and Cooper for standing on principle and protecting their sources (at least until their sources give them a King's X) is based on protecting a putative whistleblower who is one of the most powerful men in the country and who in fact blew a false whistle (never mind the national security issues) regarding something that might be strongly questioned as an offense in the first place, then all those editorial writers have wasted a lot of ink and much of our time. If they want to protect whistleblowers (a good thing), I'd suggest they go find a real one (an even better thing).

Second, although the specific statute under which administration officials are liable for prosecution when "knowingly" revealing the covert status of an intelligence agent may not apply to civilians such as Ms. Miller or Mr. (I choke on the honorific) Novak, I find it hard to believe that she, for crimes we now suspect, and he, for crimes any fool would be able to identify as treason, are not somehow subject to indictment under some statute. Surely it would not be possible for me, an ordinary blogger, to go to Langley, cuddle up to someone in the know, receive information about covert operatives one way or another, and then go blab the information on my blog--or my local corporate media outlet--without being subject to some criminal penalty.

If neither I nor the two "reporters" under discussion are liable for any sort of penalty in those circumstances, I would think that Congress might want to do a little tinkering with the Patriot Act or something. After all, if it's suspicious to pay cash for a plane ticket, it's surely suspicious to publish the NOC list.

Third (and last for now), I think we ought to make a distinction between Valerie Plame and the intelligence network that she was associated with. There is some question--whether valid or not--that she was still active as a covert operative at the time her identity was revealed. Similarly, there is some question--whether valid or not--regarding how much her identity may have been an open secret in some circles. The questions seem to be used to diminish the potential for ill effect from revealing her identity. We can argue that, I suppose, but our focus seems too narrow if we consider Valerie Plame to be the only one harmed by the actions of those who decided to reveal her identity. Ongoing activities and networks were compromised when her name was used to show the link between them and the CIA. This is not about one woman--and certainly not about Joe Wilson and his wife--it's about the network.

On Patriotism

2005-07-05T17:07:00.000-05:00

An essayist on another site watched a Fourth of July parade yesterday and felt great sadness because America has fallen so far short of her ideals and values. I marched in a Fourth of July parade yesterday and felt great joy that America was still the wonderful nation that I love. How could two people, who likely share the same political philosophy on a number of issues, come to such different conclusions?

It could be because we each experienced two different kinds of parades. I'm guessing that his parade was one of those we could have watched on television with big marching bands, even bigger floats, and one or two celebrities displayed for cachet. My parade was something else altogether.

My parade was led by two young boys in the 10-to-12-year-old range. They each carried a large flag, one the U.S. flag, the other the Texas flag. These flags were on 8-foot poles and had to be carried with the belt do-jigger that helps to hold them up, but they still take a lot of muscle after a very few minutes. These kids struggled, but they made it through two rounds of our entire (but very small) neighborhood.

Before the parade started, all the participants gathered at a neighbors house for coffee and watermelon. (Yes, I thought that was a weird menu, too, but everyone seemed to be happy.) Once the group had gathered, the neighbor who had provided the flags (the big ones for the two boys to carry and lots of little ones for everyone else) asked us to begin with the pledge to the flag. We all put our hands over our hearts and said those precious words. Some folks seemed to put a little extra emphasis on "under God;" some of us just didn't say those two words; it all came out to "liberty and justice for all."

So the little flag bearers led the parade.

Next came me and My Prince. He was the band, and I was the band director. His "instrument" was a monstrous boom box borrowed from a neighbor playing a selection of the "world's greatest marches." My "baton" was an old fishing rod converted to use as a pointer some years ago.

We and the flag bearers were surrounded by maybe eight bike riders, who swirled in and about as the mood struck. The bikes had flags and streamers and whatever else the kids could come up with for decoration. Some kids wore patriotic hats, some wore patriotic shorts. About halfway around the block we had an accident, so the whole parade came to a stop while we tended the (barely) skinned knee of an apparently severely traumatized bike rider. But, a little loving attention from mom, and all was much better. The parade proceeded.

Behind the band came assorted parents and neighbors, mostly just strolling through the neighborhood. Again, there was some patriotic attire, or just a red shirt worn with bluejeans (shorts, of course). One nieghbor had made a "float" out of a roller skate with a broom handle to guide it.

Since a good fourth of the neighborhood was in the parade, that left three-fourths of the neighborhood to be the audience. Most of the audience was either out of town or sleeping late, but still we had some folks sitting outside in lawn chairs. One neighbor heard the "band" and came running out to get his flag on its pole. One neighbor provided a "rest stop" with a cooler full of juice boxes.

The day was already quite warm when our parade began. I was very much over heated by the time we finished, and, despite having done some carb loading before the event, I still wound up with low blood sugar. I was, in fact, beat. I slept for eight hours after we walked back home.

But I was ever so glad to have spent that bit of the morning with my neighbors, giving the kids an active way to celebrate the day's meaning, and reminding myself about why I was so happy to be an American.

I'm happy to be an American because this nation is founded on the concept that all men are created equal. Happily, that concept was eventually understood to mean all men, regardless of "race, creed, or color"--and, I should add, national origin. Even more happily, that concept was eventually brought to include women. It is sad, of course, that some folks in America have not fully embraced the concept of equality. These misguided persons hang on to the prejudices and hates of days gone by, promoting racism, sexism, religious bigotry, and homophobia. I feel sorry for them that their lives are so meaningless that they can only derive some purpose by propagating hate. What miserable creatures they must be. How sad that they cannot experience the wonder of a nation that was deliberately designed to give them a fair shot at life just because they can't stand for someone else to have the same benefit. I'm not sure that these people will ever be changed, but I am comforted to realize that they are only a small (though sick) minority of my fellow Americans. And I am comforted to realize that, as a nation, we have been slowly but steadily making sure that the concept of equality really does extend to all of our citizens.

I am happy to be an American because, as an American, I have the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The constitutional guarantees of the Bill of Rights are most precious. While those protections are often under attack--and while they are sometimes uncomfortable in their exercise--they are guarantors of a way of life that is precious and unique on this planet. Of course, I am saddened by the degree to which my fellow countrymen seem so callously unconcerned about protecting these same rights. Like frightened rabbits, rather than defend their country and the principles on which it was founded, they surrender rights for the illusion of safety. Still, I know that even today there are great patriots among us who will fight--with pen or sword--to defend those same rights, even for the sake the frightened rabbits. I hope I am one of those patriots, for I do so believe that these rights are precious--and inalienable.

I am happy to be an American because I just think that red, white, and blue are excellent colors and make an excellent flag. The stars and stripes never fail to move me. Perhaps I was taught that by my father. My mother still tells the story about how we had turned on the old black and white TV in our tiny den to watch a ball game. When the national anthem began, I stood up in and put my hand over my heart as I had been taught to do--but not at home and not for something on television. Perhaps it is because I have lived in other countries that are less welcoming to the liberties that we take so casually. In those countries, nothing could be so welcome as the sight of our flag. In Dar es Salaam, I passed by our embassy each day--the same one that was later attacked by Al Qaeda--and was grateful to see the flag that flew atop the building. At night, it was especially comforting to see the spotlighted flag and remind myself that I would eventually be going home, and what a better home it was. Perhaps it is because one of my first reactions to the Attacks on 9/11 was to say, "Honey, we need to put the flag out." It hasn't been down since (although we did have to replace the old one with a new one a few months ago). Now I see it every day--my flag, my statement to the world that I stand for my country and liberty and justice for all.

Now, it's sad that some folks see flying the flag as a political statement to be directed toward other Americans. What are they saying?

Radnofsky to oppose Hutchison

2005-06-27T07:35:00.000-05:00

I might have waited to think very seriously about the Democratic challengers to KBH, but since KBH has gone out of her way to insult me, I'm thinking I need to get busy now.

So.

Barbara Ann Radnofsky is looking pretty good right now. From the looks of her blog, she's already covered the entire state more than once. I like what I see.

Senator Hutchison assaults the patriotism of millions of Americans

2005-06-25T00:00:00.000-05:00

Karl Rove, college drop out and advisor to the president, offered his considered opinion of "liberals" in a recent speech. His statement was so repugnant--and so false--that many were strongly offended by the remarks. They demanded an apology. Others demanded his resignation.

The significance of his remarks comes from his closeness to the president and the perception that he speaks for the president in this matter. Clearly he did, and the president's press secretary confirmed it.

One also wonders whether he speaks for other republicans when he utters such falsehoods, and apparently he does. TAPPED took the time to call all of the republican senators to see whether they felt that Karl Rove expressed their views. All but two of the 55 were unavailable for comment in one way or another, but Rick Santorum's staff avowed the Mr. Rove did not after all speak for the senator. Indeed, on the matter in question, the Senator said: "On 9-11, there was no such thing as a Republican or a Democrat, and that’s what the senator believes."

The lady from Texas has a somewhat different view. Her staff assured the TAPPED callers that this senator did indeed agree with Mr. Rove's views.

So what is our senator saying about us? In Karl Rove's words, but with her endorsement:

But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to… submit a petition.

As it happens, I don't believe in an afterlife that includes something called Hell. Otherwise, I would be tempted to damn them both to it.

What Rove Said

2005-06-24T10:38:00.000-05:00

Originally posted on TPMCafe.

Yes, it was offensive, but, no, it doesn't seem like anything really new. If he hasn't said these words before himself, he's certainly responsible for crafting the message that has been repeated endlessly since September 12: Either you are with us or you are the enemy. Maybe he just couldn't find another puppet to carry the message for him this time; maybe he wanted to sink his own teeth into some raw meat and taste the blood himself.Whatever.

Karl Rove is a little man.

There is some justification in being angry about Rove's words, but I'm not so sure that there's much point in going after him as an individual. It's the words and their intent that matter more to my way of thinking--because he's not the only person in this Administration who has said the same thing. It's not worse because he said it; it's a lie no matter who says it.

September 11 was a national tragedy. It was not, however, the first time that we had been attacked on American soil. It was not the first time we had been attacked by Al Qaeda. It was simply the first act which got the attention of the American public and the Administration so that both understood that something serious was happening in the world.

When that happened, there were no Democrats or Republicans; there were only Americans. Indeed, it seems that there were no French at that moment, for they were Americans, too. And were we not all relieved when a then untarnished Tony Blair stood up and said that all of Great Britain would stand beside us?

This unity included a strong desire for a military response to the Attacks. The Taliban were told to surrender Osama bin Laden or be attacked themselves. They didn't, we did--with international support.

We entered that nation, making promises to rebuild what had been destroyed by 20 or more years of war. We wanted bin Laden, but we also wanted to make sure that Afghanistan was stable, no longer to be victimized by radical religion or politics.

Our commander-in-chief failed on all counts. He didn't capture Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." He didn't bring the planners of the September 11 Attacks to justice. He did not stabilize Afghanistan. He did not help rebuild the country. He misappropriated funds earmarked for Afghanistan to begin planning for another war, not then authorized by Congress or supported by the American people. He then began to create a list of false reasons why he needed to prosecute the second war without winning the first.

The pattern of the Administration is to exploit September 11 for political purposes. It was a windfall for presidential ratings; it was a cornucopia of opportunity to implement elements of his agenda that otherwise would not have passed; it remains the perfect instrument with which to terrorize the American public so that they focus on their fear and fail to see the corruption of the Administration.

The pattern of this Administration is to look for simple solutions to complex problems, to denigrate thoughtfulness, to ridicule anything that smacks of intelligent deliberation. The degree to which the Patriot Act expands the authority of law enforcement agencies has nothing to do with the possibility of later indicting someone for terrorism--in their way of thinking. The degree to which one might be more successful in combatting an enemy whose purposes and strategies one knows and understands is lost on them.

The pattern of the Administration is to use the word "liberal" as a pejorative term. Make no mistake that when the President called Senator Kerry "a Massachusetts liberal," he was not stating a fact, he was using hate speech. (In Texas, the preferred usage is "Taxachusetts Liberal.") Rove is simply using the same concept without the geographic prefix.

The pattern of the Administration is to rewrite history to reflect its own preferred narrative of events. Reality, truth, fact--none of this is relevant. Only the story that makes the Administration the only hope and salvation of the American people in the face of a godless and dangerous world matters.

Rove's statement is simply part of the pattern. Perhaps he created the pattern; perhaps not. It is, however, the pattern that is more important than the person who presents it.

If his words make you angry and you want to fight back, do so, but not in anger. Do so coldly and with calculation. Take him down, if you can.

But taking him down will not end the pattern--and it is the pattern that needs to be ended.

Courting the Pro-Lynching Vote

2005-06-14T13:13:00.000-05:00

Senate Resolution 39 was filed on February 7. That gave plenty of time for all 100 U.S. Senators to sign on as co-sponsors before the vote to approve it on June 13. Only 78 of them did--18 on the last day. Neither Texas Senator did.

SR 39 is a resolution that expresses the Senate's contrition for having spent decades blocking any anti-lynching legislation at the federal level.

Mary Landrieu, a Louisiana Democrat, filed the bill and was joined by the majority of her colleagues. Because of that majority support, no record vote was taken. We can, therefore, only judge from their absence as co-sponsors what the true position of Senators Hutchison and Cornyn might be.

In this case, I'm thinking that actions speak louder than words. Landrieu's move was not a trick to make Republicans look bad. Southern Democrats were the worst offenders in the days when lynchings terrorized communities across the South. Apparently, Landrieu's resolution was inspired by Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America. Perhaps she had just read the book--or seen the exhibit. I'm guessing that she was moved by the horror she saw in those pictures and ashamed to be part of a body that had done so much to make it acceptable that she wanted some atonement. Not reparations. Not vast new bureacracies and budgets. Just an apology--reconciliation--and a better future for our country:

Whereas an apology offered in the spirit of true repentance moves the United States toward reconciliation and may become central to a new understanding, on which improved racial relations can be forged:

Both parties are now actively courting minority voters. Why would anyone not support this resolution whole-heartedly?

There's been quite a bit of discussion about this vote at the TPMCafe (where I've been spending way too much time lately). I checked some of my usual Texas blogs to see what they were saying.

This from The Burnt Orange Report:

. . . If the two senators from Texas couldn't find the moral courage to stand with the overwhelming majority of their peers in casting a symbolic vote against hate seven years to the week after the death of James Byrd, Jr. in Jasper County, then why should they deserve anybody's vote?

Nada from PinkDome.

Bupkus from Off the Kuff.

Dang, not even The People's Republic of Seabrook!

Ah, you can always count on The Panhandle Truth Squad! They ask: "Kay Bailey pro lynching?" Sadly, they don't mention that John Cornyn seems equally to be pro lynching.

I would have thought this would be a matter of greater concern in Texas.

Governor wants people with higher family values to put Texas in the rearview mirror

2005-06-06T13:08:00.000-05:00

Governor Perry cheerfully signed disastrous legislation for Texas families on Sunday. He did so in a religious facility, blithely blending church and state in both message and venue. And then he topped it off by pointing out that folks who place a higher value on marriage than he and his supporters should just go elsewhere.

You couldn't make this stuff up in your worst nightmares.

The bill signing was for SB 419, which is actually the continuation legislation for the Board of Medical Examiners. The bill is part of the regular Sunset Review process that happens with state agencies wherein there is a review of their operations and consideration of revisions to those operations before a proactive vote to continue the agency--or dismantle it. The BME legislation is pretty much "must pass" legislation.

While the legislature could have voted the whole bill down, there really would have been hell to pay. Physicians would have faced all sorts of licensing problems in Texas and in reciprocal licensing with other states. Disciplinary actions, such as they are, would have been problematic. The BME covers other groups besides physicians, so there were quite a few dominoes in play here.

The clever move to attach anti-abortion legislation to the bill gave the provision some major protection. The provision itself sounds like a nice-to-do thing because it just requires that a parent provide written consent for an unmarried minor's abortion. What's wrong with a parent consenting to a child's decisions about health? What's not to like about making sure that there is a paper trail? Plenty, of course. And the provision goes further in prohibiting third trimester abortions in all but the most extreme circumstances: the mother will die, the mother will suffer brain damage or paralysis, the fetus is brain-damaged.

Here's the actual language:

A physician commits an offense when, he/she:

(18) performs an abortion on a woman who is pregnant with a viable unborn child during the third trimester of the pregnancy unless:
A) the abortion is necessary to prevent the death of the woman;
(B) the viable unborn child has a severe, irreversible brain impairment; or
(C) the woman is diagnosed with a significant likelihood of suffering imminent severe, irreversible brain damage or imminent severe, irreversible paralysis; or
(19) performs an abortion on an unemancipated minor without the written consent of the child's parent, managing conservator, or legal guardian or without a court order, as provided by Section 33.003 or 33.004, Family Code, authorizing the minor to consent to the abortion, unless the physician concludes that on the basis of the physician's good faith clinical judgment, a condition exists that complicates the medical condition of the pregnant minor and necessitates the immediate abortion of her pregnancy to avert her death or to avoid a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function and that there is insufficient time to obtain the consent of the child's parent, managing conservator, or legal guardian.
(c) The board shall adopt the forms necessary for physicians to obtain the consent required for an abortion to be performed on an unemancipated minor under Subsection (a). The form executed to obtain consent or any other required documentation must be retained by the physician until the later of the fifth anniversary of the date of the minor's majority or the seventh anniversary of the date the physician received or created the documentation for the record.

I cannot imagine anyone wanting to have an abortion just for fun. I cannot imagine a mother--young or fully adult--who would want to give up a child in any but the most extreme circumstances. But "extreme" may vary from one woman to another. What one can handle physically may be much more than one can handle emotionally, or financially, or circumstantially. I cannot imagine having to make such a difficult decision without the emotional support of those who love me and care about my well being. The problem is, of course, that those would would fulfill such a role are not always the parents of the young woman who needs the help. Abusive families, dysfunctional families, hostile families abound in our society. This legislation doesn't make those families any better. Nor does it make it more likely that fewer young women will desire an abortion. Indeed, it may increase the likelihood of a speedier return to those good old days of back alley abortions.

Judicial bypass still remains. If you want to do something positive now, look at Jane's Due Process. They help young women in crisis find the help they need--not necessarily abortions--help.

Of course, there's still that interesting provision that applies to adults. Even when an adult woman and her husband decide that the risk of continuing a pregnancy is too great or that they cannot take care of a child with serious birth defects, the Texas Legislature and now the Governor want to step into that family decision to make their own rules about how that family will have to survive in the future. Perhaps Mama won't be brain damaged or paralyzed, but she can get along with a damaged heart or kidneys. So says Will Harnett. Maybe the child will not be brain-impaired, but will have any one of a number of serious birth defects that will force the family into poverty, deprive their other children of any attention from exhausted parents, or create a living hell for an perpetually sick, or worse, unwanted child.

I don't know what the circumstances would be that would lead me to make a decision to terminate a pregancy that I had carried for 6 months already. How could I cope with the crashing defeat of all my hopes and dreams for that child? And yet, none of us knows what our breaking point will be. We certainly don't know what it will be for another family.

And then we come to that other part of the Governor's bill signing. This was not a signing of legislation that required his signature. Nope. It was a political photo op--at a religious venue--to make sure that everyone knows that he, too, is a promoter of hate--in Jesus' name.

HJR 6 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban, yet again, same-sex marriages and anything that vaguely looks like it. Just as the previous bill cuts gaping wounds in Texas families, this one purports to support family values while destroying families. Same sex families. Common law families. Private contracts that create some semblance of legal security for couples. Even the dignity of dying in the presence of someone you love. These will be wiped out by the passage of this constitutional amendment.

It's all sick and sickening. And the Governor just put the icing on the cake when he said:

"Texans have made a decision about marriage and if there is some other state that has a more lenient view than Texas then maybe that's a better place for them to live."

One of the ministers attending the signing whined that those who oppose these bills must want people of faith out of the public square. Funny thing. I didn't really want that before. Now I do. Me and Jesus--just can't stand those hypocrites. Maybe they should find another state to live in.

The Eye of the Beholder

2005-05-20T05:14:00.000-05:00

Charles Kuffner comments on a report that Travis County DA Ronnie Earle spoke at a fundraiser recently. His assessment:

All that said, I do agree it's not wise politics for Earle to have done this. He can't afford to let the editorial page tut-tutters make their inevitable case for moral equivalence between himself and DeLay, because once that happens, once this becomes a political squabble instead of a "cops and robbers" story, he's sunk. I hope they're clearheaded enough to draw a distinction, but I'm not confident of it. It sucks to be Caesar's wife, but that's the way it is.

I agree. Sometimes, no matter how [fill in virtue] we are, it's how we are seen that determines whether our [virtue] will be appreciated at its full and face value. Just because something is legal doesn't mean that it's a good idea to do it, especially when the whole world (more or less) is just waiting for you to screw up.

I do believe that Ronnie Earle is a genuine hero, a Texas treasure. We are privileged to be served by such a man. But the stakes are now too high to just give away credibility, so I'm hopin' that he'll be a little more choosy in selecting his venues for getting out his message in the future.

That being said, the folks in his audience probably needed to hear every word he spoke.

A birthday!

2005-05-18T01:25:00.000-05:00

Monday was Canal Water Review's first birthday! And I missed it. Sigh. I hope the party was a grand one.

Lend me your uterus!

2005-05-18T00:17:00.000-05:00

I have been avoiding thinking about all the anti-choice bills that have been filed in the Texas Legislature this session. It just seems too painful to put myself through the, well, pain of seeing the proposals, listening to the arguments, and thinking about the consequences of all this misguided claptrap that calls itself the Culture of Life and has nothing to do with life at all.

Avoidance is, however, impossible. As I wander through various of my more or less favorite blog sites, the screams of agony just get louder and louder.

Since I am still in my Indiana Jones mood (forget the bullwhip, gimme the gun), here's my thought:

We know that a hysterectomy is the second most frequently performed surgery for women in the U.S. There are 600,000+ hysterectomies performed in the U.S. each year. That's 1.2 million uteruses that could have been donated to deserving pro-life policymakers to help them do their own part to generate and, of course, protect more unborn lives.

So this is what I'm thinking. Maybe we should set up a non-profit Foundation for the Promotion of Self-Reliance in Protecting the Unborn. Then anyone who has a hysterectomy can donate her uterus (the ovaries would be helpful, too, but they are not necessary because we could also take in donated embryos from fertility clinics) to the Foundation. The Foundation, in turn, would select deserving policy-makers to receive their very own uterus so they can stop spending their time on trying to control everyone else's uterus and get busy making their own little unborn life to worship.

I would like to nominate Representative Will Harnett to receive the first.

Losing the war

2005-05-16T21:56:00.000-05:00

Patrick Cockburn writes in The Independent about the status of the war in Iraq. He provides quite a bit of fodder for a discussion about whether the U.S. is actually losing the war.

There is no doubt that the US has failed to win the war. Much of Iraq is a bloody no man's land. The army has not been able to secure the short highway to the airport, though it is the most important road in the country, linking the US civil headquarters in the Green Zone with its military HQ at Camp Victory.

The failure, he points out, was "in part political."

Immediately after the fall of Saddam Hussein polls showed that Iraqis were evenly divided on whether they had been liberated or occupied. Eighteen months later the great majority both of Sunni and Shia said they had been occupied, and they did not like it.

Other points:

The U.S. forces are over-armed, using howitzers for police duty.
They were designed to "fight a high-technology blitzkrieg, but not much else." Supply lines were long and poorly defended. Ignorance of the local culture led to many mistakes right from the start of the occupation.
The U.S. forces are too thin on the ground--and they are used more as a fire-brigade, fighting fires everywhere, but never putting them out.

Reasonable people can quibble one way or another regarding the elements of this failure, but I'm thinking that the evidence of failure abounds--and resounds with the death and injury of every American soldier, every Iraqi civilian, every roadside bomb, every victory shout from the "insurgents." Even so, as distressed as I am about the situation in Iraq, the question of winning or losing is not the most important point in Cockburn's article. This is.

The greatest failure of the US in Iraq is not that mistakes were made but that its political system has proved incapable of redressing them. Neither Mr Rumsfeld nor his lieutenants have been sacked. Paul Wolfowitz, under-secretary of defence and architect of the war, has been promoted to the World Bank.
Almost exactly a century ago the Russian empire fought a war with Japan in the belief that a swift victory would strengthen the powers-that-be in St Petersburg. Instead the Tsar's armies met defeat. Russian generals, who said that their tactic of charging Japanese machine guns with sabre-wielding cavalry had failed only because their men had attacked with insufficient brio, held their jobs. In Iraq, American generals and their political masters of demonstrable incompetence are not fired. The US is turning out to be much less of a military and political superpower than the rest of the world had supposed. [emphasis added]

How sad that this morning's conversation with My Prince, included the words:

The reason the U.S. has won so many wars is because we've had a stronger military than anyone else. Bush has done a good job of levelling the playing field.

My Prince doesn't read The Independent. He did show up for his military service.

Alas, poor Newsweek

2005-05-16T04:41:00.000-05:00

The story grows. Newsweek published a small story about prisoner abuse at Guantanamo Bay. Riots occurred in the Middle East. Folks on the right are blaming Newsweek for the riots. Newsweek partially distances itself from its own story by noting that its original anonymous source is no longer so certain about the specifics of the abuses that he once told Newsweek reporters about. Folks on the left are pissed that Newsweek is backing off of its story and thinking that they are caving in to political pressure.

Some folks think that they should boycott Newsweek because it reported the original story--"not supporting the troops" and all that. Some folks think that they should boycott Newsweek because it's not fully standing by its story--which has been reported elsewhere anyway.

And I don't even shed crocodile tears.

I ended my subscriptions (mine and the gift one for Mama) last year. After many years of subscribing for both of us, we both decided that we just didn't like some of the things that were showing up in Newsweek. Like the reports that John Kerry had selected John Edwards as his running mate that included not one, not two, but three homoerotic references to their camaraderie. Like the report on plans for the Democratic Convention that concluded with the snarky comment that the convention would be a John Kerry party, "whatever that is." Neither of us saw the need to pay hard earned money for that kind of crap in news stories, when all we wanted was news.

Let me point out that this was not a decision lightly made. I discovered Newsweek in my first stay in East Africa. Young and apolitical, I was starved for news from home. On my island field site, I had no television, no radio. I picked up the national newspaper now and then, but there was little news from the U.S. One of the little local shops was dedicated to school and office supply sorts of things, and, on one of my visits, I saw a copy of Newsweek there. It turned out that someone on the island was a subscriber and hadn't pick up his/her copy that week. So I was lucky enough to be able to buy it instead. Thereafter, I made regular trips to the little shop and sometimes managed to have the same luck. On those days, I read the thing from cover to cover. It was there that I first heard of Watergate. It was there that I learned that Sissy Farenthold was running for governor. It was my link to sanity for the fourteen months that I lived in a very different world.

When I came home, as soon as I could afford it, I became a subscriber to Newsweek. This means many years of reading the magazine, many years of watching the changes from serious news to ever lighter fare. As much as anything, Newsweek was an old friend. When Newsweek arrived each Tuesday, I would again sit and read the whole thing from cover to cover. It was just what I would do on Tuesdays. And I was really antsy when it didn't arrive until Wednesday.

But my old friend let me down. I decided that Newsweek needed to get along without me--if only for a year or so--while I got over my snit with its slips toward bias. What I didn't realize--until today--is that I really don't miss it.

I will feel some sadness if Newsweek suffers too much from this brouhaha, but not enough to spend my hard earned money for more crap.

UPDATE: So lemme be a bit clearer on the story itself. As Arthur Silber points out the Stateside response against the original Newsweek story is being reoriented to: "Newsweek lied, people died." That is also crap. Newsweek didn't lie. It just used a shaky anonymous source to report a story that had already been widely reported in an attempt to present the story as one that could be corroborated by a more or less official U.S. source rather than those "suspect" allegations obtained from released detainees from Guantanamo. People died, but not because of Newsweek. They died because of resistance to the repressive regimes under which they lived and/or because of protests against much larger issues with the U.S., which also include the widespread perception that the U.S. is making war on Islam.

I still don't care much for Newsweek. When my mama reads a supposedly objective news magazine and then asks me in a shocked whisper-- "Are they saying that Kerry is gay?"--I have to think they crossed the line into some alternate reality. When George Will's comments are printed in Newsweek, they are clearly labeled as opinion. I don't have to like what Will says to be able to tolerate his opinion in a news magazine. I do have to question how Michael Isikoff's reporting continues to be tolerated by the editors when he couldn't find objectivity with instructions printed on his keyboard.

The criticism from the right--including the White House now--is, as Silber suggests, just another attempt to intimidate the press. Too bad my subscription cancellation won't be strong enough to counter that, but it's all I've got.

Sexualizing America's children

2005-05-09T12:21:00.000-05:00

Rep. Aaron Pena's A Capitol Blog provides an interesting insight into the things that attract the attention of our state's legislators. He points to this column published in the Houston Chronicle which refers to Rep. Al Edward's bill that attempts to de-sexualize Texas school cheerleaders' routines. Rep. Edwards has taken a lot of heat for introducing this bill, and the House has taken even more heat for even debating it when there are critical issues that need to be dealt with.

The heat may or may not be deserved, but Rep. Edwards should not be faulted for raising the issue. As Froma Harrop writes:

Yes, in the cosmic order of the universe, high-school cheerleading is small stuff. But it is part of a big problem: the sexualizing of America's children. That parents and educators let high-school girls perform erotic routines at public events simply shows how oblivious grown-ups have become. Why don't they just set up a pole in the gym afterward, and charge admission?

Yea, verily. And, 2 percent Republican that I appear to be, I say that, not because I am getting more prudish as I am getting older, nor because of some longing for the good old days when kids could be kids and not miniature adults. Nope. I'm saying that because it's just plain stupid for parents to hypocritically want their precious children to be protected from evil influences while allowing them to actively participate in simulated sex in public as part of a family-oriented activity and still think that they can blame someone else when little Melissa turns up pregnant--or with that gift that keeps on giving, genital-herpes-for-virgins (the oral version).

With age comes wisdom, my child

2005-05-09T11:13:00.000-05:00

I couldn't resist following the link provided at Burnt Orange Report to another one of those "what kind of X are you?" Poor Byron scored 20 percent Republican, much to his consternation. I am similarly consternated (well, it should be a word!) at my 2 percent score. I prolly should have answered "go solar," but I really, really wanted some payback for polluters.

I am:
2%
Republican.

"You're a complete liberal, utterly without a trace of Republicanism. Your strength is as the strength of ten because your heart is pure. (You hope.)"

Are You A Republican?

Texas Heroes (Part IV)

2005-05-05T12:14:00.000-05:00

Uncle Son's medals

We lost another one last week. This time, my side of the family took the hit. My mother's brother had another stroke and died. This leaves her with only one sister and one brother now--only three of ten left living.

This brother--my Uncle Son--was one with whom Mama was very close, so that meant that she was very much grieved by his loss and also that she had to attend his funeral. For someone in her frail health and severely handicapped condition, this was no easy task.

I rented a "luxury" car so that she would have a comfortable seat. It turned out to be quite comfortable--all leather and easily adjustable with electric controls. They don't make luxury cars like they used to, I guess (not that I ever had one), since there was no room in the trunk for her wheel chair. We might have made it, but the spare tire was placed so awkwardly that there was just no way to fit it in. Fortunately, we have a spare, smaller chair designed for travel, so we threw that in instead. Along with a large seated walker and extra padding for the motel bed she would sleep on.

There were adventures along the way, but I'll forego those to get to Mama's beloved brother. He had a real name, but the family always called him Son. And Son was her favorite, younger than her by about 16 months.

There are three things that I remember Uncle Son for. One is his music. He played a mean guitar and once had his own band. Mama said that he taught himself to play the guitar while sitting by her bedside when she was so ill those many years ago. He entertained her to take her mind away from the pain. In later years, I remember Uncle Son coming to our house for Christmas Eve. In those days, while Mama could still entertain a houseful of people, all sorts of relatives and near relatives and just close friends came over for an evening of singing and nibbling. The nibbles might have included such delicacies as Spam Salad sandwiches or the ever-impressive Vienna sausages wrapped in white bread and stuck on a toothpick. The singing was all gospel all the time. We didn't mess around with Christmas carols--we just got down with some really old songs that everyone knew by heart. Uncle Son played his guitar, and we all sang. It is still among the most wonderful memories of my earlier life.

Another thing that I remember Uncle Son for is his sense of humor. He could always make a joke about whatever was going on. We see this as something of a genetic trait among people in our family and always rejoice when it pops up in yet another generation. As much as we grieved for Uncle Son, we also laughed to remember his pranks and the joy he gave us.

The third thing that I remember about Uncle Son is that he was Mama's favorite brother. This is not just because he was funny and musical, but because--even though he was her "little" brother--he took care of her like one thinks a brother should (with love and just a little meanness). Mama's illness kept her from school for two years. That put her behind for graduation. Apparently, Uncle Son lagged a bit behind, too, so that he could--as he promised my grandfather--take care of Mama at school. They were seniors together, and graduated together, but not before Uncle Son got to remind Mama that she was still a sister to be properly tormented. Mama tells a story about the day that Uncle Son decided to hook her foot with his and start pulling her down from her desk. Her left hip was locked so that she could not bend at that joint; she was effectively helpless as he dragged her down. Son thought it was funny even though I suspect that Mama was more than a little panicked. There were other stories--all now told with great laughter--all speaking of a brother-sister relationship that was very special. It was also "special" that Uncle Son's wounds in the war crippled him for a time and gave him his own limp, hardly noticeable when I was old enough to think about it, but severe enough in the early days of his recovery to give him even greater empathy and compassion for my mother. In later years, I saw the special love that Mama had for this brother and realized, with much gratitude, that it was fully returned when Uncle Son stood by her at Daddy's funeral. He was her rock then as he had been in those dark days of her illness. There's no way I wouldn't have done everything I could to take her to say her final goodbye to Uncle Son.

Sadly, I realize that there is much that I do not know about Uncle Son's military service--his rank, his unit. We know that he entered the European theatre through Italy. We know that he was wounded when he tried to save another wounded soldier stranded on the battlefield, but was himself hit by sniper fire. Those medals include a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star. I don't know what the other battle ribbons and medals are for, but I took several pictures so that I could look them up.

This, however, I do know. He was a hero to my mother. That makes him a hero to me.

The Language of Politics

2005-04-27T12:04:00.000-05:00

Over at Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall is, once more, tracking the Republican use of language on an issue. He spent quite of bit of time a while back looking at how Republicans discovered that "privatization" of Social Security was not selling well with the American public, so they switched from talking about "private accounts" to "personal accounts" (and blaming the former terminology on the Democrats). Marshall had entry after entry detailing the shift in media reports as they followed the Republican Party line about labels for the same old sow's ear.

Now Marshall is tracking the use of the term "nuclear option" as it refers to a change in Senate rules on the use of the filibuster. The term was coined by Trent Lott, used widely by Republicans, quoted by Democrats and the media. Then, Republicans discovered that it wasn't selling well with the American public, so they are trying to change the label for the rule change to "constitutional option" (and blaming the former terminology on the Democrats).

Marshall's efforts are more about media actions and than how successful the strategy of changing labels works. There is something revealed in the process he apparently believes (and so do I) that tells us about the degree to which the corporate media are lazy, duped by party press releases and repetition, and/or corrupted by association with power.

The interesting thing about both of these label shifts is how blatant they are. The shifts are easily documented and clearly reflective of deliberate strategy. There's nothing subtle about it.

Even more interesting, however, is the failure of both linguistic campaigns to move public opinion on the issues. The public still doesn't like the proposed changes to Social Security. They still don't like the changes to Senate rules. And it's not like the public fully understands either issue. It more like the choice of label or frame really does set things up in people's minds; you can call it by another name, but the first one has already determined attitudes.

HJR 6

2005-04-27T11:05:00.000-05:00

There are plenty of other analyses of this amendment, including records of live-blogging from In the Pink Texas and PinkDome. I could join in on the statements about hate and bigotry. I could really join in on the sarcastic comments about terrorists attacking marriage in church fellowship halls.

For a moment I was cynical enough to think that this amendment was simply a means to boost conservative turnout for the 2006 election, but Charles Kuffner, thinking the same thing, found a correction in his comments that reminds us both that the election which would decide the fate of this amendment will be held in November 2005, not 2006. At least I am not alone in my cynicism about this.

The wonder (for Texas) is that 29 House members stood up for their principles and voted against the amendment.

I'm now trying to think what I can afford to do to reward their courage. I could only afford two stuffed bees to give to our Killer D's, so I chose to give one to Garnet Coleman and the other to Eddie Rodriguez, both favorites of mine and both courageous on many issues, not just redistricting. This time around, I'd like to give them all something.

Deja vu all over again

2005-04-25T23:04:00.000-05:00

I took a trip down memory lane last week when I went to a meeting of Austin's zoning and platting commission. Once upon a time, a long time ago, I was more or less a regular at those meetings. Zoning and platting were hot items in my part of the city in those days, and heady days they were.

We had massive zoning "studies" going on wherein the city would zone three or four thousand acres in one big zoning ordinance. We had limited purpose annexation and regular purpose annexation. We had neighborhoods versus developers, developers versus environmentalists, environmentalists versus neighborhoods. We had city planners with fire in their eyes. We had virtual blood baths every Tuesday and Thursday and most days in between while we worked our way through obscure zoning codes and wrangled over watersheds.

Then the real estate market tanked or something, and things slowed down. That gave us time for Austin Plan, a sector by sector plan for the whole city--which came to not much of anything after months and months of meetings and public hearings. At one point, I think I had 11 linear feet of Austin Plan on my bookshelves. Fortunately, the city had begin residential recycling by the time I realized that I could no longer afford to devote my shelf space to a slice of local history.

Then things really slowed down--and my job took up time--and I wasn't involved in local things so very much anymore. Until a couple of weeks ago when my neighborhood association decided that it was time to have another meeting. Once a year is about how often we meet to talk about dog poop and kids playing in the street versus cars driving on the same street. This meeting was a little early, but why not, I thought.

At the meeting, one of my neighbors mentioned that he had received notice of a zoning case near his house. My ears perked up, and I realized that it was a big honking office development that would affect us all if we weren't careful about it. And that put me back in the middle of things I had long ago forgotten about.

It was interesting from several perspectives to see the differences that time had wrought. Meeting with the city meant going to a rabbit warren in a high rise office building. In the old days, there was less rabbit warren and less high rise. The old cubicles had been replaced by actual offices--and we met in an actual conference room. Instead of hauling out huge maps, the planner just called up plats and aerial photographs on his computer.

Meeting with the developers to discuss the case was similarly different. I had dealt with the company in the past when it had a different name, but I recognized the conference room. The company representatives were different--and younger than me this time around. The atmosphere felt different this time, though. Perhaps the combination of age and experience gave me confidence. Perhaps the simple cordiality of the meeting was more pleasant than my memories of past conflicts. In any case, it was prettty much--what can we do to make this work? So we told 'em. And they agreed to what we asked and more. I mean, who gets a 750 foot setback without asking?

The next step was to get a formal motion from the Zoning and Platting Commission to say what we had agreed to. There was some shuffling in the background with my neighborhood. I really don't want to take on any more responsibility much less leadership, but there was a bit of a vacuum there for a few days. I slipped into the role of representative without much strain--but only for the one hearing, we all agreed.

The Commission still meets in City Council Chambers, but, of course, Austin has a new City Hall and new Council Chambers. This was my first visit. I arrived early to scope out the parking issues--which turned out to be pretty simple since there is now an actual parking garage. The next hurdle was getting through security. This surprised me, although I suppose it shouldn't have. Still, there's no metal detector at the Capitol these days, so I was startled by the metal detector and x-ray machine for bags and three guards on duty.

Entering the Chambers took a bit of time, since sign in is still required for testimony. The hall was caretainly bigger than the old one and made even larger by the presence of actual windows. Lots of them. Whole glass walls of them. The distance separating the audience from the dais had also increased. There were several monitors and screens around for projection, but no evidence of what might be showing on Cable Channel 6. (Does the Commission still show up there anymore?) I think that someone making their first visit to the Chambers could be intimidated by their arrangement--and the entry hassles. I was just fascinated by the change of venue and atmosphere.

Since we had worked out prior agreements with the developers and city staff had concurred with those agreements, our case would have been voted on by "consent" (without discussion) had Save Barton Springs not appeared to lodge a protest against development in that part of the city. At that point, everything fell back into place for me, and I was exactly where I remembered being. In fifteen years, nothing has changed after all.

The staff presented the case. The developer's agent stated his position. SBS made their case. I presented the neighborhood view--and slipped in a little history. The Commission approved the case and passed it on to City Council. I am told that SBS will have a "substantial presence" at the Council hearing on the case.

And what's at issue? A large office development in an environmentally sensitive watershed. The development could generate a lot of traffic at peak hours, which means air pollution that eventually pollutes the water. (Yes, your car pollutes the water you drink as well as the air you breathe. And a poor road system makes it worse.) SBS wanted to see single family residences on one-acre lots instead of the proposed 3-4 story office buildings limited to 20 percent impervious cover.

Oh, dear. And there I was, mentally screaming: Do you realize how much those houses would cost these days? Do you have any idea how much the county will raise my property taxes because of those fancy-assed houses? And who's gonna tell those rich neighbors you want me to have to forego fertilizing their lawns or propertly dispose of used motor oil? And why do I have to put up with more neighorhood noises 24/7 when the office workers would go home--somewhere else--at 5:00? And--well, the list goes on. I've been down this road before. Literally.

All of it brings back those same old problems. My neighborhood shouldn't exist. It's the oldest subdivision in the area, platted in the 1940's. Houses weren't built until the 1960's. It's small and secluded. There are still a few vacant lots in the subdivision, but they will soon be built out. Even so, one of my neighbors still has a few goats in a side lot. We only got a sewer lines within the last five years. Before that, our aging septic tanks were probably worse than any traffic in the area for pollution. The earlier residents of the neighborhood (in 27 years, weve lived there longer than just about everyone else) were independent-leave-me-alone kinds of folks. Many of the current residents still are.

So. This neighborhood shouldn't exist because it's built on a sensitive watershed. In a karst area. In an aquifer-recharge zone. With drainage problems that suggest that some tributary or some creek or other is being frustrated by the presence of houses where water really wants to flow.

Still it exists. Which means that those of us who generally had no clue about the enviromental sensitivity of the area when we sank our life savings into our property--which was rural in those days before the city sprawled out to capture us with annexation--have to figure out how to continue to live in the area and protect our steadily eroding quality of life.

Much has changed in the past fifteen years--and nothing has changed. The city even says they will start a new planning study--a neighborhood plan--for our area this fall. I can hardly wait.

Texas Shield Law for Journalists

2005-04-24T12:27:00.000-05:00

Rep. Aaron Pena has proposed HB 188, a shield law for journalists. The bill was heard in the Judiciary Committee on April 18. I didn't attend the hearing, since the bill is not one that I would normally track, and I haven't listened to the broadcast, since I'm using a dial-up connection (broadband is too expensive for a retired Prince and the bride-who-works-for-a-nonprofit).

Having said that, I still (of course!) have an opinion. Or at least some pressing questions. As I read the bill, it really doesn't cover the kind of situation that we see with the Valerie Plame case. In that case, a federal law against revealing the name/identity of a U.S. spy is prohibited, but someone at the White House did so, telling several reporters Valerie Plame's name and identifying her as a CIA operative. This was done for political reasons. The actual investigation by the federal prosecutor seems to be over, but there have been no public announcements that tell us what the results are. The reporter who actually revealed Plame's identity seems not to be suffering any ill consequences of his bad act, but two others, facing jail time for not revealing their sources, are appealing to the Supreme Court.

I've written about the Plame case before. It just really irks me, and not merely because it all arose for political reasons. As much as I disdain President Bush and his administration and pretty much all he stands for and just about everything he has done as president, the issue for me is something else altogether.

The First Amendment protects freedom of the press. More than that, it tells us that one of the core values of our nation is that the press be free to speak the truth, that our democracy depends upon that. For someone like Robert Novak to toss that core value aside for purely partisan reasons, to do so in conspiracy with others, is an attack on the Constitution and our nation. Now to hide behind that same First Amendment and claim immunity from revealing his co-conspirators is a abominable act. And, oh, yeah, by the way, people's lives were jeopardized because of his criminal act, a career was trashed, national security was damaged, and we're still losing American lives because he was party to a conspiracy to dupe the American public about the justifications for war.

I guess you could say that I feel rather strongly about this issue.

And, yet, I can see the need for a shield law in Texas. My question is this. Let's pretend for a moment that the Governor makes a speech about an issue and includes incorrect information. Let's pretend that someone had already given him the correct information and, upon hearing the incorrect information in the speech, chooses to publish the correct information on her own via an op ed. Suppose then that the Governor, unhappy with that, decides to take retribution by discrediting the op ed writer and, in the course of doing so, knowingly reveals that the op ed writer's spouse is an undercover narc for one of our regional drug task forces--and reveals his identity. What then? If a reporter participates in that kind of partisan activity, committing a crime in the process, would the proposed shield law protect him/her? Should it? Or should I just get over it and accept the fact that a higher principle is at work because, even though it might let one scumbag get away with trashing the Constitution, it's important to maintain that higher principle?

I guess I've answered my own question. The higher principle should win. But, still, I am just so irked with Robert Novak. I hope he gets a pimple in a tender place.

If it's all about sex . . .

2005-04-20T11:17:00.000-05:00

The headline reads: AIDS groups, gay activists dismayed over new pope. The blogs are dissing back and forth about a response to Andrew Sullivan's dismay that said: "It's always about sex with Andrew, isn't it?"

And I'm just thinking that sex is the issue. Not necessarily for Mr. Sullivan. Not even, as Atrios points out:

The question isn't why for Sullivan or me or anybody else it's "always about the sex." The question is why in contemporary society much of religion is all about the sex, and especially gay sex. Last I checked there were all kinds of sins and all kinds of sinning going on. The Church may never stop considering homosexuality to be a "moral evil." But, they consider lots of things to be "moral evils." Why the obsession with hot gay sex?

Rather, in the matter of using condoms to prevent HIV:

"The use of prophylactics is unacceptable even as a solution to the problem of AIDS, because the objective is the fight against fornication," said Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, the Vatican's health secretary.
"The sixth commandment says it clearly: do not fornicate. It's not a negative position. We are doing it to defend life," he said, while recognizing the right of a spouse whose husband has HIV/AIDS to demand that he use a condom.

Not being a Biblical scholar, I can't really speak to what the sixth commandment might have said or meant in its original Hebrew. However, I should note that there is some question about whether the sixth commandment is actually "Thou shalt not kill" or "Thou shalt not commit adultery." The Cardinal's statement seems to support both interpretations since he speaks of the "fight against fornication" and "defend[ing] life" as reasons to oppose the use of condoms. And, of course, there is some question whether "fornication" includes "adultery" and vice versa.

Whatever. Shrug.

Condoms prevent the spread of HIV. They don't cause or even encourage people to have sex (fornicatory or adulterous or even marital). If having sex is the issue, then talk about that. Talk about it until you're blue in the face if that's what it's all about. But don't demonize condoms. They are just a means of preventing the spread of disease--if used consistently and correctly--not an aphrodisiac.

Popular Culture, Democrats, Policy

2005-04-12T12:39:00.000-05:00

I'm in a hurry, so there's no hope of being creative on titling or extensive in references. Atrios (link above) refers to Amy Sullivan's response (link in Atrios) to Matthew Iglesias' response (link in Sullivan's response) to something Amy said (hellifiknow what that link is) about Democrats, popular culture, and public policy. [whew] Sullivan apparently thinks that Dems need to talk more about the broader community's concerns about the coarsening of popular culture to show how we identify with those concerns--even if there is no actual public policy solution to those concerns. A lot of folks pile on in slamming Sullivan's essay; Atrios and Iglesias essentially say that there are more important things to be talking about.

So I agree with most everything all of them are saying (even the slammers--though not with the ad hominem comments) to some extent--but not to the extent that I want to see Democratic office holders or candidates for office start using those evil Hollywood movies to distract people from the real issues that we need to be addressing in this country. The entertainment industry is, in general, a means of pacifying the masses and distracting them from those issues anyway; when we don't like the pacifier, complaining about it can also be a distraction if we use it as a way to avoid looking at the underlying problems.

What I think is that there is a lot of crap out there in movie theaters and on the airwaves. I don't watch it or listen to it--by choice. There are a few programs on television that I like to watch. Survivor I have already discussed (and wasn't last week's episode one to make you think a bit?). CSI (not the clones) is another that I like. I can pretty well tell when they are about to close in for one of the gory shots--and I literally cover my eyes so that I don't have to see it. These are "low culture" and widely dismissed as part of the "decline" of network television. On the other hand, I had little use for Frasier, which is said to be a fine show, because I just don't like wasting my time on sit-coms. I make the odd exception when I accidentally run across "King of the Hill" (I think that's its name) late at night. My car radio is tuned to either classical or oldies rock or NPR. The rest is noise. And the radio is usually off anyway. Most of the movies that we see are purchased, usually when they have been around for quite a while. We tend to like romantic comedies for joint viewing; tear-jerkers for me to see without the Prince. From this you can tell that the occasional flash of skin is not a problem, violence is. And we vote with our pocket books--to the extent that we contribute to commercial entertainment at all--to show that it's only the occasional flash of skin that is acceptable and never the violence.

There's still lots of stuff out there that we wouldn't watch or listen to willingly, but it's still there. Someone likes it. Someone is spending large amounts of money to support it. The market is voting. I don't much like their favorites. In fact, I actively disapprove of some of the things that I know are showing up on movie screens and on radio and television. I think the radical body makeovers are sickening and exploitive. I think the violent movies are disgusting. I'm not really sure how four-letter words can be musical and--while I am familiar with the F word and know how to put it to effective use--I really don't think it needs to be coming out of anyone's radio. Nonetheless, I know that to some people there is some artistic merit in this dreck. Or at least they find it entertaining. I don't see how criticizing their taste in popular culture or attacking those who provide it for them will address the underlying issues that are being met in the popular culture that they consume.

No time now to look at rap music, but let's consider for a minute the violent movies that are out there. Bruce Willis Hard Something movies. Things exploding. Bodies flying. There's probably a simple plot. Good guys versus bad guys. Good guys win, but first there's a lot of gore. The audience for this movie is more male than female. The audience is younger more than older. They're watching the movie because they've been well attracted by advertising that is geared to their demographic. They're watching the movie because there are no more attractive alternatives for their time, such as sports or family or community activities. They're watching the movie because there are fantasies of male success that cannot be fulfilled in other ways being played out on the screen.

There are precious few public policy solutions that would be effective in turning this audience away from this product. Maybe some more money to support sports or community activities would be helpful. More funds to help young folks go to college. But it's really up to the families to say what is good and valuable and what is not. The values that say it's pleasurable to watch people explode come from home, not from the movie producer.

I couldn't watch the first half of Saving Private Ryan. I believe that there were important messages in that movie. I believe that I got them. I just couldn't bear to see how all of them were portrayed. Not with my eyes. My mind knew those images from long ago. Bruce Willis has appeared in some really crappy movies. Tom Hanks has appeared in some great ones. Which ones should we censor? Which ones should Democrats complain about?

Nope. This is personal values and personal responsibility.

Racism/Sexism in Health Care

2005-03-31T17:20:00.000-06:00

Someone sent me a full copy of this article from WebMD. The research found that only a minority of minority members actually preferred a physician of the same race or ethnicity as their own. The majority had no preference. For African-Americans who had a preference, the reason was based on a belief that there is inherent racism in the American health care system.

The authors agreed that there is a pattern of undercare for minorities, that is, some comparatively small percentage will receive less than optimal care. However, the overwhelming majority of minority members do, in fact, receive excellent care in the current system.

The authors apparently think that there should be less emphasis on trying to recruit and train more minority doctors and instead work with the patients who are uncomfortable with the system to make them more comfortable--or something like that. When I got to this quote, my brain shut down, and I decided that they needed to rework their analysis a tad.

"Say a white person comes in and says, 'I only want to see a white doctor.' How comfortable are we with this?" van Ryn says. "And another problem is right now, blacks are a minority of doctors. And for black patients always seeing one, even if we had an equivalent ratio of black doctors to the black population, it is not going to work out. And what about Native Americans, and those who want women doctors? So while I think it is extremely important to have the health care work force represent the population being served, I am not sure [matching patients to doctors by race] is viable."

You can see from the emphasis that I added what set me off. I just remembered an exchange that I had with the male HMO doc that I used to see:

Me: I'm having chest pains.
Him: Let's do the hysterectomy first and then we'll deal with that.

"That" was the referred pain from a seriously bad gall bladder, which had to be removed less than eight weeks after the hysterectomy.

Compare that to the exchange with the female PPO doc that I see now:

Me: I'm having chest pains.
Her: Let's do an EKG.

And then she followed it up with a referral to a cardiologist.

Somehow, I don't think it's the HMO vs. PPO issue that makes the difference. Indeed, we now pay more for a PPO so that I can see a woman doctor.

No Draft for Darfur

2005-03-29T21:58:00.000-06:00

Not that I think there will be a military draft anytime in the foreseeable future, but some military planners might be secretly wishing there were one. Or maybe it's political planners who would be engaging in the wishful thinking when there aren't enough bodies in the military to carry out their political objectives.

Helen Thomas writes that military recruitment is now being met with "disinterest." She notes that the Army and the Marines may have trouble making their annual recruiting goals and that the National Guard will surely miss its goal. Minority youth and women are increasingly reluctant to join up.

Thomas attributes this to the shift in purpose for the war in Iraq. There was more willingness to join up and serve when there was a perception of threat to the U.S., less willingness when the purpose is to "liberate" Iraq.

Reminding us of the saying from the Vietnam days ("Someday they'll give a war and nobody will come"), she also points out that a draft is unlikely and finds the quotes to shore up the point. Her conclusion is nicely done:

Compulsory military service is politically unpalatable -- and more so in an unpopular war. Although the administration has done a masterful job of shielding the public from photos of the coffins of the dead flown into the Dover, Del., military mortuary, the reality of war is getting through.
If the Army continues to be all-volunteer and enlistments keep falling, the good side of the equation is that it could force Bush and his saber-rattling strategists to slow down before launching another pre-emptive foreign adventure.
Bush may then try something new -- like peacemaking.

It almost seems like old news to be thinking about Iraq these days. The new news is Terri Schiavo and steroids and the really, really serious, almost-any-day-now-imminent collapse of Social Security. But there is other more or less new news lurking about--like Darfur. I can't help feeling that the Sudan would be a better place for American troops right now--if we had enough. But we don't, of course, because we're wasting them in a war that has no clear purpose, that was planned on false intelligence, that didn't include a plan for peace, and . . . well, it's all been said, hasn't it?

The thing is, we knew about Idi Amin and the horrors that he perpetrated--and we sat still. We knew about Bokassa--and let that get worse and worse. We knew about Rwanda--and just wrung our hands in sorrow. So now it's Darfur.

There may be some intellectual inconsistency here. I'll have to think about my unhappiness with military intervention in Iraq versus my thinking that we need to do something about Darfur. In the meantime, I'll also ponder the notion that the Sudan also has oil--but the major oil concession in the Darfur region belongs to China--which holds a fair amount of our national debt. Yet another reason, I suppose, to stay away from that draft thing.

Decision Point

2005-03-25T01:41:00.000-06:00

My Prince and I looked at each other last night after the network news ended. I asked: "So do you have any questions about my intentions regarding my living will?" He said: "Nope. Pull the plug. Do you have any questions about mine?" And I said: "Nope. Pull the plug."

The ongoing spectacle surrounding Terri Shiavo is disturbing on a number of levels, but it has committed me even more firmly to my belief that death is a part of life. We are born, we live as best we can, and then, like all good things, it comes to an end. I am not yet ready for that end, but I know that it will come sooner rather than later. I would prefer that it come suddenly and not be the long, drawn out affair that it could be under the circumstances. But, if it becomes that long, drawn out affair, I hope My Prince will have the courage to know that the time to end it has come and will let me go.

I say this will full understanding that I am suffering from the loss of so many that have been dear to me. I looked up from my computer at my office yesterday and realized that the bulletin board that hangs in front of me is full of pictures of dead people. My house is filled with mementos of loved ones. I cling to my father's tools, cherishing even a screw driver, because he worked with it. This all probably contributes to a fair amount of depression, I would guess.

But I know from my own experience that there is a time to let people go. It's their memory that I cling to--I would not hold them to a life of pain and suffering.

In about three weeks, on April 15, we will face the ninth anniversary of my father's death. I still vividly recall the day. The morning phone call. The frantic drive to Houston. The race through the halls of the hospital. And standing in the waiting room as my mother handed the phone to me so that I could talk to the doctor. She could not make the decision that needed to be made, so she gave the responsibility to me.

My father had had a massive stroke. If he lived, he would be unable to speak. He would not be able to feed himself. He might not know anyone or anything. He likely would have to be confined to a nursing home. These were things that I knew my father would not want. He was always the caregiver; were he aware of what was going on, he would hate to be the one being taken care of. He would hate the weakness, the helplessness, the loss of dignity.

The doctor wanted to know if we wanted him to continue to try to keep Daddy alive. In the end, I was the one consoling the doctor, reminding him that he had already kept Daddy alive for years with drugs and baling wire. Daddy was worn out. I think he had been waiting to die for some time. And I told him to let Daddy go.

I sat beside my father then. I talked to him, telling him that we would take care of Mama, that he didn't need to worry any more. I suppose that we fool ourselves about the things that we want to believe. He never regained consciousness, so there is no way to know that he heard me or that it mattered what I said. Still, not long after I talked to him about taking care of Mama, he drifted away. Sometimes I feel it was the words as much as the medical decision that let him go in peace. He'd given so much of his life to taking care of my mother, it was almost as if he wouldn't let go until he knew that someone else would take up where he left off.

I cannot judge Terri Shaivo's parents. I shouldn't anyway. But I cannot see myself being so selfish that I would want someone that I loved so very much to live in pain or suffering just so I could cling to them.

I do, however, judge those who have tried to intervene in this family's agony. When the day comes that I or My Prince has to make a decision regarding the other, neither of us would take very kindly to having the courts or Congress having an opinion much less taking any action regarding our decision. I know that much of the intervention has been for political purposes, and the media circus is just that--a circus. Still, there seems now to be some possibility of all this right-to-life nonsense spilling over into yet another area of personal decision making. That's not right.

The Long Goodbye

2005-03-24T08:42:00.000-06:00

We're taking a small breather around our house today. I have "sick leave" for some doctor's appointments, and My Prince--well, he never seems to get a breather, actually. He's messing with some "toys" in the garage (he calls them "tools," but they're still toys) right now, but soon he'll be off to do yet another good deed for one of our elders.

But, in a sense, he, too, will be getting a small break from the work of the past few weeks, which has been one more step in saying goodbye to his mother. Two weekends ago, we had the family together to select the items in his mother's home that they wanted. Last weekend, we completed the work of emptying her house and getting it ready for sale. On Tuesday, he closed the sale, which gives us a tough milestone in our goodbyes.

Going through the house with the relatives was a bit of a zoo. I preferred a bit more orderly process than what occurred, so the event was somewhat stressful for me. Not the least of the stress was wondering what value various people were actually placing on the things that they took. At least one seemed somewhat mercenary. Except for one or two things that were particularly special to My Prince and me, we generally stood back to let the others have their choices.

The irony, of course, is that we were more than satisfied with the "leavings." We had already looked through the house and had the opportunity to look at how things were arranged, how my mother-in-law ordered her life, the things that she thought were worth holding on to. It was a chance to get to know her better and gather more memories to treasure. After the family event, things were in serious disarray, but we had the responsibility of packing up and disposing of the remainder. We were surprised at how much stuff was buried in the back of closets and hidden away on shelves. My mother-in-law had more storage space that we realized, and she used it all.

The packing up took several days. We didn't expect there to be quite so much to pack, but it was quite astonishing. On one day, we loaded my car up entirely with items for Goodwill. My Prince's car was loaded up with garbage and recycling. The garbage haul was because the area where my mother-in-law lived would only remove one small can of garbage per week. We had to haul things back home and pay for the extra bags, but at least we could get it disposed of. And the recycling? My mother-in-law saved every plastic container that came her way. She saved bread bags. She saved the zipper bags that tortillas and other foods come in. She saved canning jars and jars that could be made to work for canning. I filled at least 5 tubs of recycling from her kitchen and laundry room. I also filled up two large sacks of recyclable plastic bags. And wire hangers! A couple of bags of those, too.

Her thrift extended to other areas as well. Many of the items that we found in her closets and drawers were brand new, some even with the sales tag still on them. Many of these we could identify as things that we had given her in the past. There were an astonishing number of gifts when we thought about it. Birthday, Christmas, Mother's Day, Valentine's Day. I also sent presents when My Prince went to visit and I couldn't come along. Little things mostly--and she saved them all. Many were clearly still unused. But she kept them and, I hope, enjoyed the thought that went with them.

What we also found were many items that had been used and reused well past the point of ordinary usefulness. Her dishrags were rags. Her dishtowels were old pillow cases. Her bath towels were quite worn--even when there were at least two dozen brand new towels still in the cupboard. There were at least three brand new robes hanging in her closet, one with the price tag still on it. Nice fleecy warm robes. What she apparently wore was thin and clearly old.

While we were cleaning and clearing out, the weather would change from cold to warm and back again. Whenever the clothes I had with me weren't suitable for the weather, I just went to her closet to see what might fit me among her work clothes. My favorite must have been one of hers as well. A nice soft and faded pair of jeans with a patch on the behind.

The kitchen took a lot of time because my mother-in-law was a grand cook. I now have two boxes of cookbooks and a huge number of recipes that she wrote out by hand or clipped from various sources. Another room that took quite a bit of work was the sewing room, because she was also a fine seamstress. Aside from the many yards of material and boxes of sewing notions (an entire box of elastic, another of buttons), there was a whole wall of shelves and drawers to be gone through.

The shelves held great treasures. Two matching coffee mugs with My Prince's grandparents' names on them. Lovely brass decorative items. Some old crystal pieces. And, zipped up in a bag from a funeral home, a worn and tattered copy of The White House Cookbook, signed by her mother in 1905.

We had to let go of some things. We could not handle the two refrigerators or the freezer. Those went to the Salvation Army, along with assorted wigs, sticky Tupperware, and other items.

Still, we kept a great deal. Our house is now full of boxes and bags and extra furniture. Some of it will replace our own rather tatty items. The grandson was apparently thrilled to get our old sofa and recliner. We are similarly thrilled to get a couch that our late and beloved cat had not christened at every available opportunity. We will really enjoy the porch swing. I will find some way to cram in more cookware--even though I am not nearly the cook that my mother-in-law was. (Fortunately, My Prince will eat anything.)

We will also give more items away. Some to my mother, some to family friends, some to my husband's stepmother (yes, she and my mother-in-law were actually friends). There is a whole garbage sack full of "old lady" purses. A huge box of shoes. A couple of closets worth of clothes.

Right now we are very slowly unpacking and sorting what we brought home. My Prince just came in to show me a small rubber tire. (Apparently there really are toys in that garage!) When he was a child, he apparently accompanied his parents to the Firestone store. The small rubber tire was then part of an ashtray. He must have played with that tire so much that the store owners gave it to him for a toy. The glass broke sometime over the years, but the rubber still looks new--even 50+ years later--and now My Prince has found another treasure. We'll have to find a dish of some sort to fit inside the little tire so he can put paper clips or something in it.

When my father died, I couldn't bear to let go of anything that he had ever touched. I wanted so much to keep him near me. I suppose I was trying to escape the fact that I had lost one of the dearest people in my world. I'm feeling the same thing with my mother-in-law's possessions. I want to hold onto her a little longer. Perhaps this is less a goodbye than a new way to get to know her. Still, I do miss her.

Do unto others

2005-03-16T10:59:00.000-06:00

I just popped over to visit The Agonist, one of the first blogs that I ever read with any dedication. The news stories on the front page seem to be covered well enough in the other blogs that I have been visiting, so I'm feeling no guilt at having outgrown the site. However, there is one item on the front page that caught my eye: an open thread to include folk's favorite adage or aphorism. I could not resist taking a look. There's a nice long posting of the wit and wisdom of Robert Heinlein, for one thing. And another is this long post contrasting statements about self-reliance/selfishness versus the Golden Rule theme.

The key statement in the post is:

And that is what you're really up against: many American leaders actually hold in esteem a belief system that explicitly refutes the collective moral reasoning of every documented human belief system except for white supremacy and Satanism.

The "adages" on self-reliance come from white supremacist writings, Satanist documents, and, that favorite of my youth, Ayn Rand. The statements can be summarized in the notion that the individual is responsible for himself and no other, having a duty only to himself.

In contrast, the poster (one Escher Sketch) provides a really long list of statements related to the "Ethic of Reciprocity," which we mostly know as the Golden Rule, from a really long list of religious belief systems (and a few philosophers). The list is so long that the ethic of reciprocity--do unto others as you would have them do unto you--almost seems like a cultural universal.

A couple of excerpts:

Ancient Egyptian:

"Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to 1970 to 1640 BCE and may be the earliest version ever written. 9

. . .

Socrates: "Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you." (Greece; 5th century BCE)

The post provides a lot of evidence and sees little need to expound on the evidence, since the thoughtful reader can draw some immediate conclusions regarding the irony to be found in the philosophical underpinnings of a considerable amount of political action these days. Pedant that I am, I must hammer the point home--and point you back to the Agonist for the evidence.

And the point is this: Self-reliance is a good thing as long as there is a level playing field. If there is equal opportunity for everyone, and if everyone plays by the same rules without cheating, then it's fair to say that the individual should do his/her best to compete and succeed on that playing field. However, in order to have that level playing field along with equal opportunity and a consensus about the rules, there has to be an ethic of reciprocity first. There has to be respect for the other players on the field and a willingness to play fairly with them. Without that, we start looking as some really tacky rape and pillage that has nothing to do with the values that some folks say they live by but really don't.

[/end rant on hypocrisy]

Just a test

2005-03-11T13:28:00.000-06:00

This is just a test to see how Blogger works with Hello. Of course, nothing is as simple as the marketing information says it is. Sigh. Right now, it's a matter of going from Picasa to Hello, post the picture, go find Blogger (not Bloggerbot) and edit the subsequent post. The Bloggerbot step is not working for me. Mayhap I should read the directions a bit more.

A Friend's Wedding

In any case, this picture shows the cake from a friend's wedding. It seemed cheerier than all the pictures of flowers from funerals that seem to be inhabiting my hard drive. No wonder I'm so depressed. I've been to a zillion funerals in past six months--and expect another one soon.

On naming streets

2005-03-06T11:18:00.000-06:00

Off the Kuff provides a link at the bottom of a long analysis of the current discussion of state ways and means and school finance that seems almost a throwaway. While I grokked the essay on school finance and generally agree with Kuffner's analysis (i.e., this is screwy; it ain't enough; we'll be having the same discussion in four years, if not two), it's the "throwaway" that caught my attention.

Charles Soechting, Chairman of the Texas Democratic Party, has an essay about the current tug of war between two Texas legislators on what to name the drive around the Texas Capitol. That's the drive that is now blocked off with permanent and semi-permanent barricades--the road that no one drives on any more because no one can get to it. Soechting notes that the "choice" is between Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

For my own reasons, the thought of that little pissant piece of road being named after either Reagan or Bush is a problem. I don't, for example, fly into National Airport anymore since it was renamed after Reagan. I don't, if I can avoid it, fly into Houston Intercontinental Airport since it was renamed for GW's daddy (although I'm mellowing on that one). Aside from the more political reasons that have to do with their legacy, I am still way pissed that the Austin School Board refused to even consider naming a local high school for Barbara Jordan because she was still alive at the time. Instead they named the high school for that illustrious Texas hero, Jim Bowie, he of the big knife, many lovers, and much booze. Sauce for the goose, as they say.

But I digress. The road-that-no-one-can-drive-on is a small route around the capital building. It might even need a name so that it can be labelled on maps. Right now, it's just shown as one of the "Capitol Drives" with a label that says "No visitor access to Capitol Drives." (That should be "No visitor vehicles," since you can walk there, and legislators park there.) Whatever.

So Soechting makes a few points about why that little drive shouldn't be named for either Reagan or Bush (the younger):

If you feel that you must name something after the two of them, there must be some serious limits on where you do it. You certainly would not want to name a drive around the capitol after Reagan, simply because he’s not from Texas. And naming a road after George W. Bush is like naming a staircase after Gerald Ford, Bush’s record of drunk driving should dissuade anyone from naming even a private driveway after the man.

I love it! And there's more about the various other places that should not be named for these two men (no school for GWB because he was such a poor student, no banks for RR because he presided over the failure of so many of them). It's a good read, although I don't know that he offers any compromise names that will actually be attended to. One of them was Barbara Jordan, which, of course, I like, and which, of course, makes sense, since she started her political career in the Texas Senate (and that was the first political campaign I ever volunteered for). But that probably won't fly, so I hope the stalemate just hangs on until Sine Die.

Another road naming controversy has popped up over the naming of the stretch of I-20 between Dallas and Fort Worth. A couple of bills (HB 55 and SB 170) have been filed to name it for Ronald Reagan. Now that's a part of Texas where there is some support for naming things after Republican icons, but I do love it that Sen. Royce West (D-Dallas) is fighting back with a counter-proposal (SB 499) to name the same stretch of road for President William Jefferson Clinton.

Nobody is fighting over the re-naming of Hwy 290 in Harris County for Reagan (HB 540). Sigh. And I was just starting to like that as an alternate route to avoid all the congestion and construction on I-10. That definitely sucks canal water.

Bloggers not protected by Constitution

2005-03-05T12:55:00.000-06:00

A quick search of newsmap popped up a disturbing story about an Apple suit against three blogs that revealed company secrets. The crux of the issue is whether blogs are "real press media" and whether they therefore deserve the same protection as print, radio, and television when reporting news and information.

A tentative ruling yesterday by Superior Court judge James Kleinberg is likely to have serious implications for the online publishing industry. In a preliminary ruling on a case filed by Apple Computer against three website publishers, the judge said Apple can force the three website publishers to surrender the names of their sources who disclosed confidential information about the company’s upcoming products.

. . .

By his preliminary ruling, judge Kleinberg had refused to extend to the Web sites the same protection that shields journalists from revealing their unidentified sources or surrendering unpublished material.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation argued their position that the web publishers are journalists and their sources are entitled to protection by the California Shield Law and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Both protect journalists from being forced to disclose their sources.

Apple’s attorney Riley countered by saying that free speech protection applied only to legitimate members of the press and not to website publishers. Freedom of the press was for the press, meaning the traditional media, he said.

The ruling for the case is expected next week and would determine whether those publishers will have to comply with the subpoena to turn over e-mail records and other documents relating to the leak.

I have a problem with the distinction between the need for protection by the first amendment for the press and the question of whether the press is participating in a criminal act. Cf. Robert Novak. I would think that the first amendment was not designed to shield criminal activity, whether it's part of industrial espionage or political machinations leading to a breach of federal law regarding revealing the names of spies. If the law is not clear on this, we are surely in trouble. Being a member of the "press" is not a license for criminal activity.

On the other hand, the whole argument about "real press" is a load of excrement. When the Constitution was written, there weren't any televisions. No radios. Few regular newspapers. There certainly wasn't an internet for Hamilton, Madison, or Jay to use to publish their ideas regarding the Constitution. But these media are merely vehicles, tools for an activity, not the activity itself.

When the intent of the activity is to provide news of events and persons, to analyze current events and ideas, there should be no doubt that it is the action of a "real press." Blogs fall into this category of "real press" when they break news, analyze events and ideas, push items of interest and concern to their respective communities, however small or dispersed.

The matter of Jim Gannon/James Guckert doesn't really muddy this distinction. Here is a fellow who wrote for an online news service, received press credentials for the White House, and actively labelled himself a journalist. He was (is), however, a political hack. How he got into the White House press briefings remains an important question. Whether his efforts were coordinated closely or even at some remove from White House officials is a legitimate question. That doesn't take away from the role that he was filling--however poorly--of an internet-based reporter.

Gannon/Guckert got notice and then trouble because of his blatant partisanship. The underlying implications behind this trouble included an assumption that he was acting as a member of the legitimate press, albeit internet-based, and failed to live up to the standards of good journalism. He didn't write original stories; instead he paraphrased official press releases. He used his access to the White House to propagandize a particular point of view. He played the role of journalist without fulfilling the responsibilities of a journalist.

The same, sadly, can be said of far too many journalists in the "real press." But the medium that they use to present their reports is not the same as the reports that they are presenting.

There is a distinction between the news that one gets in the print press and in the television press. Television looks for visuals. The stories are usually brief and presented as if there were some drama involved. The print press looks at stories in more detail, has more space and time for examination of the underlying problem. The internet-based press, including blogs, often reviews stories presented in other media and expands on them or places them in a more well-defined context. Sometimes the internet-based press reports new details of current stories or even breaks entirely new stories.

By the same token, the internet-based press comes under fire for its adherence--or lack thereof--to current journalistic standards. It is entirely legitimate to expect of the blogs that one reads that the writer(s) make their biases clear and state any conflicts of interest that they may have on an issue. It is entirely legitimate to expect that any facts reported be substantiated with sources.

Why am I so het up about this? I have waffled around with Canal Water Review. Sometimes I have posted personal stories, especially about things and people that have affected me deeply. More often, I have posted my responses and analyses of issues that have been reported elsewhere, sometimes in obscure sources. I haven't decided the degree to which this blog is more political than personal, although it seems to be trending that way these days.

But I have another blog. It's professional. It focuses on a particular issue--and breaks news. It is intended for a particular audience and directed toward getting news about the issue to that audience. Sometimes I get information from sources that would not want to be revealed. I got a memo the other day which had been sent to a committee. I am not a member of that committee. The person who sent it to me is not a member of that committee. Yet, the information should have been public information. It just happens that the person who wrote it is a state employee and cannot circulate such information on his/her own account beyond the bounds of the committee. Luckily, I got it third hand (I got the original, but it came through several hands). I cannot really see anyone every questioning my having that memo or demanding my source, but, in the crazy event that should that happen, you damn betcha, I'm going to claim that that blog is "real press" and that the first amendment applies.

Laugh out loud at spam?

2005-02-26T09:02:00.000-06:00

Spam. I hate it with a passion. I get it by the truckload and spend more time deleting it than I care to think about. Some of it is my own fault. I made the mistake of posting some email addresses on the organization website so that people could contact us for more information or to make comments. The addresses are aliases which go to my real email, so the spam filters don't stop the spam sent via those aliases. New spam filters on the aliases have helped a bit, but nothing seems to eliminate it all.

That means that I have to check my email on a website first, delete all the items that I can identify as spam, and then download my mail. It's tedious and frustrating.

So don't ask why I accidentally found Aunty Spam's website today, but do follow me over to the link she provided to Spamusement. I laughed so hard I nearly choked!

Now maybe I can look at my spam in a new light as I delete it.

Note to spammers: I also work with an anti-fraud task force. I can't tell you how much I laugh when I turn one of you turkeys over to the FDA or the FTC.

A Modest Proposal

2005-02-25T07:09:00.000-06:00

Two in a row, more or less. The Courier Online (is this also a print paper?), which tells about Congressman Kevin Brady's (R-The Woodlands) attempts to sell Social Security reform. What caught my eye when following the link to The Courier's report is this:

"The important thing is for people to remember this is not about seniors, this is about preserving social security for future generations," he [Brady] said. "For those over 55 don't worry we've got you covered."

Now this is not the first time that the continued security of those over age 55 has been pointed out. The President has so assured us, at least since the State of the Union Address, and so have many others.

But, just at this moment, the comment is particularly galling.

Does this mean that anyone over age 55 has now presumably been bought off by the promise of security, so they should, therefore, butt out of the discussion?
If one is over age 55, does one no longer have standing to debate the merits of the various proposals being put forth?
If one is over age 55, is one required now, having been handed 30 pieces of silver, to turn a blind eye to the lies that are being used to promote the idea that there is a crisis that will happen if we do nothing?
If one is over age 55, does that mean that he/she should not care what happens to future generations, since, you know, our generation is, like, covered?

I suppose I could rant on about what this might mean, but, instead, I have a modest proposal: Why doesn't everyone who is over age 55 just butt out of the discussion? That would include the President, Alan Greenspan (for sure), and who from the Texas delegation?

Born before 1950: Butt Out

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (1943)
Rep. Ted Poe (1948)
Rep. Sam Johnson (1930)
Rep. Ralph Hall (1923)
Rep. Joe Barton (1949)
Rep. Al Green (1947)
Rep. Michael Conaway (1948)
Rep. Kay Granger (1947)
Rep. Ron Paul (1935)
Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (1940)
Rep. Silvestre Reyes (1944)
Rep. Randy Neugebauer (1949)
Rep. Charles Gonzalez (1945)
Rep. Lamar Smith (1947)
Rep. Tom Delay (1947)
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (1946)
Rep. Solomon Ortiz (1937)
Rep. Gene Green (1947)
Rep. Eddie Berneice Johnson (1935)
Rep. John Carter (1941)

Born After 1950: Keep Talking

Senator John Cornyn (1953)
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (1957)
Rep. Louis Gohmert (1953)
Rep. John Culberson (1956)
Rep. Kevin Brady (1955)
Rep. Mac Thornberry (1958)
Rep. Michael McCaul (1962)
Rep. Chet Edwards (1951)
Rep. Henry Bonilla (1954)
Rep. Kenny Marchant (1951)
Rep. Henry Cuellar (1955)
Rep. Pete Sessions (1955)

What do we do with those on the cusp, born in 1950? Are they in or out of the discussion, depending upon when the President first promised security to everyone over age 55? That would put:

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee out (1-12-1950)
Rep. Michael Burgess in (12-23-1950)

I guess that would necessitate a benign wave of the hand to both Brady and Hensarling, that they, the young whippersnappers that they are, should carry on. They, after all, have a dog in this fight and we old fogies clearly don't. If it would stop the President from telling more lies (and spare me that smirk), it might almost be worth losing the voices of most of the remaining Democrats in our sadly decimated Texas delegation.

Since, however, I'm pretty sure that nothing will either either the lies or the smirk, I'll have to be content that this modest proposal will share the fate of others in our history. Never mind!

Oh those Internets!

2005-02-25T05:27:00.000-06:00

After some weary days of meetings, crunching numbers (my least favorite activity, since I really only just sort of pinch 'em), and the flu (even though I did get a flu shot), I have been catching up on the news and some favorite blogs. A link from Burnt Orange Report took me to 100 Monkeys Typing and a totally delightful report about about a town hall meeting held by Congressman Jeb Hensarling (R-Athens/Dallas) in Kaufman County.

Aside from the fun in reading the rather pointed questions from the audience about Social Security reform (and the apparent heat being felt by the Congressman about trying to sell this boondoggle), I enjoyed the quality of the report. It provided information about the Congressman's presentation (including notes about "couldn't see figure"), a few direct quotes, and then those questions and answers, complete with description of audience reaction. I really got a kick out of the note that Kaufman County Commissioner District 3 took his business card back from our intrepid reporter after he asked a question about the comparison of a $2 trillion cost now versus a $10.4 trillion cost later.

Over at Daily Kos (they get so many hits, Google it if you want), there are several diaries working through issues related to Jeff Gannon/Jim Guckert with collective efforts by that community of readers and diarists to gather specific information about Gannon/Guckert's activities. The investigation is one that is not really happening in the corporate media but needs to be happening, since it relates to questions of national security, journalistic integrity, and the widening credibility gap between the White House and just about any person with a brain. This effort has led to some clear identification of matters to be considered further--and others that are clearly dead ends or apparently irrelevant. It has also resulted in the development of a new tool for online activism when investigating issues (but, of course, I can't find the link right now).

Over at TPM, Joshua Marshall is encouraging his readers to supply him with original documents and other reports in his ongoing research on congressional action on Social Security reform--and he gets them. In a recent post, he quoted the email reports of not one, but two, readers who physically walked over to an address that had been the center of some discussion about cozy interrelationships and reported on what they saw.

This is the power of the internet (and, by extension, blogs), that issue investigation can proceed from many fronts with many individuals with diverse interests and abilities contributing their bits and pieces of information and expertise in order to create some greater whole. It is also power that original reporting will happen in ways that the corporate media will not bother to address, either from lack of interest or lack of courage.

Thank goodness the interest--and the courage--to pursue truth is out there, alive, well, and doing good stuff. It cheers me up immensely.

"Canal Water Approved" sites

2005-02-13T16:37:00.000-06:00

I've updated my blogroll a bit. I visit these sites fairly regularly.

Altercation is a professional site done by Eric Alterman over at MSNBC. I, of course, like the liberal take on things and enjoy his writing style. Alterman spends a bit too much time promoting his books for my taste, and I'm not much interested in his take on music, but he otherwise hits the high points of current issues really well.

Burnt Orange Report focuses on the Democratic party and its politics, some state level issues, and some national issues. While BOR has been on my blogroll for some time, they've recently opened up their group of posters, now including Vince Leibowitz. Leibowitz' enthusiasm and activism are inspirational--and quite charming. I do believe I love that man.

Eschaton is another "veteran" of my blogroll. I check Atrios' comments daily, if not more so. While his style is not always easy, his knowledge is helpful to those of us who have no clue, especially in matters economic. I look to Atrios to point me to the "sore points" in our nation's psyche.

Texas Music is out of alphabetical order. Must fix that someday. "My" Jack is so unreconstructed, so unrepentant, so politically incorrect--at times--but he is, I believe, a man of dedication and commitment, not to mention honor. I don't always agree with him, but I love his writing and would be proud to adopt him as another son. Mama would harangue him about the ACLU thing if she weren't more concerned that the boy just stay safe.

I go to the newsmap two or three times a week to see what's going on. The map gives me a sense of what the major stories are; often I find something that I have missed while perusing blogs and my home news page. (Hmm, how else would I know the the Christian Science Monitor is suggesting that the solution to the SS crisis is to do nothing? The rationale is that economic projections 75 years out are just so much guesswork. And there are 731 "related articles" on this subject, making it a semi-large story.)

Off the Kuff is a new addition to the blogroll, but not to my list of "must sees." I check Charles Kuffner's entries more than once a day, since he often updates throughout the day. Kuffner is good for Texas issues with emphasis on Houston, although he doesn't mind weighing in on national issues when the mood strikes.

I hesitated about including the Panhandle Truth Squad, since I only check in with them once in a while. They focus quite heavily on the Amarillo Globe News and its many sins, but their forays into state and national politics can be quite interesting. I should check them out more often, I think.

The People's Republic of Seabrook has long been a favorite of mine, especially for its quirky take on news and politics. Even if you can't agree with Jack Cluth's politics (and I generally do), you have to love his frequent mailto:Dumb@$$ Hmmm, maybe I'm not so happy after all. Jack appears to have taken over my computer: Every time I type Dumb@$$ the computer insists on inserting a "mailto" link. Bad Jack!

On the other hand, I would just have to love anyone who would make this her blog's catchphrase:

I'm a psychologist working in HIV research and treatment in the inner city. Don't talk to me about "compassionate conservatism."

I check Respectful of Otters comparatively infrequently, but the posts are comparatively infrequent (the most recent appears to be from December). Even so, the posts are insightful, well-researched, and well worth the wait.

My final addition today is Talking Points Memo. I first found Josh Marshall when he blogged about Tom Delay's intervention in Texas redistricting. I have been reading him multiple times daily ever since then. While Josh occasionally becomes obsessive about a single issue (as he is now about Social Security), his insight into Washington is beautiful to behold. And those obsessions often make a difference. When Josh Marshall is pissed, people do seem to listen.

I could add more, but it's time to get back to fighting off alligators.

Hood Robin

2005-02-13T15:32:00.000-06:00

If that's the reverse of Robin Hood, then that's what I'm talkin' about.

The problems that we are now facing because of the large tax cuts instigated by President Bush have long galled me. The argument used in making the tax cuts was that "it's our money, so we should have it returned to us." The rationale for having larger tax cuts go to wealthier Americans was that "they pay more taxes, so they should get more back." It's certainly true that the money given back through tax cuts was "our money." That's where taxes come from. My pocket. Yours. It's certainly true that some people pay more taxes than others. I work for a non-profit; my salary is low (really!); I pay less income taxes than a whole lot of people.

But the problems caused by those tax cuts have been quite serious. Not only do we have a ballooning national debt, we have a declining dollar, severe restrictions on spending for domestic programs, and no way out that I can see for a health care system in crisis.

Now we come to the discussion of Social Security. It gives me a total headache. Without the knowledge or the desire to involve myself in all of the math involved, I still think it's a boondoggle. Just another way to take a swipe at poor folks and line the pockets of the rich. The arguments in favor of privatizing Social Security is that it is in crisis, that we are fast approaching the day when less money will flow into the system than will be paid out, that private accounts will give the individual more control over their future benefits as well as giving them something to leave as a legacy for their descendants.

But there is apparently no crisis. In 2018, we'll reach the point that was planned for and understood in 1983--current income for the program will be less than current outlays, SO the program will have to dip into its savings account: The Social Security Trust Fund. That's the money that we--you and I--have been paying into the program all these years, more money than was actually needed to keep the program going, just SO that there would be a surplus in 2018 and we'd have enough money to keep paying benefits at their promised level.

That surplus exists now as part of the national debt. The government has borrowed that money to pay for other things, like war or tax cuts or even health care. But the government has always--until now--promised to pay it back. Even now the Constitution still requires that it be paid back.

But the President is out and about the country now saying that there is no trust fund, that 2018 is the year in which SS goes bankrupt. It would appear that the only reason that this could happen is if the government defaults on its promise to pay back what it borrowed.

So now the light finally comes on in my feeble brain: The money that was used to give tax cuts, more to the rich because "they paid more taxes," is going to be paid for with money that was paid into the system (to save for the rainy day in 2018) by poor folks, middle class folks.

How can I say that? You only pay SS taxes on the first $90,000 of earned income. If you earn more than that, you don't pay FICA. If you have unearned income (investments, capital gains) you don't pay FICA on that. It's just us working folks that paid all that money into the Trust Fund.

So we pay, they get the tax cut, and we lose Social Security. If that ain't Hood Robin, then maybe it's just plain Robbing Hood.

I'd say that that sucks canal water, but it's way worse than that.

Kerry's "Kid's First" Act

2005-02-10T17:53:00.000-06:00

Senator John Kerry has introduced legislation (S.114) to expand health coverage for the nation's children. The Boston Globe discusses the legislation and Kerry's strategies for passage.

Kerry said the bill fulfills a pledge he made on the campaign trail, where he vowed to make such legislation the first bill he'd file as president. He has signed up 300,000 ''citizen cosponsors," recruited via his campaign e-mail list. Kerry said he is planning to ''gin up energy" for his bill through speeches around the country.

I am pleased to be one of those citizen co-sponsors. Here is Senator Kerry's request for you to be one, too.

Dear Friend,
Please join me in co-sponsoring the Kids Come First Act on johnkerry.com.
http://www.johnkerry.com/KidsFirst
A sick child is always a worry. A sick child that you can't get help for is a parent's worst nightmare. Helping the 11 million children who have no health coverage isn't even on the radar screen of the Bush administration and the Republican leaders in Congress. But, we're going to put it there.
It is totally unacceptable that, in the greatest country in the world, millions of children are not getting the health care they need. That's why I have introduced the Kids Come First Act . Here's why it's so important to do something now:
1/4 of children are not fully up to date on their basic immunizations.
1/3 with chronic asthma do not get a prescription for medications they need.
1/2 of uninsured children have not had a well child visit in the past year.
1 in 6 has delayed or unmet medical needs.
1 in 5 has trouble accessing health care.
1 in 4 does not see a dentist annually.
1 in 3 had no health insurance during 2002 and 2003.
In the Senate, I am working hard to convince my colleagues to co-sponsor this vitally important bill. But, the most important co-sponsors - the ones who can help push this legislation through a Republican Congress and the Bush White House - are the hundreds of thousands of grassroots activists in the johnkerry.com community.
To date, over 470,000 Americans have signed our Kids Come First petition. We're closing in on our immediate goal of 500,000 before President Bush makes his State of the Union Address on Wednesday. We'll build from there until we stand one million strong. We've got to put getting our children the health care they need at the top of our national agenda. It won't be easy, but we will never relent until we find a way to put Kids First.
http://www.johnkerry.com/KidsFirst

A summary of the bill can be found by following the links under the "'Kids First' Act" section of his Senate web page (scroll down a screen).

The Bush budget, cuts in low places

2005-02-08T01:06:00.000-06:00

The president's budget is out, and it's a doozie. Aside from taking whacks at "inefficient" and "unproductive" programs, it shows some clear ideological preferences--and just a touch of ye olde shell game. This is what I can tell so far:

Byrne-grant task forces are said to be cut by 90 percent, making any action by the Texas legislature all but moot.
My issue, despite a positive mention in the State of the Union Address, receives a mere $10 million increase. Experts say that we need (nationally) $197 million just to maintain current services. (Did we not just note that cost shifting is alive and well in Austin? Why should DC be any different?) And, BTW, we're going to need $15.4 million in your state tax dollars to make up for this little federal budget problem.
Social security reform isn't even in the budget.
Additional funds for the war in (supply name) are not in the budget.
Medicare reform is not in the budget.
Medicaid is slashed by some ridiculous percent. Makes one wonder why no reporter back in 2000 ever made the connection between the tight-fisted, uncompassionate Texas Medicaid program and any potential action by the former-governor-future-president. But, we'll also need some huge addition in your state tax dollars to take care of indigent health care in Texas if this Medicaid cut goes through. (Gotta have state dollars because a lotta counties sure don't want to take care of their poor folks.)

Guess we'll all be feeling some pain from this one. OTOH, abstinence-only education got a nod from the President for a $38 million increase. We know how well that works, now, don't we?

Trends affecting Texas taxpayers

2005-02-07T06:14:00.000-06:00

Friday's issue of Texas Government Insider, an electronic newsletter published by Strategic Partnerships, Inc., lists several trends that affect Texas taxpayers:

Here are some of the most important, ever moving current trends to watch. These are significant trends that will certainly have an impact (one way or the other) on Texas taxpayers. . . .
Tuition increases at almost every institution of higher education
A major focus on economic development in Texas
Hundreds of bond elections throughout the state at local levels
Some of the largest transportation efforts ever mounted
A concentrated focus on educational institutions and educational programs
Health care costs being pushed to local governments
Less state funding for prison operations

So which ones make your blood run cold? SPI promises to publish more trends in later issues. I can hardly wait.

All my children

2005-02-05T07:47:00.000-06:00

Like sisters, children are where you find 'em. Didn't have any sisters to start out with, didn't have any kids either. But you pick some up along the way, if you keep your eyes open. Some, of course, you don't expect. Like when you have to mother your own mother.

My stepdaughter lived with us off and on when she was growing up. During her last period of residence, she came with a cat. Naturally, she left without the cat, and we were stuck with it.

The cat had to be the most neurotic creature I have ever seen. I love cats. I've lived with several in my life. This one was just plain weird.

She spent the first year of residence teaching us what not to do. She communicated her wishes with various bodily emissions. Strip the bed to clean up after her a few times and you would learn: Use only Fresh Step cat litter; don't even think about looking for something cheaper.

She spent the next year teaching us what to do. She liked to have her meals on time, so someone really had better be walking in the door by 5:30 or there'd be hell to pay.

She would never sit on your lap, never let you go anywhere near a good belly rub, but she did like to be brushed. The only problem, of course, is that she never stood still for the brushing, constantly weaving and and moving out of range of my arm. Once she realized that my arm wasn't that long, she'd come just close enough to let the brush touch her, but never close enough to make it easy for me.

She did not like to be held. Over the years, she adjusted enough to being picked up that she wouldn't actively fight it, but at the first opportunity she would leap out of your arms. No cuddling from this one.

Except in the last couple of years. At some point, she formed an attachment to My Prince that allowed her to sit on the arm of his chair. After some months, she began to just sort of lean against his leg. Last year, she actually got into his lap. And, once she started, she did not stop. She became a constant presence in his lap or on top of whatever he was working on.

Sadly, this cat had been declawed. Not just the front claws--the back ones as well. She could never go outside of the house. For years, her routine was to spend the morning on the south side of the house, looking out the windows. In the afternoon, she would move to the north side of the house and lie next to the sliding glass door. Other cats might come to visit, but she could only see them through glass.

She never seemed to be interested in getting out of the house; we didn't have to shout "watch the cat!" any time we went out the door. Except in the last year. My Prince reported that he had found her walking in the back yard. I refused to believe it. He had apparently left the patio door open just enough for her to squeeze through. She must have had a wonderful time, walking on grass, looking at the world in a new way. But he gave a shout, and she ran back to the house.

Feeding this cat was always a challenge. She was more than a picky eater. She was a two-year old. She liked ice cream and ranch dressing. If we had hamburgers, she wanted a hamburger. She ate cheese. She wouldn't touch milk unless it was left over from cereal. If this sounds like we fed her improperly, then please note that she didn't handle most cat foods very well.

We were constantly cleaning up the barf. She threw up everything: dry food, canned food, treats. But not hamburgers. Not ranch dressing. It was always such a thrill to walk through the den, barefoot, and feel that cold, icky barf under your foot.

Because of her chosen mode of communication (bodily emissions), we had to make some adjustments in our living. We could not leave the bedroom door open lest she crap on the bed. So it stayed closed. Which meant that the steam from the shower eventually led to mildew in the closet. Clothes and shoes were ruined, and we still could not open the door.

For the same reason, we also had to keep the couch and chair in the den covered in plastic. Over the years, there was a running battle between the cat and My Prince to see who would win: would he manage to keep her off of the furniture, or would she she pee on whatever he put there to keep her off of the furniture? Generally she won. I, however, am smarter than the cat, so I just put boxes on top of the plastic. She couldn't find any place to squat after that. But we also got really tired of moving the plastic and boxes whenever we wanted to sit in the den. For the past year or so, we haven't even bothered.

This cat was a challenge to be sure. Eventually the whole family was urging us to get rid of her. They were all aggravated with the stepdaughter that she wouldn't take her cat back and let us live our lives in peace. But we couldn't bear the thought of harming the cat. She was an innocent in all of this. I really think that something must have made her be so skittish early on, some trauma, some lack. And she was beautiful--in a mongrel, splotchy sort of way. All you had to do was look at her face and see those green eyes and be lost.

We never quite knew how old she was, but as best we could all figure, she was somewhere between 18 and 20 years old. Ancient for a cat. No wonder she started making little groaning sounds a couple of months ago. And then in December she started wobbling. Not much, just a lack of balance when she would try to jump on the table or something. She started sleeping in weird places--like her litter box or next to her food. We found her in the bathroom a couple of times, although we'd never known her to go in there unless she were checking up on us.

Yesterday, she lay down next to her food, and she didn't get up. I had to go home for a bit in the middle of the day and was shocked to see her. I tried to give her food and water, but she couldn't take it. I petted her. She could move her head enough to make sure that I scratched under her chin. She even purred a little. I left to come back to work. When I called home later and asked how she was, all My Prince could say was "She's in heaven." It's what he had planned to say to his daughter to help her accept the fact that the cat had died. I didn't expect him to use those words for me, but they nearly did us both in.

Poranji was a mess. She was a trial by any definition of the term. But she was a sweet and loving cat. And the gentle touch of her paw was always a reminder that there was one creature in the world who needed you to love her even when she wasn't being loveable.

I can take my house back now. Toss the plastic. Remove the boxes. Open the doors. Begin to repair the damage. But I'll miss the little thing.

Drinking Liberally

2005-02-01T06:27:00.000-06:00

I've often been intrigued by the "Drinking Liberally" logo on Atrios' site. Today I actually followed the link to see that there are now 50 chapters of Drinking Liberally across the country, including one in Austin. It meets every Thursday at 6:30 (til) at the Dog and Duck Pub (406 W. 17th St.). Julie Baxter and Shelly Brisbin are the hosts.

The event kinda sounds like fun. It's always nice to get into an echo chamber with other like-minded folks and gripe for a while. But I don't really drink.

Even before I had to think about interactions with medications, I limited myself to one, maybe two, scotches a year. (Well, if you're gonna drink, why mess around; drink something real. Beer is just another word for water, and putting "mixers" in good alcohol prolly means you shoulda stuck with Coke anyway.) The predisposition to alcoholism became, at some point in my life, a wee bit too clear, so I decided not to run the risk. But, oh how I did love my little glass of scotch when I allowed myself to have it. The enjoyment was only slightly marred by the constant mental lecture I had to give myself about not ordering a second glass.

I rather think I won't pop over to the Dog and Duck anyway, since there are memories there. I used to go the Dog and Duck with the Chairman of my Board of Directors whenever he came to town. He was British and thought the atmosphere was "like home." I'd have a lager and lime, just to fit in with the ethnic tone of the place, and he's have to finish it. The Chairman was, as you might expect, somewhat reserved in his conversation. It took quite a while to get to know even a little about him. It took me two years to realize that he had a killer sense of humor, but his humor was so dry that you really had to think to keep up with him. He was a good chair and did a lot for our work. About six months after he left the board, he was murdered.

He owed his dealer (his lover's dealer?) about $200 for marijuana. The guy showed up and demanded money. The Chairman declined. The dealer killed him.

I was surprised to think that this very intelligent man was smoking dope. That was another item that I gave up long before I gave up alcohol. I guess I just thought that everyone else had outgrown it, too.

I was even more sickened by the reason that his killer gave for killing him, when he really didn't have to. Turns out he thought the Chairman was just too stuck up. The ignorant sod had no clue that British folk tend to act just a wee bit differently than Americans.

I think that Drinking Liberally is probably a lot of fun, but I guess I'll just have to miss the fun. Now Eating Liberally--that I could go for.

Consumers lose their voice

2005-02-01T01:21:00.000-06:00

Today's American-Statesman carries an editorial about the Consumers Union's decision to stop its day-to-day lobbying in Texas in order to focus on national issues.

The nonprofit organization, which fought valiantly on a number of fronts for decades, has lost too many battles in Austin. Its leaders feel it is no longer effective in a Legislature dominated by business interests. That's sad commentary on the state of government affairs in Texas.

Too right. On a good day, those of us who espouse unpopular or tough issues are just grateful if the big guys don't notice us. Once in a while, we might even have common cause (politics makes strange bedfellows), so that we could even get a bit of a boost from the big guys. But woe betide us if we were on the wrong side of corporate interests in this state. Consumers Union was sometimes the only friend we had out there--and I have to admit being just some relieved any time I saw a CU lobbyist walk into the same hearing room.

Consumers Union lobbyists might not have won many fights at the Capitol, but they were usually heard — and always respected. Their presence at the Legislature will be missed more than most Texans realize.

Again, very right. We often take the good things in our lives for granted without fully understanding where they came from and who fought to make them happen. It is all too fashionable for some folks to automatically expressed outright hatred for the American Civil Liberties Union, but they are dedicated to defending the very document those same folks hold in such high esteem. (Well, maybe they only really like the second amendment, but the other nine are core values in our society whether they realize it or not.) By the same token, folks will look at Consumers Report for guidance on buying a washing machine or car without even realizing that the folks who publish the magazine are looking at policies that affect consumers as well as products.

Fortunately, it would appear, CU will still be working on issues related to prescription drugs. That's a far bigger issue than just making a quick run down to the pharmacy to pick up some pills. We should be grateful that CU is still on the case. I am.

The Meal from Hell

2005-01-29T14:45:00.000-06:00

Paul Taylor writes for Reuters about a World Economic Forum dinner that was held in Davos, Switzerland, on Friday night. The "headlined" guest was Senator Joe Biden. The attendees included representatives from the U.S. and Iran, and the diplomacy was presumably to have smoothed over some rough edges of the dialogue regarding Iran's nuclear program.

As diplomatic dinners go, this one apparently didn't go well at all:

Someone invited a cartoonist to be on the panel of speakers and then disinvited him, thinking that maybe the issues were too serious for a cartoonist on the panel. Of course, the announcement had to be made at the dinner rather than being handled discreetly beforehand.
Then, Senator Biden appeared to be a no show. There was some tapping of heels while everyone waited for him to arrive, which he did--an hour and a half late. He had gone to the wrong hotel.
The menu included wine, which is pretty much a no go for Muslim diners. The wine glasses had to be removed.
The menu included non-hallal meat (meat improperly slaughtered, pretty much like non-kosher meat), so the menu was removed. There was no indication from the report whether the meat that was served actually turned out to be hallal.
The wait staff cooled things off by opening the windows--to an outside temperature somewhat below freezing. Think Switzerland in January.
And to cap it off, Senator Biden's wife arrived at a diplomatic meal in pants. Not just any pants, but "figure-hugging leather pants" and a sleeveless top. This was maybe a statement about women's rights?

Taylor's report seems to rehash the same arguments we have heard before: Iran wants nuclear energy and scientific self-sufficiency; the U.S. thinks Iran wants nuclear weapons and really wants all nuclear development to stop. Roosters then strut.

What I want to know iswhat the hell these people were thinking when they set up the meal? Who planned it? What idiot put alcohol on the menu? Who advised Senator Biden's wife about diplomacy and courtesy?

It's one thing for Senator Biden to make the more or less honest (but really dumb) mistake of going to the wrong hotel. It's another to walk in the door with an apparent bimbo.

Now, I really like Joe Biden. He may someday run for president. If he's the Democratic nominee, I will vote for him and not feel bad about it. And I'm sure his wife is a nice person. I'm sure those leather pants would be really fine at some other gathering. So I really hope that someone has a little talk with her about the role she plays in all of this, so she can decide to play the role or stay the hell home next time.

Why am I so disturbed about this?

We are already prosecuting a war in which we have shown incredible ignorance about the culture and values of those we were supposed to be "saving." Even before the invasion began, the troops on the ground we displaying erotic pin-ups on the outside of their vehicles. I have no doubt that there were alcohol stashes secreted away. We know that after the war began, there were innumerable totally unnecessary breaches of cultural tabus.

Now we want to avoid war with another country with similar values--and we just barge in like idiots, yet again. What is it with Americans that they have no clue, zero idea, absolutely nada for understanding that there is a whole big world out there--and many of those people don't salute the American flag, don't weep to hear "The Star Spangled Banner," and do not, not, not appreciate our trying to act like their cultures are worthless?

Yeah, so what? It was only dinner. In the international eye.

Tempus fugit

2005-01-26T13:14:00.000-06:00

Or something like that. I used to do okay with German and am still pretty much a whiz at Swahili (yes, bwana), but Latin was never one of my languages. Still, time flies when the Texas legislature is in session.

I am getting battle weary, so it is sometimes difficult to get excited about the arrival of another legislative session. Still, when it's clear that mayhem is afoot, it behooves me to find the energy from somewhere. And remember to take my blood pressure medicine!

This session looks interesting if for no other reason than that my particular issue area is more active than usual. The natives are restless. Must calm them down--or at least help them to get it closer to right. That means comfortable shoes and better pantyhose for me. I don't have any money to spread around, that's for sure. So I'll do some legwork and try to look harmless. Grandma can bite, but there's no sense in chomping without giving them a chance to do right.

Among the issues in my tiny section of the blogosphere is drug task forces. It's not my issue, but it does concern at least one fellow that I particularly like. Because I respect his work, I've paid more attention when the subject of drug task forces pops up--and it seems to be popping up a lot lately. There is a strong move afoot to disband the drug task forces in Texas and use the Byrne-grant money that funds them for other purposes.

Personally, I don't have a strong feeling one way or another on this particular issue. I can see both sides (mostly because of the insight provided by that aforementioned fellow whose issue this is). Still, there have been abuses, and there is a critical need for increased substance abuse treatment in this state. Our prisons are near to bursting at the seams, and some are arguing that there needs to be a different approach to some of the drug related cases. On the other hand, if you read what the DEA has to say about Texas, mom-and-pop meth labs abound and heavy traffic from Mexico includes more than what NAFTA intended.

From my own very limited perspective, it seems that the problem is the tension between the need for oversight and the need for freedom from redtape. The task forces are multijurisdictional, and there seems to be a need to eliminate the time and effort of dealing with the bureaucracy of each jurisdiction as well as a need to preserve some element of surprise in task force operation. In opposition is the risk that undercover task force members are still human and come pre-packaged with the usual run of human flaws. Without oversight, some have given in to those flaws.

I don't see Texas giving up $31 million in free money from the feds. I do see some changes in oversight. Apparently bringing in the DPS for some increased oversight was not enough, so there may be some pressure to require more corroboration for task force actions.

Without hearing arguments for the other side, I'm not unhappy with the corroboration requirement. I really would not like someone to raid my house, scare the bejesus out of me and my heart condition, and wreck at least my front door because they got a high heat reading from my windows. I'm a plant killer, so there aren't masses of African violets or something to trigger such a reading. Still, that sort of thing has happened--and the poor guy's plants weren't anything more dangerous than African violets. Apparently there's nothing that requires restitution in such circumstances. That sucks canal water.

Here's what I've found out about the task forces so far:

Corpus Christi Caller-Times (registration may be required)
http://tinyurl.com/46t59

Gaineville Daily Register
http://tinyurl.com/4p3vm

Press release from ACLU
http://www.aclu.org/RacialEquality/RacialEquality.cfm?ID=15802&c=133

An ACLU Police Accountability Project fact sheet
http://home.austin.rr.com/apdhallofshame/task%20force%20fact%20sheet.pdf

I found more in another search yesterday, but this will do. The 25% matching requirement and how task forces come up with it may be a problem that needs solving. The emphasis on low level offenders and traffic stops might also need some reconsideration. Maybe some high level rethinking that looks at mission and counters some of risks that come with the need for speed and free rein in task force operations. Of course, high level thinking is not something we usually see in the Texas legislature. More often we get "unintended consequences." [sigh]

Toilet Brush Warning Wins Consumer Award

2005-01-06T12:02:00.000-06:00

ABC News reports that Michigan Lawsuit Abuse Watch has awarded a $500 first prize to Ed Gyetvai, who submitted a wacky consumer warning label to its contest to find the wackiest. The label on a toilet brush said: "Do not use for personal hygiene."

The contest sponsor's contention is that such common sense warnings are only needed because, without them, consumers would file even more frivolous lawsuits. This, of course, means that we really, really need lawsuit reform.

Whatever.

What I'm thinking is that some of the "common sense" warning labels we see these days have more to do with consumer ignorance rather than either a lack of common sense or a burning desire to file lawsuits. Why else would my gynecologist inform me prior to a hysterectomy that I would not be able to have children after the removal of my reproductive organs?

I almost laughed when he said that--and then I realized that some women know so little about their own bodies that some women might not actually know that a uterus is where the buns are baked, so to speak. That is not a condemnation of ignorant women but a condemnation of an educational system--and culture--which shies away from presenting accurate scientific information about reproduction in the part of the system where most people get all the education they're gonna get: high school.

As for the toilet brush warning, I'm also thinking that the general public is generally far too ignorant about infection control and disease transmission. If the human body weren't so effective at fighting off infection, there likely wouldn't be any humans around today. The next time you go buy a taco, check to see if the person adding the lettuce just got through making change at the cash register--without washing her hands or donning gloves before touching the lettuce. Or try forcing yourself to eat a hamburger at McDonald's in LaGrange after seeing one of the clean up crew clear a table with a broom. How clean is your kitchen counter? And did you just add sugar to your cereal with that spoon you just picked up off the counter?

If you already know that something is dangerous, you don't need the warning. Me, I just gave myself a voltage meter for Christmas. I'm reading the instructions--and the full page of warnings included with the meter. Someone else might think some of them silly, basic, and "common sense." All I know about electricity is how to flip a switch and how to make a circuit (yes, I can connect the phone to the answering machine to the computer to the phone jack). I'm pretty sure there's more to it than that.

And lawsuit reform? Why don't we just give our bank account numbers and passwords to the insurance companies and be done with it?

Christmas 2004

2005-01-04T13:31:00.000-06:00

Not long after my last post, my mother-in-law called to say that she was in pain and needed My Prince to come take her to the doctor. He rushed out the door, and I called 911. Thus began an endless day--followed by weeks of confusion as one doctor gave us hope while another dashed them. That cycle continued with an ever changing array of doctors.

On Christmas Eve, she died.

I wasn't there. I went to Houston on the Wednesday after seeing that her worsened condition had been diagnosed as hyperkalemia and dehydration. With hydration, she was already more alert, so I thought it "safe" to go on to Houston to have Christmas with my mother. Two days later, My Prince called to tell me that she didn't make it.

Mama and I went ahead with our Christmas plans. My Prince understood the needs that I was meeting, and he thought he could handle another 24 hours before I could get back to him. So I made sure that Mama had her presents to open and that Santa Claus came to see her. (He always leaves a hefty stocking for this 84-year-old kid.) And, on Christmas Day, we drove to Tomball to have Christmas dinner with an old family friend, who needed us because her own son was so neglecting her. We made our visit a little shorter than planned and returned to Mama's house early enough for me to get the car loaded and hit the road by late afternoon.

There are several things about those days that now occur to me. My mother-in-law and I had already said the important things on the first day of her last illness, when we thought she only had hours to live. I am grateful that there was still more time to be with her, that I could do some small services for her, that I could help My Prince by making sure that the hospital staff spoke to him so that he could read their lips and clarifying things for him when the information seemed garbled. I am grateful that my mother-in-law stayed alive long enough for my brother-in-law to return from Germany. I am grateful that she had enough time to see even her great-granddaughter.

I am also grateful that My Prince and his family have such concern for my mother, who is alone and handicapped. They all knew that she would be miserable if I didn't go to her. And My Prince, prince that he is, stayed strong while he sent me off to have a Christmas without him. It's not the first time that he has put others before himself. It's not the first time that he has recognized that, for old folks, the gift of our time is both appreciated and desperately needed.

Christmas at our house was pared down to the very basics. I stopped decorating as soon as my mother-in-law went into the hospital. I had already done most of my shopping, but I made a special effort to find some goodies at Harbor Freight for My Prince. (It's his favorite shopping place.) Our Christmas dinner together was leftover barbecue. He never had time to buy me any presents. But my best present was the time with him, talking, making arrangements, helping each other get through the funeral, standing by each other.

I grieve for the loss of my mother-in-law, who was a very special woman. I celebrate the goodness of the son she raised, her very best gift to me.

Birthday Blues

2004-12-08T07:29:00.000-06:00

My birthday is long gone, so I'm in the middle of the "blues" stage. My birthday, when it comes, falls somewhere in the Scorpio range. It also falls in the time period when everyone is rushing to get things done before Thanksgiving, so there's usually a lot of work that has to be done at the office pretty much on the day itself. This year, there were two major meetings on the day, with a fair amount of follow up work to be done. This doesn't include all of the work that it took to get ready for the meetings. The Big Day, was, needless to say, quite full. And, since it was preceded by a dearth of sleep, all I really wanted to do when I got home was sleep. Of course, I had to go out to dinner with the family and receive gifts, but I truly wouldn't have minded their waiting til the next day.

Almost immediately afterwards, every year, there's the actual rush of Thanksgiving. I have to do some serious house cleaning, which can take days. Not only is that something that most normal people would do in anticipation of a holiday gathering, it's "quadruply" necessary in the house I generally ignore--especially since Mama has been known to walk in the door and start crying at the mess. So I give some intensive attention the house I usually neglect and neglect work a bit in the process. This year was no different, except that My Prince, being now retired, could take over the duty of driving to Houston to pick up Mama and take her home again. I cleaned and cleared and spiffed things up until I was generally sick of the house.

I also decided, for the first time in several years, to actually cook Thanksgiving dinner. I figured that the grandson, who had worked in a restaurant, could help me get things ready, and, with a smoked (i.e., pre-cooked) turkey, we could survive the day--and save the cost of 5 expensive dinners at a hotel. On this, I was only slightly misguided. I don't know whether we actually saved any money (well, there were lots of leftovers), but the cooking was a treat with the grandson around. The mother-in-law decided that she didn't feel well enough to come, so that meant that My Prince even got a little bit of rest instead of several hours of roundtrip diving to pick her up. That left four of us to enjoy what was, on the whole, a surprising culinary success. But lots of work in both preparing and cleaning up afterwards. I was indeed quite pooped when the day was over.

Immediately following Thanksgiving is, of coure, Christmas. For the first time ever, I went to the "early bird" sales to pick up some bargains. A good portion of this was accomplishing Mama's Christmas shopping, since she is too disabled to do much on her own. After bringing home the goodies (5 stores in less than four hours)--including a 2.5 ton jack, which weighs just about that much--I was, again, pooped. A little rest, and then I had to go through all of the (many) Christmas boxes to see what else I had accumulated that Mama might want to use as gifts for her friends. To save some space in our overcrowded house, I even wrapped several presents that needed to be sent to Houston for friends there, so that My Prince could haul them and Mama back at the same time. I was quite pooped when the day was over.

Mama left for Houston on Saturday, and I went back to work. More meetings immediately after the holiday. Getting ready to fly to Dallas for another meeting this week. A major presentation next week. And still there are presents to wrap and events to plan.

All of this is complicated by an out of town visitor who plans to arrive tonight, stay a week, and be entertained while I have major responsibilities at the office.

So, what am I doing? Feeling considerable stress that so much seems to be falling on my shoulders right now, of course. But also recognizing that my birthday, which persistently seems to come at the same d*mned time every year, has once again fallen at the busiest time of the year for my work and far too close to major holidays which are in themselves quite a bit of work.

I find myself not at all enthusiastic about my birthday because I know that, every year, it's the starting day for a marathon of labor with intense conflict between work and family. And every year, I get closer to ending it all with "Bah, humbug!" Is it any wonder that when My Prince asks "What do you want for your birthday?" I immediately get depressed by all the work that my birthday signals?

Sisters are where you find 'em

2004-11-12T21:22:00.000-06:00

Texans--and probably most Southerners--have interesting habits of annexing folks into their families. All sorts of fictional relationships can get created because of relative age status, proximity, distant marriages, and such. I have had "Aunts" who were really cousins, but who were sufficiently older than I that my mother decided that it was inappropriate for me to call them by their first name without the honorific of "Aunt So-and-So." I have had "Aunts" who weren't related by blood or marriage, but who were sufficiently close enough friends of the family to deserve the honorific of "Aunt So-and-So," even though it took me years to figure out how they weren't really my relatives. Still, that often made their children my "cousins."

Perhaps one day I'll sit down to try to figure out for myself how really big and diverse "all my family" really is and talk about my "brother," the "child of my heart," my pseudo-grandchildren, and the really interesting addition of my husband's step-siblings. For now, however, I want to focus on my "cousin" who is more like a "sister."

When I was 9 years old, we moved to a much nicer house than the tiny little post-war housing that had been my home for much of my life. This move put me in a new school district, so I had to make all the transitions associated with that. One more or less comforting thing about the move is that my parents bought a house right next door to some old family friends. The couple next door were, of course, called "Aunt" and "Uncle." Both had come from the little part of East Texas where Mama grew up, and they had all dated and gone to church together forever.

Of the two (and eventually three) children next door, all, again "cousins," the oldest daughter was closest to my age. We had played together and gone to church together when we lived in the old neighborhood. We saw each other frequently at family events, because two of her uncles had married two of my aunts--and family reunuions and special occasions meant everybody was invited. So we knew each other, loved each other before the move to the new house--and I was really glad to have a friend in the new neighborhood.

My "cousin,"--let's call her Louise--is about 18 months older than me. Because of the peculiarities of the school years of the two school districts, I either had to skip half a grade or go back half a grade when we moved. Happily, my parents opted to get me moved up in school, so I entered the new elementary school with a slightly older crowd of schoolmates. It was good to have Louise around--now just one grade ahead of me--to help me fit in a little better.

The thing about Louise was that she was also the closest thing that I would have to a sibling. We spent the night at each other's house. We borrowed things from each other. We eventually had to have a little sibling rivalry. Well, a lot of sibling rivalry. I was certainly jealous of the things she got to do. I was jealous of her clothes. She was definitely prettier than me. And--here's the kicker--she got piano lessons. Oh, how I wanted a piano! How I wanted to be able to play one. How many hours I spent trying to teach myself on Louise's piano to play "Swans on the Lake."

Junior high and high school led us into slightly different circles of friends. Her parents decided to stay at the old church in our old neighborhood. My mother chose a church closer to our new home. Louise and I both sang in the school choir, but I was taking a heavy load of science and language classes, while Louise was preparing herself to major in music. And those 18 months meant a lot during the teen years. She could date a long time before my father ever decided to let me out of the door in the company of raging male hormones.

But the close bond was still there. I was a bridesmaid in her wedding. She was matron of honor in mine. I was matron of honor in her second wedding. At some point we decided not to jinx each other any more, so I didn't attend her third wedding and she didn't attend my second one. Those were the weddings that were winners for both of us, so we still occasionally thank each other for staying home.

Those early marriages were tough ones, more so for her than for me. I still sometimes shudder to think what this gentle woman had to suffer. Physical abuse and outright terrorism from the first. Mental abuse from the second. And I still keep an eye on the third husband--just to make sure. I was off being a student and researcher for those early marriages. So I still sometimes kick myself that I was too absorbed in my own life to be around for her in those days.

These days we see each other rather rarely. As often as I go back to my hometown--to see my mother, to do some work--Louise lives on the other side of a really big city and has quite a busy life herself. We sometimes see each other around holidays. Sometimes we're lucky and can fit in an afternoon here and there.

This last trip to Houston was extra special. I went in the middle of the week to do a workshop. Just by luck, I found Louise's younger sister at home next door (the Aunt and Uncle have died and the younger sister now lives there--but is out and about quite a bit). It's November already, and I still hadn't been able to make the connection that would get last Christmas' presents delivered. (Yes, that sound weird, but we do things that way.) So I found the younger sister, dragged her over to Mama's house to pick up the presents, and sent my love to Louise.

What fun that Baby Sister called Louise, who immediately called me to find out how long I would be in town. Unfortunately, not long. So we decided that she would come to Mama's to spend the night after she got through with her busy day. (I said that this husband was a good one, didn't I?)

Louise timed her arrival just right, so I got to see the end of Survivor. And then the fun began. We had not seen each other for more than a year. I think the last time we were together was the family reunion in May, 2003. We had lots to catch up on. My health. Her health. My family. Her family. The election. Her jaunts around the country and England. The new movie stars she had met. (She was excited that she had met Pierce Brosnan; I was much more impressed that she had hung out with Vincent DiNofrio.) My work, which is ever so much more boring than the fun she's been having. Plans for retirement.

It's in the nature of our relationship that long absences don't stop the flow of talk or affection. There's never a need to offer excuses about why the Christmas presents didn't get delivered for 11 months. (Sometimes it's me, sometimes it's her. [Shrug.]) It's in the nature of the relationship that we can talk about taking a road trip together and each lay out exactly what our little foibles and non-negotiable quirks are likely to be, swearing that we will each accommodate the other's "issues," and knowing that we will have a blast--just being together.

We talked until 4 in the morning--which made our marathon about 8 hours long--and could have talked for more if we weren't two middle aged women who need to sleep at some point.

I think this must be what it's like to have a sister. I think I'm very lucky to have Louise for a sister.

Bipartisan governance?

2004-11-06T14:40:00.000-06:00

John Harris and Helen Dewar, of the Washington Post, write that Democrats are skeptical of Bush's offer to govern in a bipartisan fashion in his second term. Ya think?

At this point, I'm nearly ready to call for a pox on all their houses. I am a strongly partisan Democrat, but I am not an idiot. I am also, I believe, more than just a little patriotic. I know that there are issues that transcend my own personal interests, that are better for the whole community than they are for me. I don't think that that applies to far too many of our leaders these days.

Even so, just picking on Bush for a minute, I am reminding myself that, yes, he did manage to govern in a bipartisan manner in Texas. Of course, he started out with Democrats in leadership positions. Bob Bullock was lieutenant governor; Pete Laney was Speaker of the House. Both presided over narrow Democratic majorities in their respective houses and made a concerted effort to include Republicans in leadership roles. For every committee, when a Democrat was chair, a Republican was vice-chair, and vice versa.

The story has it that when Bush was first elected and had his first meeting with Bullock, Bullock said something to the effect of: "Boy, we're gonna **** you six ways from Sunday." Bush's reply was said to be: "Well, if you're gonna **** me, you're gonna kiss me first." And then he kissed Bullock on the mouth. Bullock was said to be delighted by Bush's response, and the two got along rather well after that.

But Bullock and Laney were clearly moderates who helped Bush be moderate. They handled things in a bipartisan manner, and that meant that Bush had to be bipartisan. When Bush won his second term, Bullock was dead, we had a Republican lieutenant governor, and Republicans had gained control of the Senate. The trend against bipartisan governance in Texas was already well underway when Bush was elected President. It's very partisan in the Texas legislature now. So much so, that the last session was even more brutal than anything that went on in Washington.

I'm not thinking that there is a lot of hope for bipartisan action in Washington. There is very little of that hope for Texas.

This is not to say, however, that Democrats were always so clean and pure in their own governance when in power. Redistricting, for example, is a partisan activity, brutally controlled by whichever party is in power--including Democrats. Rumors of dead voters, even current conflicts over possible election fraud, are nothing to laugh at.

When the minority membership in a house is comparatively large, there is the potential to block the more extreme actions of the majority--and even the less extreme ones. The result is gridlock. To some extent, gridlock in Congress is a good thing for this country. It takes time, thought, and even some compromise before policy that affects us all is made or changed.

Unity in Congress can sometimes lead to poor policy, such as when the Patriot Act was passed in the aftermath of the Attacks. Some of the provisions of that law were unneeded by law enforcement, some eroded civil liberties in an unacceptable manner, and others simply expanded fear when courage was needed. Had there been less unity, some of these problems might have been solved as Congress worked out the details.

Having said that, however, I am a little sick of the disunity. Certainly, I am tired of the bickering and posturing that has no substance. I am tired of spin that tells me dark is light, bad is good, and up is down. And it comes from both parties. There is jockeying for power, when good governance should be the goal.

I admit to naivete here. Idealism. Too much faith in humanity. Perhaps I'm just too committed to hope and progress.

But, here's the deal. I didn't vote for George Bush. I didn't want him to win. I thought John Kerry was a better person, a better leader, and a better policy maker. But, since Bush won and Kerry didn't, that makes George Bush my president, too. As much as it galls me to even say that, yes, he's my president. And, by golly, he should also represent what I stand for. He should also see that my needs and concerns are addressed.

So here's what I want.

Truth.
Transparent government.
Respect for opposing positions.
Fairness.
Honesty.
Concern for the good of the nation, not just personal or partisan gain.

Is that too much to ask?

Concession

2004-11-03T11:15:00.000-06:00

Around 10:00 last night, my grandson opined that Bush would win and that his vote had counted for nothing. I reminded him that we vote for three reasons:

to win;
to reduce the margin;
to make our opinion heard.

After he went off to bed, I called my mother to see how she was holding up. She was not optimistic, but her thought was that Kerry is a good man, so why should we want him saddled with the mess that Bush has made of both domestic and foreign policy? Her thought was that things are so bad in this country that it's a mess we shouldn't wish on our best friend. Why should someone we support have to struggle to clean up something that is so impossible?

I held on until 2:00 in the morning. I went to bed with some small sliver of hope in my heart, but it took a long time to get to sleep. All this morning, I've looked for more of those slivers of hope, driven in large part by the strength that Kerry's lack of concession provided.

There was hope because neither pollsters nor network news organizations have standing under the constitution to declare the outcome of an election. Only the final vote tallies in each state will determine who the electors are for each state and only the votes of the electors will, in the final moment, actually determine who has won the election. I know that the science of polling can tell us a great deal. I also know that the networks have their own agenda (without even hinting at partisanship here). And I know that there are comparatively few votes left to count no matter how much closer they might make the race or how unlikely they are to change the outcome.

But there is something unseemly about declaring an election over before all of the votes have been counted.

And there is something sickening when one man can make the ultimate determination of the outcome by conceding the election.

Still, that's where we are. The election is over because John Kerry has said that it is.

Although, of course, it's not. The votes still have to be counted. The electors still have to meet. What fun it would be if there were some interesting changes in outcome over the next few days as those votes are counted. There are, after all, still a million and a half votes yet to count in Florida. What if Florida shifts? Will the concession then count?

Whatever. Shrug. Hmph!

What matters to me right now is how I will find the will to have any hope for the future of American society. The country will continue. Democracy may have been bruised, if any of the allegations of fraud turn out to be true, but the Republic still stands. The society, however, is starting to become something that I really, really, really won't be liking.

And, as I look down the road, what I see is less acceptance of difference, more distance between those who have and those who do not, more emphasis on survival of the fittest, continued decline in civility. I see back alley abortions, guns and circuses, further decline in public health, town square religiosity hiding gross hypocrisy, the dumbing down of America, more war on science.

When I was younger, I could say, "My grief is my sword," and continue to fight for what I believe in. On a day like today, I'm just tired and sad and wondering whether idealism is even possible.

Maybe tomorrow I will feel stronger. The battle cry is now, "Don't mourn, organize!" But--for a while--I'm just going to be sad.

The joy of voting

2004-11-02T11:52:00.000-06:00

Oh frabjous day! It's E-Day in America!

Election Day has to be one of my favorite days of any year. It's all about all of the good things that America stands for: freedom, government by the people, change for the better, hope for the future.

Not that this presidential campaign reminded us of all of those things, not that some of the redistricting shenanigans of the 78th Texas Legislature (and The Hammer) gave us much confidence in those things, not that the media (so-called liberal and/or otherwise) gave us any insight into our best hope for the future of the country or the planet. Nope, not so much to be happy about there.

But sometimes I just can't help myself. In spite of all the mud and vitriol and general crap flying around, come E-Day, I am one happy person. I get to think about the people for whom I will vote. Some I know, some I only know something about, but it's always fun to mark my ballot and think: "Yes, Margaret, you're a really fine judge, and I'm proud to vote for you," or "Well, Rhett, you're a fine fellow, and, while you stand absolutely no chance of winning, I'm proud of you for standing up for my values and my interests."

See, on E-Day, we take our stand. Win or lose, we get to say what we think ought to be said about what our country ought to be and what it ought to be doing.

Of course, we can say these things on any other day. Letters to the editor, letters to elected officials, visits with those same officials, and a whole host of other fine activities. But nothing feels quite as good--to me--as marking that ballot.

I marked my first one in 1968. In that, my first campaign, I learned the sad lessons that came with a favored candidate who couldn't make it through the primaries and another who was assassinated in that fevered year of anger and division in our country. When I voted, I had to use an absentee ballot because I had moved to another state but not yet established residency. It was still important enoughto me to vote that I made that effort.

In 1972, I missed the election, because I was overseas. I read about Watergate from 8000 miles away and cried, "What's happening to my country?"

In 1976, I happily voted for Jimmy Carter, although my interest in politics was still comparatively low.

By 1980, my interest was getting higher, but I was out of the country again. At least this time, I managed to get an absentee ballot all the way in East Africa so I could participate. No late night television returns, however. I found out that Reagan had won when I walked past the USIA office and saw that Carter's picture had been removed from the front window.

Back home in 1984, I was becoming more active in politics. Not enough to get involved in campaigns, but definitely enough to be an active watcher--and happy to be able to go to the polls on E-Day. I actually enjoyed watching the convention on television.

In 1988, I was in full campaign mode, working in campaigns, making every effort to help my candidate win. It didn't much matter in the end, but it was good to watch Ferraro's acceptance speech with my mother, who was on the other end of a long distance telephone connection, and it was certainly nice to be voting for a woman on the ticket.

By 1992, my life was changing and there was a little less time for campaigns, although I still supported those that I could. It was nice to win.

In 1996, I was completely out of the campaigns. I had more family responsibilities, more work responsibilities, and less time than ever. But E-Day was still a good day to feel once more part of the vital energy of the country.

When 2000 came, I was terrified of a Bush presidency and worked as many campaigns as I could. I screamed at the television, spent hours looking at the tracking polls. I went to the polls on E-Day, carefully voting in each campaign, silently greeting each candidate with my recognition of their record or their platform. I stayed up all night afterwards, watching the back and forth in Florida, and was all but immobilized by the long drawn out aftermath of the election.

Now comes 2004. The Bush presidency has been all that I feared and worse. I voted early this time. I am somewhat sad that I won't be going to the polls today, because E-Day is such a wonderful day. I like seeing my neighbors--most of whom won't vote the same as I do--and sharing the experience of being part of the wonder that is our country. I like knowing that my neighbors and I, even though we don't see eye to eye on everything, still have the luxury of freedom to express our views and our desires--without fear that we will be harmed for doing so or that we will face harm in the aftermath.

But this year, it also seemed important to vote as a family. So My Prince and I and the grandson, who was casting his first vote, all trekked down to the early voting place and cast our ballots at the same time. We all voted the same on some things and differently on others. The grandson got a big laugh out of cancelling out my vote on a county-level issue and an even bigger laugh when he realized that Grandpa had voted the same as he did. I blew a raspberry at both of 'em--and we went off to dinner and fun. That, too, was part of the fine thing about E-Day--disagreeing on the issues but still living in harmony.

Voting has always been important to me. It has often been a joyful experience. I am worried about the outcome of this election and will no doubt be up all night, hoping against hope that it will all be over sooner rather than later. Hoping that really hard, since I'd rather lose than see the country torn apart any further than it already is.

And that's the thing that bothers me most about this election. There is always a lot at stake in an election--budgets, policies, life, death. It's always a whole lot more than signs and flags and buttons. But always, every time we vote, something else is at stake, and that is democracy itself. How we conduct ourselves in the days to come really matters, I think. Will we continue to cherish the "will of the people"? Will we respect our electoral processes and accept what they tell us about what the voters have decided? Or will we pervert the process and destroy the foundation of our nation?

Maybe voting was the really easy part. Maybe democracy is what's really hard.

Winning the war on terror

2004-10-15T01:39:00.000-05:00

I think we've lost it already. I say "lost" not in any military sense, that our troops have somehow lost control of the battlefield. I say "lost" in the sense that we have let the fear of terrorism goad us into sacrificing rights and liberties without a fight. We have let the fear of terrorism push us into creating a whole string of programs for homeland security that leave huge gaps for opportunitic attacks. We have let color coded terror alerts send us into paroxysms of fear with no clear sense of what we are fearing.

We just surrendered to terror and cower in fear. We take the flimsiest rumor of a threat to wallow in dread and hysteria at the same time we take the flimsiest security program as a shield to protect us from that threat.

Maybe I'm overdoing this a bit, but I'm pretty tired of hearing about "the war on terror" and all the weeping and wailing that goes along with it. It seems like a bunch of scare talk to me with very little action to back it up.

It's not that I don't realize that the world is a dangerous place. I've never had to wield a gun to protect myself or my family, but I do very much know what it is like to hide from gunfire. I know that there are threats of all kinds, and not merely the kinds that come from bullets or bugs. And I know that there are a whole heap of folks out there who really, really don't like Americans and/or U.S. foreign policy.

But we aren't fighting a war. Not a war on terror anyway.

How can I say that? For one thing, there's nothing that the American people are doing to fight this war--other than being afraid pretty much on demand. If it were a real war, we'd be looking at where our defenses were weak and producing some serious weaponry, and every American would be involved in the effort to defeat the enemy.

Consider this. Most (but not all) of those who use terrorism as a tactic against the U.S. and its allies are based in the Middle East, which sits on a largish pool of oil. We place our economy in jeopardy when we depend on the Middle East for this resource. Yet there has been no serious call for Americans to begin the serious work of reducing dependence on foreign oil. Ours is a petroleum-based economy, so doing that would certainly begin to create some dislocations among those with interests in petroleum-based products. Nonetheless, it is in the interest of national security that we start making the changes that will allow us more energy self-sufficiency. Our leaders do not ask us to conserve. Our leaders do not insist on more fuel efficient vehicles. Our leaders are not scouring the statutes and regulations that encourage wastefulness to reverse that trend. And the progress toward alternative fuels is all too slow.

Consider this. When the U.S. has been attacked, there has been a lack of intelligence to provide adequate warning of impending attack. Even now, there are thousands of pages of documents and computer records that cannot be analyzed. Whatever the failures in communication between the various intelligence agencies, there is still the central fact that too few people in these agencies have the foreign language skills to be of any use in providing intelligence. And yet none of our leaders have said that foreign language education needs a major boost in this country. Way back in the bad old days of the Cold War, we had a better idea of what was needed, and several educational programs were specifically labelled national defense programs. These included grants for people to study obscure and not-so-popular languages. If we were building those language skills, we'd have a better chance of having people who could get closer to the source of some of those threats. (And it's not as if learning a foreign language is really going to hurt someone in this very small world of ours.)

If this were really a war on terror, we'd be looking at where the terrorists get their weapons and try to cut them off at the source. We would be scrambling pretty damned fast to corral the nuclear materials--and personnel--in Russia and make sure that everything was locked down but good. We'd go back to all those ammo dumps in Iraq that we searched for weapons of mass destruction, and this time we'd blow the damned things up instead of leaving them open for one and all to pilfer--and use against us. We'd be looking really hard at the nations that manufacture weapons and sell them to terrorists and do some serious jawboning about how (a) that's not such a good idea and (b) there are some real consequences for doing it.

If this were really a war on terror, we'd be looking at where the terrorists are getting their recruits and work really hard to counter with our own propaganda. We'd look at what motivates the recruits and try not to be the motivation. We'd look at what the recruits really need and see if we couldn't offer them a better deal.

If this really were a war on terror--and our leaders really were afraid--there'd be some real concern that business as usual is not cutting it. Zero tolerance for turf battles among agencies. Careful use of the weapon of terror (fear!) against our own people. A serious look at priorities and risks for security while developing security consciousness in the populace.

Nah. This isn't a war. But we've lost it anyway. Pleasure and greed and comfort are more important than the nation's security, except on those occasions when we are really afraid. Then, we surrender all over again. Anything but fight. Let someone else do that.

Who has the energy for this?

2004-10-04T02:21:00.000-05:00

The story from USA Today that sparked this post is several days old, so the link may be dead. It had to do with the "near record" price of oil and the inadequacy of either presidential candidate's plan for solving our energy problem.

Republicans. Their $18 billion plan is little more than a grab bag of tax breaks and subsidies to boost production. But even if they could achieve their long-sought goal of tapping the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, they would barely alter the energy equation. The 1 million barrels per day it could produce are less than 5% of current consumption, and equals the amount that consumption has grown just in the past five years.

Democrats. Kerry would increase fuel-efficiency standards and offer tax incentives for people to buy more fuel-efficient cars, among other things. These might achieve some savings. But he relies on consumers' willingness to buy smaller cars, something they have been loath to do in an affluent era.

I think that's a fair enough assessment. The article mentions a big gas pipeline from Alaska to the lower 48 and hydrogen for cars. And then:

But more is needed. A bold plan would be on the scale of the Apollo program and would seek to make hydrogen- and electric-powered cars as common as gasoline-powered ones are today. Bush and Kerry have plans to promote hydrogen, but not nearly on the scale or timetable necessary. [emphasis added]

This is what's been weighing on my mind these past few weeks, as we've seen the price of gasoline climb and stay at high levels. Our whole economy relies on petroleum. Petroleum is a non-renewable resource that is becoming scarce and ever more expensive. Near-record prices have become record-breaking prices. I keep wondering what will happen when the prices go up even further.

We already see some ripples in the economy because of increased transportation costs. Will we need locking gas caps? Will the lines at service stations get longer? Will people start taking the bus and looking for more mass transit options? What about consumer goods? Will we become less of a consumer society?

I'm not so sure that I am as alarmed by all of this as I am totally irked. Irked with our culture of consuming and wasting and wanting more, that is. I'm starting to get rather tired of the shop, shop, shop mentality. The intrusions on our computers from spam and pop-ups and spyware are all part of the push to consume. It's almost futile to watch network television any more; the commercials seem to take up more time than the actual programs. But it's not just the constant barrage of advertising that is annoying.

It's the greed. The corporate greed. The individual greed. The national greed. Why should the U.S. have 5 percent of the world's population and consume 25 percent of its energy?

There is something corrupting about the comfort and ease of our lives. We do not realize that the food and clothes and shelter that are basic to our survival are (a) that and (b) derived from significant expenditure of energy. We don't think about the possibility that even they could be threatened, both in quality and in quantity, if our nation begins to see energy prices double yet again.

Yet for all of my unease about this situation, I cannot envision what the alternative might be. There is certainly no vision coming from the presidential candidates. They offer piecemeal solutions. Kerry's I like more than Bush's, yes, but neither is thinking--or at least talking--about the huge changes that we need to make in this country as we face the imminence of peak oil.

Crawford Newspaper Endorses Kerry

2004-09-30T10:10:00.000-05:00

Our local CBS affiliate (KEYE) had this report earlier in the week. It's just too much fun to pass up the opportunity to point out that irony is alive and well, even in Texas.

A Texas weekly newspaper that bills itself as President Bush's hometown paper
has endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president. The Lone Star
Iconoclast says the Massachusetts senator will restore American dignity.
The Crawford-based newspaper has a circulation of about 425 and endorsed Bush in
2000. Bush's ranch is near Crawford. The editorial says Texans should rate the
candidates not by hometown or political party, but by where they intend to take
the country. The Iconoclast editorialized in support of the invasion of
Iraq and publisher W. Leon Smith backed Bush and the invasion in a BBC
interview. But now the editorial says Americans were duped into believing Saddam
Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. [Edited for punctuation.]

Growing Pessimism on Iraq

2004-09-29T10:21:00.000-05:00

Dana Priest and Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post Staff Writers, provided a grim picture of what's happening in Iraq by listing attitudes and concerns from a variety of perspectives as expressed by "career professionals within national security agencies." They then contrast these assessments with the much rosier picture being painted by elected and appointed officials, including the President. It's pretty much a "rabbit hole" report.

Support the troops

2004-09-28T16:37:00.000-05:00

I am mindful of of the constant admonition to "Support our troops!" It makes sense to do so, no matter whether they have been called to fight a just war or that other kind. (Hint: Iraq.) The military in all its branches has a job to do that has to be done in peacetime or in wartime. They protect us by their presence and their readiness in the former time and walk through the valley of death for us in wartime.

I am, however, much conflicted by the kinds of things I am urged to do in support of the troops. I don't particularly idolize someone just because he or she is wearing a uniform. I don't walk up to strangers and tell them: "Good job. We support you!" I do, however, confess to tearing up a bit when I go through an airport and see some poor, tired GI waiting for his chance to go home for a while. I spend a moment thinking about his situation, what he may have been through, how long he's been away from home and family--and wishing him well. But I've always done that. It's something that's been almost ingrained thanks to my late father's great concern for fellow veterans and soldiers, something I witnessed as a young child when he would pick up any hitchhiking soldier and drive miles out his way to make sure that they got all the way home.

I suppose that flying the flag and saying patriotic things might be a way to support the troops, but I am more concerned about how the troops are treated. I was seriously put out to read, during the height of the early fighting in Iraq, that some troops didn't have food. The supply line was too long--and the responsibility of providing meals had been privatized--so the front line was too dangerous for the civilians who would otherwise be providing meals. It was similarly aggravating to think that many troops didn't have the body armor they needed, the right color camoflauge uniforms, and, for all I know, the right weapons for the environment. How do you go to war in a desert with woodlands camoflauge, I wondered, more than a little angry at what looked like some poor logistical planning. And then their combat pay was cut? Sheesh.

But most of my attention to the matter of supporting the troops comes from the sad things that I have discovered while researching some elements of the health care system. When these troops come home--if they don't come home in a coffin--they may get a fine welcome, maybe even a parade. But they won't get much health care. Access to care through the Veteran's Administration was cut more than a year ago and the co-pays charged to those still eligible for care was doubled. And there are more cuts planned in the near future that include hospital closings and further restrictions on access.

Then, too, there's every reason to believe that war is much more traumatic than we've ever admitted in this country. We have more or less blithely sent our men--and now our women--off to war with the expectation that they will do their jobs well and return to praise and thanks, with maybe a few days to rest a bit. After VietNam we began to talk about post traumatic stress syndrome, realizing that it wasn't just a phenomenon of that war, that it had been evident in other wars--without the respect that its devastation on the human psyche deserved. Now we may be seeing that even those soldiers who don't show their distress overtly may nonetheless be suffering--but the help they need is not available.

I know that there are several more instances in which I think we've let our troops down, and I realize that I should be taking the time to document each of these assertions to help support my own veracity. I'm being lazy right now, I know. But it's just that I read something today that made me realize, yet again, how hollow is the admonition to "support the troops." Southpaw (http://redshark.goodshow.net/~cbellomy/mt/mt-tb.cgi/901) wrote:

Yet, people like my neighbor with their "Supoort President Bush and the troops" need to scratch out one or the other because it's becoming increasingly clear that you can't support Bush and support the troops at the same time. [Emphasis added.]

Why? The high number of reservists returned from Iraq to find that their jobs are gone, their careers over.

Some folks say that you don't have to support President Bush in order to support the troops. Some folks even say that you don' thave to support the War in Iraq in order to support the troops. All I say is that there's more to supporting the troops than saying "Attaboy!" And, when the war is over, they are still going to need our support.

Surviving

2004-09-14T01:17:00.000-05:00

Another Survivor series starts on Thursday night. This is a much anticipated event in our house. It is something of a guilty pleasure for My Prince and me, but we enjoy the series immensely. We have been faithful viewers since the very first series a few years ago, and we always look forward to the new series when it comes out.

A great deal of our interest in the series is because it reflects some of our own experience in living in East Africa. At different points in time, I lived in Kenya and then in Tanzania. My Prince joined me in Tanzania. The experience was life-altering in some critical ways, but most particularly in giving us a greater appreciation of how luxurious is our material wealth in the U.S. Life here, no matter how hard, is really easy compared to what it is in a third world country.

We have always been a bit thrifty. That comes from having parents who lived through the Great Depression and World War II. We were both taught to treat our possessions with care, to think twice before we spent money. After East Africa, we became avid recyclers. We not only recycle, we re-use. Plastic drink bottles can be cut down to form really neat "bins" for sorting all those nuts and bolts that My Prince has been hoarding for a zillion years. Cardboard boxes are dutifully brought home from the office to be used for storing the books that no longer fit on the shelves (I'm saving them for my retirement, when I hope to re-read each one!). One old shampoo bottle has been re-used for several years to hold the watered-down shampoo that is doled out from the large-economy-size-on-sale stuff that is much richer than what is actually needed to get one's hair clean.

It's not that we're inordinately cheap--it's more that we have seen what it is like to do without on a fairly grand scale. We know how to purify our water. We know how to entertain ourselves without television or newspapers. We know how to look at "trash" and see what other use something can be put to.

In Dar es Salaam, when we could get margarine, it came in a tin can. How do you keep the flies out? Get a lid! But where? We actually asked our parents to send us old plastic lids in various sizes from the food containers that they were through with. It worked wonderfully. And now we know that we don't have to buy a special lid for the cat food cans--just use the lid from bean dip. (BTW, margarine is whipped oil. It is white--unless the yellow food coloring is added. It did take some getting used to to put white "butter" on bread, but bread was so hard to get, I guess any color would have done just fine.)

So we enjoy watching Survivor these days just to see how Americans can figure out how to live in an impoverished environment. Sometimes we see some really inept responses to the situation; sometimes we see someone who can make a fairly good go of creative use of the environment.

But Survivor is not actually about survival. It's a test of human relations. A group of strangers is placed in a stressful situation and challenged to be the last one standing. We never tire of looking at how people treat each other in this kind of situation. We do understand that each person is "edited" to present them in a particular kind of way. Some perfectly nice person may have a couple of quirks that are then highlighted in the few minutes of footage presented about them, and you'd never know by watching the show that that's a perfectly nice person. But getting past the individuals, we see the group dynamics. We always wonder how the women can't seem to band together to defeat the men. We see the division caused by age and recognize it for a reflection of something going on in our own life. We see how the presentation of self can differ radically from what one is really thinking and can deceive regarding intentions.

We are always amazed to see how much the group dynamics on Survivor highlights some of the problems in society at large. The fear of the "other" that crops up in racism and other -isms is well reflected in Survivor. As often as not, it's the ethnic folks that get voted out sooner rather than later. Although one black woman and one hispanic woman have won a Survivor series, they seem to be exceptions in surviving group dynamics. An Asian woman who quite validly ate parts of a chicken, I think, that most Americans consider inedible was reflecting her culture--and a wise use of protein in a protein-poor environment--was viewed as "gross," "weird," "scary." A native american who knew a few tricks about overcoming hunger and who also knew how to be alone with himself was accused of cheating and eliminated--quite simply because he didn't fit in to the lazier group culture. Interestingly enough, the gay folks who were "out" in the various series seem to be less of an "other" than the ethnic folks.

And, of course, we enjoy watching Survivor because it's just plain fun to try to figure out who is going to win. We always end up having our favorites. Sometimes My Prince and I agree on a favorite, sometimes not. We watch each week--together or separately (sometimes I work late and catch it at the office)--and then talk about our perceptions. We criticize the bumbling survival activities. We analyze the group dynamics. And then we just have a good time trying to figure out who's deceiving the others, who is getting along well, who might be vulnerable to an elimination vote. We tend to like those who work hard at keeping the camp running. We tend to like the ones who are honorable. We are both fairly disgusted with the bimbos.

Thursday night is "date night" at our house. It's best not to call between 7 and 8, cuz we'll be watching Survivor. I can hardly wait!

Shopping

2004-09-14T01:11:00.000-05:00

When My Prince and I got married, there were some adjustments. One thing became immediately clear: The grocery store was no longer on his list of places to go. (My not taking out the garbage seemed a fair trade.) So, for 26 years, I've been the one to go out and forage for food.

When my work gets hectic, supplies can get pretty low. My Prince will, when faced with imminent starvation, pick up some lunchmeat and tortillas--but never anything that could actually end up being a family meal.

In the past year, my ability to handle the grocery shopping has declined. I start out well enough, but the cart gets pretty heavy pretty quickly. Pushing it up and down the aisles becomes quite wearing. A few times, I've had to sit down and rest before I could continue. Several times I've need help to get things out of the store. When a complete stranger walked over one day to push my basket and help me unload things into the car, I realized that I had to do something.

I tried eating before the trip to the store, but I still seemed to run out of steam before I finished. I nibbled on the samples when they were being offered and still ran out of steam. For a while, when the grandson was living with us, I conned him into going to the store with me. He was a huge help, pushing the basket, loading and unloading the car. When he moved out to share an apartment with friends, I made one more trip to buy groceries alone. It didn't work well. I just ran out of available glucose before I could get the basket to the door much less to my car.

So I explained to My Prince that we needed to add the grocery store back to his itinerary. Today was our first try at shopping together.

Oy!

First, you have to understand that the old boy is darned near deaf as a post. Even with his super duper hearing aids, the background noise in a grocery store creates massive communication problems. Second, you have to understand that it is in the nature of our relationship that we will always have different ideas about how to get any given task done efficiently. And, third, you have to understand that he would rather be anywhere than shopping for anything.

So he likes to make lists. I make lists, too, but I generally lose them and have to go from memory. I make lists to get myself ready to shop, but the real shopping is done by going up and down the aisles and thinking about what we might need, what's a good deal, what will make a meal. I look at the things he puts on the grocery list that hangs on the refrigerator door as suggestions.

Today, however, we took the list. He only asked me three times if I had it and, remarkably, stopped asking after the third "yes." Of course, he then started asking about the coupons. Now I generally don't shop with coupons. Most coupons are for brands that we don't buy. Whenever possible, I buy generic or house brand. And coupons are as hard to keep up with as the darned grocery list. Me, I want to shop, not fiddle with paper.

Today, we took coupons. It did happen that there were a couple of coupons in the Sunday paper that actually fit our needs, so I clipped 'em. And My Prince collects Paw Points from the cat litter box. (Since the cat will only use one kind of litter, it's only fair that we get a free box now and then.) I had to keep them in my hand along with the grocery list throughout the entire shopping adventure so I wouldn't forget them at checkout. Only later did I realize that my ever faithful reminder system (i.e., My Prince) would surely have asked me for the umpteenth time if I had the blasted things.

So we started shopping. We start at the middle of the store, where the soft drinks are. We drink a lot of 'em. He's a Diet Dr. Pepper fan. I go for Diet Coke. But we buy the house brand of DDP in 3-liter jugs. Diet Coke has to be on sale before we buy it. Otherwise, I drink the DDP-taste-alike, unless I cheat and buy some 1.5 liters bottles of the real (diet) thing because I just want to. So I cheated today, big time. We cleared the shelf of the stuff. And tossed in some 3-liter jugs for My Prince. So the basket got pretty full and pretty heavy right off the bat.

Our route then led to the far end of the store where the non-edibles are kept. We went up and down several of those aisles, skipping the items on the list that are cheaper at the discount warehouse where we buy them in bulk quantities. Having the list and noting the antsiness of my cart driver, I skipped the aisles where I knew we didn't need anything. We had a full cart by the time we made it to the other end of the store, but we still had to buy perishables.

Parking cart#1 and getting cart #2, I turned him loose on the vegetables and fruits. He says he's going to eat more fruit. I let him pick up a whole bag of apples, but it's strictly "wait and see" on my part. I really want to see whether he will eat that many apples or whether we'll have to rely on the grandson being a bottomless pit (which he basically is). On through the meat department, where we had to discuss the merits of pre-cooked chicken breasts and the frozen-but-uncooked kind. The crisis was averted when I reminded him that I actually knew how to cook something from almost scratch and he could survive on the already cooked kind when I was elsewhere. Another small crisis came at the dairy section, when I started to pick up a gallon of milk. It was on the list. In his handwriting. I just didn't know that he had actually ventured out to a nearby convenience store and purchased a gallon (at a premium price) a couple of days ago. Oh well.

We finally made it through the entire store--and I guided him back to the cash registers while avoiding the ice cream aisle. Then came the issue of how to sack the groceries. After years of experience, I have a fairly quirky set of specs for the sacker. Put the perishables in plastic. Put everything else in paper. I actually hate plastic bags. They are awkward. Things spill out. There's not much in bag. But, if the perishables go in plastic, those are the bags that I unload first. I can pop the stuff that needs to be refrigerated into the fridge right away and, best of all, leave the rest for later unloading by whichever of the menfolk I can con into it.

The only problem is, you have to make it really simple for the sacker, or he/she will invariably put the cheese in with the cereal. It's definitely the pits to go out to unload the car a few hours later--or even the next day--and find that the cheese has been sitting there the whole time. So I unload all the cold stuff from the basket first. Then I put a divider between the cold stuff and the non-perishable items. The theory is that any idiot can then follow my instructions about sacking and not mix things up. Not that the theory always works. I usually have to check things pretty carefully before I leave anything in the car for later unloading.

So there's the semi-deaf Prince at his first major grocery haul in a quarter of a century. He doesn't know why I'm separating the groceries. It looks to him like I'm going to pay with two checks. And where are the coupons, he asks again. After some shouting and some gestures, he managed to act like I had things under control and waited to let me and the checker get things done.

Then there was a convoy of baskets to the car. Fill the car. Drive home. Start unloading. With the two of us, we managed to get everything out of the car, but once I got the perishables stored, I was too pooped to cook anything. (We ate sausage wraps, finishing off the sausage that I had picked up in Elgin on my way home on Sunday.) There are still several sacks that have not been unpacked--after the news, I took a four hour nap!

Happily, we won't have to do this again for two or more weeks. We'll have to go to the discount warehouse in the interim, of course. And, since we pick up things for various family members (including things to fill up the ever voracious grandson), it's bound to fill the car up again.

Equally happily, I think this will be fun. I do recall being somewhat disappointed all those long years ago that we wouldn't be grocery shopping together. I'm not too happy that it took a screwed up pancreas to get us together behind a shopping cart, but I'm glad we're there. Look for the short round woman shouting at the grumpy old fart the next time you go to the grocery store. We're having a blast.

Self Criticism in Arab Media

2004-09-04T14:16:00.000-05:00

Self criticism in Arab media is apparently now happening with the horrifying aftermath of the hostage taking at a school in Russia. Finally, terrorists have crossed a line that no one can stomach.

I guess I was there a long time ago. William Kole talks about extremists aiming for maximum attention and the escalation to soft targets as opposed to government buildings and such. The thinking now seems to be that such targets as schools and other civilian structures will become the "vogue" for terrorists, that after 9/11 only such targets will get our attention.

Funny, I thought there were plenty of soft targets when the American embassy in Nairobi was blown up. I thought there were plenty of soft targets at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. And there were a fair number of soft targets at the Thirty Two Degrees North Pub in Belfast when someone rammed a backhoe filled with flammable materials into the front of it--yesterday. The latter event came within days of yet another attempt to shore up the often-broken "cease fire" in Northern Ireland, where soft targets have been hit for decades.

It's good that Arab media are looking at the fact that most of the terrorism in the world today seems to come from extremist Muslims. It's good that they recognize that such acts do more harm than good to any world concern for the issues at stake.

What I'm waiting for is their Ghandi. Their Martin Luther King, Jr. Maybe he/she is there, but we don't see? Dunno. But I'm glad that the discussion of tactics is now happening in Arab media. I only hope that it continues--and that some of those media actually reflect the views of their viewing audience.

Survival of the Fittest

2004-09-04T11:28:00.000-05:00

George Lakoff, a noted linguist, writes about the frames used by President Bush in his acceptance speech. This is the fourth of his series about the frames used in major speeches at the Republican National Convention.

On Day One of the convention, the frame, he says, was : All terror, all the time (The global War of Terror defines our lives and our generation).
On Day Two: Pull yourself up by your bootstraps--if you can afford the boots (With enough discipline, all Americans can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and become prosperous).
On Day Three: Red-meat night frames Kerry (Kerry is weak, unpatriotic, antimilitary, against national security, without resolve, soft-hearted, confused, and totally unfit to be commander-in-chief).
And Day Four, the President's frame: Freedom, liberty, freedom.

The concept of frames is itself an interesting one. Something like the paradigms we talked about in the olden days, the concept is meant to explain how we view things, how our perspective literally shapes our perception. A photographer "frames" a shot by selecting what portion of his 360-degree perspective to capture through his lens. All else is ignored because what is seen through the lens is all that can be seen. A painting is "framed" by its outer boundaries. Whatever else may have motivated the painter is unseen. In making our case for any particular point, the frame is provided in large part by our values, especially clearcut, bedrock values that can be stated in black and white terms. At least that's how I'm understanding frames right now without having read Lakoff's book on the subject.

That being said, there are a couple or three paragraphs in Lakoff's analysis of Bush's speech that are striking:

Conservatives have long sought to destroy Social Security and Medicare, for two reasons: First, from their moral perspective, all social programs take away the need for discipline and create dependency. Since discipline is seen as the basis of all morality, all such programs are immoral. Second, there is a business motive. Businesses can make more money if they can get their hands on all the Medicare and Social Security money as investments in them, not in the people whose health and future are insured. The conservative solution is to privatize both programs, creating "personal accounts." More freedom.
The motivation for government-run Social Security was that each generation would pay for the next. In Medicare, as in any insurance program, the lucky (those not injured or diseased) would pay for those less lucky. In addition, there were the twin motivations of economy of scale and of protection, from stock market declines, bad judgment, and from an individual's squandering. But in conservatism, those not sufficiently disciplined deserve what happens to them. If you're undisciplined enough to squander your personal savings account or not shrewd enough to invest wisely, then you deserve to lose your health and retirement money.

After all, conservatism posits a natural moral hierarchy of winners and losers. Conservatism gives you motivation (a pathway) to win. If you lose, your loss is a motivation to win in the future. If you're not disciplined enough to take advantage of the opportunities, too bad for you. You just won't make it in the opportunity society. And you don't deserve to.

I'm thinking that the frame here is "survival of the fittest" of the most crudely Darwinian sort. If you do not make it the opportunity/ownership society, then you are not fit to survive. How Christian is that?

Another perspective is that wealth becomes an indicator of superiority with the implication of worthiness. In other words, the wealthy are the "chosen people." Now that's more Christian--or at least Judeo-Christian. Just the wrong Testament.

Nervous Democrats

2004-09-04T09:34:00.000-05:00

Ruy Teixiera at Donkey Rising tries to comfort the Nervous Nellies in the Democratic Party about Bush's post-convention bounce and some apparently anomalous polling results from Time. It's useful to have someone who takes the time--and apparently knows a thing or two about polling--to analyze the results as they come in so that the rest of us don't turn into blithering idiots as we panic about the election.

The absolute worst thing that could happen is for committed Democrats to think that the election is already over when the race has just truly begun.

I think the nervousness has some basis, however. As the 2000 election played out, I followed the polls intently. Some network news site had a helpful line graph, tracking polling results over the weeks and months of the campaign. I kept watching as those red and blue lines moved up and down, moved closer together and eventually crossed in the last days of the campaign. Despite the complicity of the corporate media in supporting Bush and bashing Gore (yeah, they were--it's called "Goring" now), it seemed that the voters were finally getting the message that Gore would be the better president. It looked like he would win, if only by a slim margin.

Well, he did win--the popular vote. And Bush took the electoral vote only after some seriously questionable events in Florida.

That, of course, is old news. Bitter news for partisans. From my perspective, it's something else altogether.

I had the sad experience of watching Bush as governor. I had seen the difficulties caused in Texas because of his administration--and knew of worse to come because of the policies that he had pushed through. I also knew about the things that he didn't care about and wouldn't do anything about--and to have him find a national forum in which to exercise that disregard would be a disaster for the things that I cared about.

During the campaign I was in a position that made me a potential resource for others who cared about a particular issue. One national-but-niche magazine called me to find out where Bush stood on the issue while he was governor. All I could say is that he didn't--do anything, say anything--he just didn't care. Another noted newspaper called and eventually asked for dirt. I was not connected enough to have any. All I could say is that he just didn't care. In a state with fairly conservative values, not caring was the same as opposing.

I was seriously concerned about the election outcome. I watched the election returns avidly. All night long. Only when Tom Brokaw had to get some sleep at 5:00 a.m. on Wednesday morning did I, too, finally give it up and try to sleep. The next few weeks were a waking nightmare.

And so has the Bush administration been such a nightmare. I see how his personal beliefs and political agenda have become exactly the disaster I feared for the things that I care about most. I see how funding is cut--with profound effect on peoples' lives--in life and death matters. I see how he has actually used the issue to present himself as compassionate--for others, not Americans. And I see that even that use has been falsely presented, since his promises, even for others, have not been fulfilled except to advance his personal beliefs.

And now my concerns are broader. Thanks to his tax cuts, my take-home pay is $30 more each month. But my mother will now have a 17% increase in her Medicare premium this coming year. Thanks to his tax cuts, I am told that I'm not going to have the promised level of Social Security when I retire in the next few years. (Yes, I saved--but a little problem with a big stock market crash and companies like Enron and WorldCom have made Social Security a much bigger issue for me.)

It concerns me that Bush is a warmonger, that he is willing to lie to make the case for war, that he appears to use war to satisfy his own personal agenda. It concerns me that even our staunchest ally--Britain--is backing away from us. It concerns me that his rabid Christianity--which doesn't seem to involve actually going to church--leaves no room to understand that there are other belief systems in the world, that those belief systems deserve more than token respect.

It concerns me that we are told that there is no need to worry about inflation, because it's all under control. But gas is nearly $2.00 a gallon--still. And food costs more. And soon electricity and other necessities will cost more. Propane--in a natural gas producing state--is now $2.00 a gallon.

It concerns me that . . . well, this list goes on. Regardless of the nonsense of name-calling and mudslinging that is all the campaign that anyone seems to care about, there are some serious issues facing this nation--and some of them affect me and the people I care about. For some of them, it is even a matter of life and death. I'll be following the polls very closely in the next 8 weeks, and I'll be sitting up late on election night.

Mercurochrome and Purple Hearts

2004-09-01T10:51:00.000-05:00

Republican conventioneers are apparently engaging in a massive attempt to mock Senator Kerry's medals by wearing bandaids with Purple Hearts printed on them. Just a little lighthearted give and take in the campaign? A spontaneous grassroots expression of opinion? Official collusion to promote the position of the Swift Boat Veteran's for Truth?

Whatever it is, it's sick. It's disgusting. It's disrespectful of all of those who have earned a Purple Heart in service of our country.

Should we now start lobbing bottles of mercurochrome at Bob Dole?

Will some sobsister reporter demand that Kerry disrobe to show his scars?

I am so angry with this whole debacle. The Purple Heart is awarded based on specific criteria: http://www.americal.org/awards/ph.htm. If John Kerry met those criteria and chose to accept the award, then the discussion should be closed. Those who have objections to the award should have voiced them 35 years ago.

If having a wound that only needed mercurochrome got Bob Dole his first Purple Heart (and he accepted it) is enough for him to hold his head up high, where does he get off criticizing Kerry's first Purple Heart? Maybe Dole should give his medal back if the wound was so insignificant.

Or maybe folks should figure out that the law that defines the conditions under which Purple Hearts can be given (even to civilians) is where their problem is. Maybe they need to start lobbying Congress to limit Purple Hearts to injuries that require a minimum of 20 stitches or attendance by two surgeons and an anesthesiologist or an undertaker.

Hell, in Texas you can get a license plate that indicates that you earned a Purple Heart(http://www.dot.state.tx.us/vtr/spplates/specialplate.htm?nbr=59). The applicant only has to show proof that the Purple Heart was awarded. There's no question about the severity of the wound. Should we now get DPS to start stopping all those PH plates and ask: "License, insurance, scars?"

If Purple Hearts have no value, then I suppose it's okay to stick on a silly bandaid and laugh about someone's injuries. But, if they have value, if they reflect our nation's gratitude that someone has served us in time of need and been injured because of it, then those bandaids are not so silly. They're pretty much like someone wearing a button showing a liquor bottle and saying, "Let's have another, George!" How about a bumper sticker that says: "Jesus died. Get over it."

It's said that in the heat of battle, soldiers sometimes do things that they would later be ashamed of. This campaign has become too heated. Shame on the Republican conventioneers.

Facing up to wrongdoing in Abu Ghraib

2004-08-24T07:48:00.000-05:00

Yahoo%21 News - Abu Ghraib Soldier Admits to Some Charges

David Dishneau writes an information-packed story for the AP, revealing much more, I think, than the headline indicates.

One more admission of wrongdoing.

HAGERSTOWN, Md. - The highest-ranking Army reservist charged with abusing Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison said Monday he will plead guilty to some offenses because "what I did was a violation of law."

Staff Sgt. Ivan L. "Chip" Frederick II, of the Maryland-based 372nd Military Police Company, said in a written statement e-mailed to The Associated Press by his attorney: "I have accepted responsibility for my actions at Abu Ghraib prison. I will be pleading guilty to certain charges because I have concluded that what I did was a
violation of law."

The three-paragraph statement did not specify the charges to which Frederick will plead guilty, and it wasn't clear whether he would still contest any of the allegations. He is charged with maltreating detainees, conspiracy to maltreat detainees, dereliction of duty and wrongfully committing an indecent act.
. . .
Frederick, a Virginia state prison guard in civilian life, is among seven members of the Cresaptown, Md.-based 372nd charged in the scandal, which involves physical abuse and sexual humiliation of prisoners.

He would be the second of the seven to admit wrongdoing. Spc. Jeremy C. Sivits of Hyndman, Pa., pleaded guilty to three abuse charges in May and was sentenced to a year in prison.
. . .

Frederick's mother, Jo Ann Frederick . . . said on Monday that she did not know what offenses her son planned to acknowledge.

"I can only say that Chip has told us things, and it's not that it was so much hands-on things, but he is responsible for what some of the others did, and some of the things he did he feels were not right," she said.

Evidence that more than "a few bad apples" were responsible.

Frederick has claimed the abusive treatment was orchestrated by military intelligence officers rather than MPs, according to a diary his family made available.

In his statement Monday, Frederick said he hoped that "all those within the Army who contributed to or participated in the chaos that was Abu Ghraib" accept responsibility.

Public recognition of the propriety Darby's whistle-blowing.

He also expressed concern about Spc. Joseph M. Darby, a member of the 372nd credited with tipping off Army investigators to the abuse. Relatives of Darby said last week that he is in protective military custody, partly because of threats from people in their communities who believe he betrayed his fellow soldiers.

Frederick said he harbored no ill will toward Darby: "He did what he thought was right, and it was right," Frederick wrote.

An indication that the Army is not doing as much as it should be to further the investigation of Abu Ghraib.

In Mannheim on Monday, a military judge hearing evidence in the abuse cases demanded that prosecutors speed up the investigation. Col. James Pohl expressed displeasure after being told a lone Army criminal investigator was reviewing thousands of pages of records contained in a secret computer server at Abu Ghraib.

I'm sure others will look at the meat of this story and draw many conclusions. It does provide a wealth of issues to look at. But what strikes me is the admission of wrongdoing, i.e., the act of admitting that one has done something wrong. That's a tough thing to do for just about anyone. It must be ever so much harder for someone who felt he was following orders and doing something important for his country.

Even harder, I think, will be task for those who defend the actions in Abu Ghraib to come to the conclusion that it was wrong, because it means, to some extent, that we would have to say that our country was wrong. That's a tough nut to swallow for any patriot.

Yet we know that, as individuals, we do grow when we face up to the wrongs that we have done. Without facing up to them, we are consumed by guilt and the struggle to rationalize our wrong behavior. When we admit the wrongdoing, we may still have to face the consequences, but we end the struggle to twist something wrong into something right, we lessen the burden of guilt, we can set about making things better. That might include reversing the wrong, compensating for the wrong, or simply not straying down that path again.

Abu Ghraib is a stain on our national honor. We can do better. I heartily wish that we would.

GOTV and VR

2004-08-23T16:29:00.000-05:00

I started writing this a month ago and must have been interrupted before I finished it. (cwr)

Atrios--at Eschaton--has a short post at http://atrios.blogspot.com/ captioned: "Vote!" I can't figure out how to capture the trackback for the post itself, but it's not so very long, and the gist is that he's agreeing with someone that generic GOTV activities are less useful than voter registration. The comments are much more lengthy, with a lively discussion on several dimensions of voter registration, the importance of voting, voter apathy, and so on. If one had the patience to find the post and then go to the comments (I have to right-click on the link to open them in a new window--it really is a clunky interface for some reason), the richness of thought would be, well, thought provoking.

My own thoughts have been provoked thusly:

Both GOTV (get out the vote activities) and VR (voter registration activities) are essential. Without VR, there's no point to GOTV. Without GOTV, VR is similarly pointless. Campaigns to promote the importance of voting to one group of Americans or another are intended to build a desire to vote and should, of course, be accompanied by some information about how to get registered to vote. Voter registration cards (in Texas, at least) used to come in little stands that said, "Register and vote!" (emphasis, no doubt, added). They probably still do.

The thing is, neither happens without some effort on someone's part. I was, for example, pleased to see that some local Austin Democrats were using the occasion of showings of Fahrenheit 9/11 as an opportunity to register voters. This was a targeted effort, based on the assumption that folks who saw had just seen this movie (as opposed to, say, Shrek 2, would want to register to vote. It seems to have panned out. Others are doing block walks in selected areas of the county, although I have not looked too closely at how they have made their selections. I myself take voter registration cards to workshops, in case someone needs to update their registration--or, indeed, register.

[Note to Jack: Yes, I saw Shrek 2 (with the grandson). Loved it. No, I didn't see Fahrenheit 9/11. I already knew the "plot" (pun intended) and couldn't bear to put myself through the emotional meat grinder. ]

In all cases, voter registration is a non-partisan activity. One might wish to register voters of one party or another in order to boost support for one's favored candidate, but that's not how it's done, nor should it be. Our right to vote is one of the most precious gifts of citzenship in our democracy. The one thing a VR drive should be doing is making sure that everyone who is willing to accept that gift receives it.

GOTV used to be fun on E-Day. I have fond memories of driving one of the old Volkswagen Rabbits as a sound car for a City Council race. Sadly, they only let me play a tape rather than letting me broadcast my own ad-libbed endorsements of the candidate and encouragement to "come on out and vote, folks," but it was fun driving through neighborhoods, waving to folks in their yards, and feeling so much a grand part of things. That was 20 years ago. I was already too upset with intrusive telemarketers to want to be a phone bank person, but I thought the sound car was a nice tradition. Nowadays, I'm sufficiently intolerant of noise pollution that I would probably have some second thoughts about voting for a candidate, sound permit notwithstanding, who destroyed the peace and quiet of my neighborhood (such as it is) to get me to the polls. And the real nitty gritty of GOTV is still those phone banks of identified voters. Find out who they are before E-day. Call 'em until they tell you they've voted. Ugh. GOTV of the sort that is being pursued with television and print ads, rock concerts, and wrestling events is much more "peaceable."

I've cut the rest of the essay, since I seem to have been trying to make a transition to a discussion of the need for some bipartisan civility when I was interrupted mid-sentence. This will have to stand as is since I've already done my freedom of speech rant for the day. (cwr)

Confessions of a Vietnam War Protester

2004-08-23T08:49:00.000-05:00

Atrios has the complete text of John Kerry's April 1971 testimony to the Senate about his opposition to the war in Vietnam (http://haloscan.com/tb/atrios/109310561289460214). It is quite moving, reflecting a love of country that shines clearly throughout. I'm glad someone made it easy for me to read the whole thing, since it also places in context the excerpt about atrocities that seems to be the one piece that gets the most exposure in the corporate media. The context: Kerry was reporting the testimony of others, not making his own accusations in that particular sentence.

Recently a very dear friend of mine, who happens to be a Republican, sent me an email to let me know how much of a traitor Kerry had been in protesting the war. She knows how much I love my country, and I'm guessing that she was trying to make me aware of how misplaced my support for Kerry as candidate for president is. She has a son in the military, so her own need to find meaning in support for the president and his policies has an added level of motherly anxiety. The sad thing about the email is that she was forwarding some packaged piece that included a picture of Kerry standing in a smiling group of presumably North Vietnamese officials. The picture is displayed in some North Vietnamese museum and captioned with praise for Kerry. This "proof" of his being a traitor was dated very clearly: 1993.

I responded to my friend by pointing out--as gently as possible--that the captioned picture was probably made while Kerry was doing some of his official Senate business on the MIAs and was taken 20 years after he was actively protesting the war. I then pointed out that, in this grand country of ours, it's not illegal to protest the actions of the government and that I, too, had protested the war in Vietnam.

I recall the day I became an activist quite clearly. It came as a direct result of the killings at Kent State. I had, up to that point, been almost totally absorbed in my studies. I was supportive of decisions that fellows in my circle of friends made to seek draft deferments because of school, didn't know a soul who actually sought military alternatives to the draft. I was politically naive, ignorant of the causes and reasons of the war, but generally of a mind that it was too complicated for me to have a legitimate opinion one way or another.

Then Kent State happened. This frightened me. If it could happen at Kent State, could it not happen at my school? There were protests going on all the time. As I walked across campus to get to the library or attend classes, I had witnessed police in riot gear fast-marching in another direction but not 100 yards away from me. What was I doing that made it acceptable for some random shot to strike me down?

When the call came to shut down the campus and march en masse to the center of the city, I decided that it was time to join with my peers and make a statement. The decision came on a day when I was dressed for class--in the same way that I always dressed. Pleated skirt, turtle neck sweater, girdle, stocking, Mary Janes with about 2" heels. Some marching outfit.

There were thousands of students who joined the march. There were also several colleges in the city, so the plan that I heard including simultaneous marches from all the campuses meeting in the downtown area. I joined my march and enjoyed the spirit of determination and, yes, high excitement of those around me.

Eventually, however, that girdle took its toll. There were very few restrooms on that march. A service station on the route allowed folks to use the facilities, and the line outside the women's room was really long. I didn't actually need the facilities so much as I needed a place to get rid of that darned girdle. I cut the line with an explanation to that effect. I think I brought no little amusement to those at the head of the line who witnessed the shedding of that garment.

That garment, you must know, was an essential item. First, nice girls wore one to stop the unseemly jiggle that might otherwise manifest itself when walking. Second, in the days pre-pantyhose, it was the only way to hold up the stockings that were also part of the nice girl uniform. Being a southern girl at a northern campus made me a fish out of water in any number of ways, but that day, I think, was the most emblematic. Everyone else around me was dressed for the march, either having made the decision to join it some time before arriving at campus or already dressed in the more casual--even grungy--mode that typified the campus. The amused reactions of my fellow marchers when I announced that I just wanted to step into the ladies room to take off my girdle provided a watershed moment for me.

I rethought a lot of values that day. I can't say that I came to any clearer understanding of the roots of the war or that I resolved all of my own internal conflicts about the policies that led to it. I could only grasp it in limited terms, finite terms. How did it affect me? How did I feel about what was going on around me?

I never finished the march. The Mary Janes eventually did me in, and I had to take the bus home to nurse the blisters on my feet. The next day, however, I was better dressed for action and could join in other protest efforts. For a while I "manned the barricades," carrying a protest sign back and forth near one of the barricaded entrance to our campus. One side of the sign referred to Kent State and the other to Cambodia. (I didn't understand the issue about Cambodia, so I tried to keep the Kent State side showing to the passing cars.)

On another day, I joined the group that had taken over the campus radio station to help get the real news out to the public. That was my first experience with censorship. I was given the task of editing the incoming teletype stories for broadcast on the radio. Generally, I was just cutting the stories down to size for manageable broadcast--and I was quite enlightened by the stories that I read before they were broadcast. One, however, sticks with me: Jane Fonda had gone somewhere to protest the war and, according to the wire story, appeared with her blouse unbuttoned enough to expose her breasts. That didn't seem very nice to me, so I cut the line describing her appearance. I felt very guilty about trying to shape her image in a more seemly way, but, at the time, I was thinking that it wouldn't reflect well on the rest of us if her less-than-ladylike appearance. I still feel guilty about "censoring" the news--but I also never forget that any news we hear is likely to be filtered through the biases and concerns of the editors that get to see and hear it before we do.

Once I became involved in the protest, it also meant that there were any number of organizing meetings to attend. I hadn't learned in those days that I was supposed to keep my mouth shut and hand out coffee to the guys. (Never did learn that one, in fact.) So I asked questions and generally participated in discussions as if I could have a legitimate opinion. I cannot forget the fellow who towered over me, yelling at me about my faith in the proper system to report and protest any potential police brutality. That exchange was emblematic for me because I had never before considered that a policeman might deliberately hide his identity in order to harm a citizen. I was frightened at the thought--and more frightened by the realization that our definitions of civilized and lawful society were capable of such distortion.

At some point, the campus settled back to its normal routines. Someone negotiated to open the barricades, to end the occupation of various buildings. I went back to classes, walked across the campus with a little more awareness of what it meant to be safe there, and continued to struggle with the implications of the war in Vietnam for our own society.

One definite outcome of these events is that I never wore a girdle again. It's less clear to me how we are to view the war in Vietnam. It was clearly an unjust war (my opinion now, take it or leave it), but the aftermath and the lessons they might have taught us are much more troublesome. There has been a long division in our country about the nature of patriotism, the value of military service, the role our country should play in the world. We've never gotten over Vietnam--and we've never really resolved many of the issues that arose from that war.

I think, however, that it is absolutely clear that our country must be one in which people are allowed to speak their opinions freely and without being labelled a traitor for expressing their heartfelt belief that the country is headed in the wrong direction in foreign or domestic policy. None of us will--nor can we--share exactly the same life experiences and knowledge that will always and inevitably lead us to exactly the same conclusions about the direction of the country. I disgree with my Republican friend about some of the beliefs that she holds. I even disagree with John Kerry about some of the things that he is advocating for future policy. But I treasure my friend, because she is a friend and because I respect the life that she has led and also because I care about the concerns that lead her to some of the conclusions that she has reached. I care about John Kerry, too, and have high hopes for the election in November. I believe that he is a good man, and I am glad that we live in a country where he--and I--and all the rest of us have the right to face our government and say: "This is right. This is wrong. We can do better."

Senate Hopeful Obama Is Kenya's Favorite Son

2004-08-15T01:34:00.000-05:00

Senate Hopeful Obama Is Kenya's Favorite Son

C. Bryson Hull writes for Reuters from Kogelo, Kenya, that "When it comes to U.S. politics the world may be focused on the presidential election but in Kenya, a U.S. Senate race in Illinois is grabbing the headlines and the attention. " He is referring to the campaign of Barack Obama, which has been drawing a fair amount of attention in the blogosphere if not in the corporate media for some time.

I know little enough about Obama. I did not hear his speech at the Democratic convention, although I read enough excerpts to know that he appealed powerfully to the desire that we all share to see more unity in this country. He is in all likelihood a shoo-in for this election, which, in my mind, is not a bad thing.

In this, however, my sympathies are not with the Democratic Party but with Kenya. I have no idea--right now--whether Obama is as knowledgeable about Kenya in particular and Africa in general as he might be, given his heritage, but (a) I hope so and (b) I intend to find out more. That he might bring such knowledge--or at least awareness--to the U.S. Senate is a good thing for several reasons.

First, U.S. policy towards Africa has been dismal for as long as I can remember. The only interest that the U.S. has had in Africa has been its value as a pawn in the Cold War or the presence of exploitable natural resources, particularly, these days, oil. If and when funding has been allocated for any sort of assistance, it seems to have been directed toward unsustainable projects which became little more than white elephants for struggling economies, military aid poured like oil on a fire, or one shot infusions of "relief" that provided no sustainable infrastructure. There doesn't seem to have been any sustained attention to the continent or even the courting of allies on the continent with a view to promoting healthy economies and open goverments.

Second, Africa is much more critical globally than most of my fellow Americans seem to want to recognize. The stereotypes that have been maintained for centuries seem somehow to continue through even the most contemporary news stories in the corporate media--and we cluck with satisfied dismay to hear of more famine, more massacres, more corruption as our stereotypes are confirmed. But here are a couple of thoughts to bear in mind. HIV originated in Africa and has become a global pandemic from that epicenter. One-fourth of the population of Africa is Muslim; three major Al Qaeda-linked attacks have occurred in Nairobi, Dar es Salaam, and Mombasa. At least one other was attempted. Africa would seem to be ignored at our peril.

Then there is the loss of endangered species. Desertification. Genocide. Oppressive governments. Imminent famine in a couple of places. Things we say we care about but don't seem to do anything about until it's either too late or damned near it.

Why will it matter for Africa if Obama gets to the Senate? Well, if he will speak for Africa, he becomes a legitimate voice for the concerns and needs of millions. Yes, he must represent Illinois and its needs. But Illinois will be well served--as would we all--if the U.S. begins to look at Africa intelligently and respectfully, if the U.S. begins to spends its funds there with more wisdom, if the U.S. recognizes that the "world" isn't cut off at the Equator.

It's past time to begin building good health services in Africa, sustainable agriculture and water supplies, laying some better seeds for democracy than big shiny dams and power plants that break down when there is no foreign currency for repair.

Texas Heroes (Part III)

2004-08-14T23:17:00.000-05:00

On Thursday, we had to make the long drive North Texas for a funeral. Aunt Lessie had died. She was 92. We had been expecting this for some time. She, bless her, even picked a convenient time. My Prince is retired, and I am on vacation, so no plans had to be urgently rearranged to pay our last respects.

The funeral was lovely, held in the First Christian Church of that small town. A sweet looking elderly pianist played several hymns with great expression. The minister spoke well and remembered that the service was Aunt Lessie's funeral and not a Sunday morning service. It was, if anything, too brief to remember such a long and special life.

There were not very many people at the service. At Lessie's age, she had outlived most of her family and friends. Her only living sister was too ill to attend. She had no children of her own. The 10 family members present were nieces and nephews of the great and great great generations. There were a few flowers from friends and family and the various organizations she had served over time, but none for her coffin. That was covered with a flag.

Aunt Lessie served in the Women's Army Corps in World War II. She was a nurse, first at Camp Swift, then for a while at Fort Hood, and then back to Camp Swift. At Fort Hood, she set up the nursing service there. At Camp Swift, the most serious burn cases were treated. She left the Army in 1945, having achieved the rank of Captain.

Apparently, she never much wanted to talk about her work as an Army nurse, because the stories were simply too painful. But she clearly kept her military bearing throughout her life and continued to serve her community in a number of ways for many years afterwards.

In her little church, the tradition seems to have been for the people attending the funeral at the church to stand outside waiting for the coffin to be brought out to be placed in the hearse. They stood on either side of the walkway. As the flag-draped coffin passed by, one fellow remembered and saluted.

Aunt Lessie would have liked that, I think.

Texas Task Forces

2004-08-10T00:35:00.000-05:00

Now there's task forces, and then there's task forces. It happens that I myself serve on one of those things called a "task force." Hellifiknow exactly what that makes me, but it sounded kind of empowering when I first got on it donkey's years ago.

While it's my heart's desire not to mix my work with this blog--and that is itself a mighty struggle--boundaries seem not to be my forte these days. I am, you see, on vacation. So why, you may ask (and so do I), am I working on a grant proposal for that blasted task force right in the middle of my vacation? Once more comes one of my favorite words: hellifiknow. (That's much more ladylike than damnedifiknow, y'know!)

The task force, just for a bit of context, is, in fact, a drug task force, 'cept we don't carry guns or wear badges. Well, a couple of folks have the badges, but nobody has any guns (so far). And the drugs are actually either the legal kind or the wannabe legal kind (as in fraudulent, counterfeit, hoax, generally bad for you).

And the grant is a federal grant. My least favorite kind. Everything has to be explained in detail. And, then, in the next section, it all has to be explained again, in the same detail, like they can't read the first section and figure out that it says the same thing. By the time you get to the fifth section, you've said it five damned (oopsie!) times in just about the same words and your face is turning red. Not to mention the bad words that have begun to creep into your project description.

I was just about finished--as in "let her finish the blasted thing up; she's the chair"--when I got to the budget. Well, now, a budget can be an interesting thing. Sometimes it can actually be kinda fun to be the girl who writes the budget. Or, in this case, the girl who edits the budget.

Once you figure out what the original budget is supposed to have done, you can tinker a bit. Up this number a bit (my plane ticket could cost more than that), lower that number a bit (who needs that many envelopes, for garden seed?). Then you can start thinking about what else should be there (oopsie, she left out the website domain cost). After you've whacked a bit here and there, you've saved up some money. Now what to do? What do we really need to make this task force better? Well, it wouldn't hurt to actually get the task force printer repaired rather than using mine all the time. How about that? And maybe some actual ink for the printer? Oooo, now it's getting good.

So you go back to add up the numbers, because there actually is a cap to all of this. It is, after all, a federal-state "partnership." You know, one of those things where the feds put out a pittance and expect the state to pick up the bulk of the tab, but the state passes as much of it on to the community (read "nonprofit organizations") as possible? (I would be "the community" in this little arrangement--and I get my money by standing on street corners with a tin cup--or something very like that.) So the whole thing can't be more than a ridiculously low total amount. (And, no, using federal ink for federal work doesn't bother my conscience in the least. Who do you think writes most of the educational material for this task force?)

Well, the numbers are adding up. I'm getting happy. I just have to make sure that all the quintuplicate narrative is matching the numbers--and what do I see? The aforementioned chair has made a monstrous error. Not an addition error, mind you. She just left out one-whole-honking-sixth of the budget. No wonder she had so much money left over for stamps and envelopes. She left out a whole task force meeting.

A whole meeting. One-sixth of the pitifully small budget. And we had talked about it at least three times. I could only laugh. The task force, you see, is a Texas task force. As in Texas, the state that could have been five states. The state that takes a couple of days to drive across. The state that takes several hours to fly across. Every year we have to explain this to the folks back east. Texas is b-i-g. So, to have a meeting of all the task force members, who live in places like Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and even El Paso, we can't just hop in the car, drive an hour, meet a couple of hours, and be home for dinner. Somehow the guys in the east just can't seem to understand why it costs so much for a task force meeting.

It's expensive to meet. Airfare, hotel, per diem all mount up, even for just 8 people. But we cut our meetings down to twice a year and do as much of our work as possible by email and conference call. Our two meetings each year are training sessions, work sessions, business meetings, planning meetings--combined with community outreach in whatever city or town we are in (and we move around the state to maximize the outreach). We pile in everything we can to make the meetings "value added," cut every corner we can (e.g., some of us even car pool), in order to make sure that we have made our point ever so clear: This is a good thing. And then we explain the cycle of the year and the nature of the issue that we are dealing with so that it justifies the two meetings per year. Over and over again in that blasted proposal.

I really did laugh when I saw the missing numbers. It had to be some sort of reverse Freudian slip. We've just been battered so many times about those meeting costs, and I'm guessing that the chair (nice lady, overwhelmed by the fedspeak of the grant instructions anyway) just flinched.

But maybe it's time to fight back. The grant instructions do say that a map showing geographical location of the project can be attached. Maybe I should do that. I'm thinking that I happen to have a pile of old leftover TxDOT maps--with Ann Richards' picture on 'em. Maybe some hand lettered drawing with mileages and driving times might give them a clue to just how big Texas really is. A nice big, fold out map that covers their desk and slaps 'em in the face with the fact that it takes longer to drive across Houston than it does to cross Rhode Island (probably). Yes, that would be fun.

Of course, now I have to go cut stuff out of the budget in order to squeeze in that second meeting. That sucks canal water.

What I did on my vacation . . .

In Memoriam

2004-07-30T21:59:00.000-05:00

Ahmed Ghailani is nicknamed "Fupi," not "Foopie," as some news reports want to phonetically report it. The word is Swahili for "short." Maybe he's short. But he can't possibly be anything cute and cuddly and rhyme with "Snoopie."

His arrest, coincidence or not, is long overdue. May the Pakistan government and ours glean much information from him and the computers they captured with him. (Please, may they also do so honorably--although I have my doubts about that part.) And then may he be brought to public trial and punished for his crimes.

Why do I give a rat's patootie? My memories of the embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam are fogged by time, but I never laid eyes on the World Trade Center. I have passed through New York City a couple times, probably met a couple of people from New York state in my lifetime. I lived in Kenya for 14 months, in Tanzania for 21 months--and I knew a lot of people in both capitals. When the Towers fell, I was horrified, sickened, angered. When the embassies were bombed, I grieved.

I only visited the Nairobi embassy a couple of times. I was young and thought all our embassies were like what I saw in the movies. This one was just an office in an office building. Nothing special at all. I registered my presence in the country and set off on my more or less merry way. It was great fun to receive a letter some months later, inviting me to the Ambassador's Fourth of July party in Nairobi. You bet, I went. Didn't know a soul, but found other young Americans there and enjoyed the hot dogs. After months of wali na mchuzi, mustard can be a fine thing.

If I didn't see much of the inside of the embassy, I was certainly aware of the busy streets of Nairobi. My work was on the coast, in a Muslim area. I went to Nairobi about every 3 months for a couple of days of R & R. There I could be with other young people, go dancing, enjoy the cosmopolitan atmosphere of a wonderful city. Then I would go back to the coast and immerse myself in the local communities that I lived with.

The streets were filled with vendors. Food. Goods. Beggars. Foot and bike traffic. Wildly driven cars and taxis and buses. There would have been a lot of people in the office building where our embassy was located. There would have been a lot of people on the street outside. Fine people. Building their lives. Building their country.

And Ghailani (allegedly) blew them up.

Ten years later I found myself in Dar es Salaam. My contacts with the embassy were not much more direct there either--except that I lived in town and I drove past the embassy every day on my way to work. There were two things to look out for on that drive. One was the really big pothole (sinkhole) that could break an axle on a good day. The other was the flag. Tanzania was not, at that time, quite the happy experience for me that Kenya was, so I was much more homesick, much more aware of what I had left behind when I left the United States. It was incredibly comforting to see our flag flying--day and night--on top of that concrete bunker of a building.

The local scuttlebutt was that the embassy building originally belonged to the Isrealis, but the Tanzanians kicked them out for some reason, so we took over the building. This building was set away from the downtown area. It was fenced in. I remember one of my rare visits to the embassy, seeing a delivery truck parked inside the fence. There were cases of Hawaiian Punch under the tarp. I was so jealous. A marine greeted me from behind bullet proof glass and asked for identification and my business before admitting me.

This time around, I had a husband in tow for the Ambassador's Fourth of July picnic. Yet, again, we loved the hotdogs--mustard was just as hard to find in Dar--and all the hokey state songs played for the folks in attendance. And, embassy or no, there were only two real choices in town for the movies. One was to go to the drive in, which we did. The other was to go to the Marine House, which we also regularly did. There we sat on folding chairs and watched almost current movies projected on a white sheet, drinking Australian beer, and munching popcorn in the midst of a raucous group of clean cut young'uns and very tired expats.

This embassy was a harder target, but Ghailani still (allegedly) did his best to blow it up.

I don't know anyone who died in those attacks. But I feel like I do. I know the kind of people that they were--Kenyan, Tanzanian, American. Even Ghailani.

He would have been a child when I was there. And those were hard years. Whatever was being preached in the madarasas, the same bile was being spewed from the national government. The economy was a shambles. Bodies were stacked in the morgue like piles of cordwood--and the acronym for "AIDS" had not yet been coined while the virus ate away at the heart of the country. Infrastructure was crumbling. The border with Kenya was closed. Trade was limited. Food staples were in short supply. Corruption was everywhere. We were pretty much on the front lines of the cold war.

Still, if we had to have a "coincidence" "just in time" for the Democratic National Convention, I am very pleased with this one. I still see that flag in my mind's eye. We have our own flag--the one we didn't have to go out to buy on September 12, 2001--and, while it has to hang on the side of our house, when I look at it, I see it flying high, from a pole, on top of our embassy in Dar, lighted against the night sky. And my eyes tear up.

May they rest in peace.

High Value Coincidence

2004-07-30T21:58:00.000-05:00

Coincidences come in all kinds of ways. My favorite tough guy who makes Texas Music (and my audience of one) :) does an "I-haven't-read-it-yet-but-I-know-what-I-think review of the 9/11 Commission Report, and I agree with a lot of what he has to say, but his blog eats my response. By coincidence, a lot of what I have to say has to do with just a little of what he has to say (which is not unusual), but refers to my own personal experience twenty-years-removed with two of the sites attacked by Al Qaeda on its way to 9/11. So I do some fast right-clicking and save what I have to say so I can post it here and, just to be the curious person that I am, do some extra googling before I get around to actually making the post. Here's what I found.

Yahoo! News - Pakistan Says Captures 'Most Wanted' Qaeda Man

By Zeeshan Haider

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, said to be a top al Qaeda operative and one of the world's most wanted men, was in custody in Pakistan on Friday for his suspected role in the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa.

Ghailani and 13 others were seized after a 14-hour gun battle with security forces at the weekend in the city of Gujarat, about 110 miles southeast of the capital Islamabad, Pakistan Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat said.

The United States had offered a reward of $25 million for the Tanzanian national's capture, the same as for al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) and 19 others on the FBI (news - web sites)'s Most Wanted Terrorist List.

Ghailani is probably the most senior al Qaeda operative caught in Pakistan since the arrest in March 2003 of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.

In Washington, a U.S. official confirmed Ghailani's arrest. "He is wanted for the death of Americans," the official said on condition of anonymity.

Ghailani, who is in his early 30s and goes by the nicknames "Foopie" and "Ahmed the Tanzanian," was indicted in New York in 1998 for the synchronized blasts that blew up the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Tanzania, killing 224 people.

Washington blamed al Qaeda for the devastating bombings and carried out a missile attack on Afghan military training camps run by bin Laden shortly afterwards. Bin Laden escaped unhurt.

Four al Qaeda supporters were sentenced to life in prison in October 2001 by a Manhattan federal judge for the bombings. The FBI and the Manhattan U.S. Attorney's office had no immediate comment on Ghailani's arrest.

Hayat said Pakistani security forces had been acting on a tip-off when they raided a suspected militant hideout in Gujarat. One policeman was slightly injured in the gunbattle, he added.

Hayat said Ghailani, his Uzbek wife and up to eight other foreigners, including two South Africans, were among those arrested.

NO EXTRADITION REQUEST YET

The minister said Pakistan had not yet received a request from the United States for his extradition.

"He has been in Pakistan for some time. We have to establish the exact nature of his activities and scope of his network in Pakistan. Only after we have exhausted our inquiries shall we be able to hand him over ... to the U.S.," he said.

"It is a big achievement for our security forces," he added.

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage praised Pakistan's pursuit of al Qaeda-linked fighters during a visit to Islamabad earlier this month.

U.S. officials suspect bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahri and other al Qaeda supporters are hiding somewhere in rugged tribal areas along the Afghan border and have put pressure on Pakistan to pursue foreign militants in the lawless region.

Up to 600 fighters, including Arabs, Chechens and Uzbeks, are believed to be in the tribal belt, many of them sheltered by tribesmen who have also been involved in fierce clashes with Pakistani troops this year.

Pakistani forces launched two major operations this year in the region after President Pervez Musharraf vowed to clear the country of foreign militants accused of attacks in Pakistan, including two attempts on his life in December, and strikes on U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan (news - web sites).

Pakistan says it has arrested hundreds of al Qaeda fighters and handed them over to the United States since it joined the U.S.-led war on terror in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. (Additional reporting by Tabassum Zakaria in Washington)

Why is this a coincidence? Here's what I wanted to post for a reply to Jack's "review":

Just a little liberal sweet talk, Jack. I decided not to read more than a few of the other comments, since I'm short on time, but did want to shock you with my almost total agreement with your post. You expressed yourself quite clearly and very well yet again.

But, here's a couple of thoughts to give you some added perplexity. I have walked through the doors of both of the embassies that we lost in East Africa. Those embassies were guarded by some fine young (really, startlingly young) Marines. I drank their beer in Dar es Salaam. Although my residence in those cities was some years before those attacks and although I cannot say that I know anyone personally who was killed there, I can certainly tell you--and my fellow Americans--that everyone who died there was a human being, worthy of our grief and concern for their lose in such tragic circumstances. I say this not to place you on the defensive. I understand your ironic tone in referring to these deaths. But I want to reemphasize that American lives were indeed the targets of the bombs--and that real human lives
were lost.

I could babble on about that, but your stronger point is that the government is not our baby sitter. It's our servant. I agree. We might disagree on just exactly what we want our servant to be doing , but-no space . . .

Well, I did run out of space, and I don't want to talk about that now. I want to talk about Ghailani, Dar es Salaam, and coincidences.

Last things first: There is was a report some weeks ago in The New Republic that the Bush administration was putting pressure on the Pakistani government to produce a "high value" al Qaeda target, preferably Osama bin Laden, during the Democratic Convention. Here's the link. Several blogs, including The Agonist, Talking Points Memo, and quite a few others noted the article then, which is when I picked up on it. Today, they and others speculate about the "coincidence" of a capture that occurred on Sunday but was only announced on the day that John Kerry was due to give his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention, i.e., during the targeted time frame.

I noticed the "coincidence" myself. I was also curious to see whether there would be any major tide of news coverage that would overshadow Kerry's speech and the convention because of this arrest. There were some stories, but this afternoon's newsmap showed what seems to be happening. Nada. Zip.

Sometimes a coincidence is just a coincidence. And sometimes it flops. Whatever.

I honestly cannot say whether it would have changed things for me if the "high value" target that had been captured had been Osama bin Laden or Mullah Omar or any of the others. I'll be glad when they are out circulation whenever they are out of circulation. I wish we had been harder on their trails before now.

But, after making sure that I took the time to watch Kerry' speech and then reading analysis and commentary for several hours afterwards (I love the stuff), Ghailani was still on my mind. Even if there is not much press coverage, even if he is not "high value" enough for everyone else to realize his worth, he is very "high value" to me.

I guess this is getting too long. I'll post it and then struggle to make my point in a second post.

Relief is Spelled E-D-W-A-R-D-S

2004-07-07T10:00:00.000-05:00

It's official now, and many a Democrat is much relieved to see yet another shot of energy come into the campaign to restore sanity to Washington. I hadn't seen the news last night but got the official word when My Prince called me at the office to let me know that the formal announcement had been made. We were both quite pleased--but not surprised (we had reason not to be sweating out this decision).

Still, it's a relief that the decision has been made and Edwards can officially join the campaign. He's already been doing a yeoman's job of taking on assignments at state conventions and other events when Kerry wasn't available. Now he can do so formally and help raise money before the national convention deadline. There should also be a boost in the poll numbers. The gender gap in this election is nothing to sneeze at, and Edwards gets it.

It doesn't hurt that it just lifts a girl's heart to see him. I'm told the charisma starts 50 feet away.

On the Road Again

2004-06-27T23:52:00.000-05:00

I've seen more of our Texas highways and byways than normal lately. Most weekends I have to go to see about one elder or another. Right now I'm in the middle of a series of workshops and have to drive because of all the boxes and equipment that we need for the workshops.

I like driving. I like to get on the road and let my mind wander. Sometimes it stays focused on "what's the next thing I have to do." Sometimes I have to work out what my next presentation or speech is going to be about. It helps to imagine what I might say. I can go through three or four versions of a speech before I get to the point where I have to actually deliver it, and, sometimes, a phrase or two that I've worked out behind the wheel will actually be quite helpful.

As often as not, however, I let my mind just wander into imaginary territory. For a while, I was plotting novels. I had a couple of plots that intrigued me, and driving time was time to see where the stories would go. The stories never got written, but the plotting was rather fun.

These days I'm having imaginary "If I were president" daydreams. If I were president, what could I do to bring the country back together? If I were president, what could I do bring civility back to public discourse? If I were president, how could I do a better job as commander-in-chief? Pretty cheeky, I suppose, for someone who's never served in the military or held an elected office. But still a good way to work through the problems that I see around me while trying to figure out what the solutions might be.

I rarely listen to music. I used to carry tapes for listening, but eventually got too busy to remember to bring them along. Recently, I discovered NPR and my grandson taught me how to set the radio button so I could find it again. But most trips eventually take me out of range and I'm back to searching the dial. That gets old way too quickly, so I'm back to my imagination again. It's more relaxing in the long run anyway.

Happily Texas roads are still pretty good. I don't like the drive down I-35 to San Antonio, so I take the back way. It's prettier, less hectic. I rather like the short stretch where the highway is only two lanes and you can only pass when a climbing lane shows up. That can slow things down even more. If I plan ahead and leave early enough--which I definitely do for the SA run--getting caught behind a rancher's truck is just part of the experience--until I hit the climbing lane and can pick up the pace a bit. I haven't found an acceptable alternative to I-35 north, so I just have to go with the flow on that one. It doesn't seem as crowded as the section between Austin and San Antonio, so I can survive the heavy traffic as far as Georgetown. Things flow rather well after that--despite the fact that there seem to be endless highway construction projects between here and Dallas right now. Of course, I've all but given up on driving into Houston on I-10. Much easier to take 290 and see the little towns now that Hempstead is no longer a bottleneck. And there's the added bonus of picking up sausage in Elgin on the way home.

I'm not going to be happy when any of these roads is turned into a toll road. I might even have to start thinking about flying again. At least I can sleep on the plane. (Yes, I do that.)

Texas Heroes (Part II)

2004-06-14T13:40:00.000-05:00

I spent part of my weekend assisting with my father-in-law's seventy-first high school reunion in a nearby small Texas town. The Class of 1933 meets every year for a barbecue lunch and gabfest. The past two years, the reunion has been held in the community center of the retirement development where my father-in-law and his wife live.

The class has dwindled over the years, of course. Of the original 28 graduates, there may be only 3 of the original group still there. With wives and a couple of folks from the classes of '32 and '34, we had about 10 on Saturday. Two in wheelchairs, 1 on a walker, 1 with canes, and the others amazingly spry for all but one being in their late 80's.

The routine has grown over time. I always seem to butt in with my own ideas for these sorts of things, so about 3 years ago I started bringing grab bags. They seem to like drawing a number and getting some useless or silly surprise present. This year I added teddy bears that I had picked up at my favorite dollar store and decorated with pipe cleaners and beads, so that everyone went home with a bear in the old school colors.

On my way to the reunion, I had to pick up some crepe paper and balloons to help mark the directional sighs. In the party section at the grocery store, I saw some plastic medals on red, white and blue ribbons. I picked up a dozen and tried to figure out what I might do with them when I got to the reunion.

Once all the folks were there, we played "bat the balloon" for a while. This is good physical therapy for old folks, but it ran me ragged. I decided it was time for the medals. I asked each of them in turn what they did during World War II. Some stayed home to farm. "That deserves a medal," I said, because, of course, the farmers were an important part of the war effort. Some of the women worked at jobs, but others stayed home on the farm. I gave them medals, too, as I drew them out about rationing cards and recycling efforts and the contributions that each of them had had to make to support the war. I talked about Mama and Daddy a bit, whenever their stories would resonate.

And then there were the 3 who had been overseas. Old and bent and nearing the end of their time, they still remembered very vividly what they had seen. We only heard part of it, of course, but even that little bit gripped me in ways I find hard to express.

One had been in the Phillipines at the same time my father was. We talked about that a bit. He talked about going from place to place in the war, leaving out what happened at each place. When I gave him his medal, I leaned down close and told him that this toy medal was nothing like what he had or what he deserved, but it came with great love and much thanks for what he did. When I then said that I knew that he had not told about what happened on those islands, but that I knew there was much he couldn't tell, there were tears in his eyes and mine.

And then there was the fellow who flew reconnaisance over Marseilles--the day before D-Day. He was a gunner, but he had never fired his gun. Instead, he was always taking pictures. It gave me cold chills to realize how dangerous those missions must have been to get intelligence for the invasion. He had had to bail out once, he said, but he didn't tell us more about that. I gave him his medal with the same love and gratitude and wished that I could do the same for my father.

The third fellow flew air transport. In WWII, in Korea, and in quite a few other places. He knew how important his work was after a long military career, but I assured him that we, too, also recognized his work. Only he, of the three, had a wife still. I had to hold her hand to take her to the bathroom when he wasn't available to be her "walker."

I somehow felt that it was important--as we recognized Memorial Day and the anniversary of D-Day--to look closer to home, so to speak. I don't know what recognition these folks have ever gotten for their work--whether in the military service or keeping things running at home--but I wanted to tell them how much I cared and give them a moment to realize that someone thought of them as heroes.

Tenet's "Resignation"

2004-06-07T19:21:00.000-05:00

The Panhandle Truth Squad cites the Capitol Hill Blue report on President Bush's "erratic behavior." Buried in the story is a case-in-point nugget about the firing of George Tenet:

"Tenet wanted to quit last year but the President got his back up and wouldn't hear of it," says an aide. "That would have been the opportune time to make a change, not in the middle of an election campaign but when the director challenged the President during the meeting Wednesday, the President cut him off by saying 'that's it George. I cannot abide disloyalty. I want your resignation and I want it now."

Tenet was allowed to resign "voluntarily" and Bush informed his shocked staff of the decision Thursday morning. One aide says the President actually described the decision as "God's will."

In a related story, Capitol Hill Blue reports the facility with which the President handled the matter before the press:

The news caught Washington by surprise. Bush informed his senior staff Thursday morning at an Oval Office meeting that included Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser. The president told his staff that the official story is that Tenet was leaving for personal reasons.

"He told me he was resigning for personal reasons. I told him I'm sorry he's leaving. He's done a superb job on behalf of the American people," the president said at a hurriedly arranged announcement before boarding a helicopter to begin a trip to Europe. Inside the West Wing, staffers joked about the President's ability to keep a straight face during the televised announcement.

Anonymous sources seem to be all we're gonna get for a while, but this seems to fit the general range of discussions I've seen, i.e, that the "resignation" was likely not entirely a Tenet's unilateral decision and that was likely not for his personal reasons. If it did come down to a snap judgement about "disloyalty," then there's no surprise that the White House needed an "official story." The truth would have been an embarassment.

Gore's Words (Part I)

2004-06-01T10:49:00.000-05:00

A few days ago, Al Gore made quite a stirring speech to MoveOn's Pac regarding the President's failed policies in Iraq. I read the speech. I read the reactions to the speech. Then I listened to the speech. But it was a busy time for me at work and at home. I'm setting up a couple of workshops in two of the nation's larger metropolises and running some Texas back roads to do some elder care in the meantime, not to mention bracing for the coming majority of the grandson. It keeps a girl hopping. But the brain still works, even if we do run a little low on blood sugar now and then (I ran out of steam years ago), and I've been thinking both about Gore's words and the reaction to his words whenever I had a chance. Still it took me a while to get a chance to write down my thoughts.

Now let me point out first that Al Gore had my vote and my admiration in 2000, but he did not entirely have my heart. He's a fine man. He certainly didn't deserve the ill treatment he got from the press in those days--and since, for that matter. He did not have my heart because I was not convinced that he was passionately committed to being president. I sometimes felt that he would rather be doing something else, and I would have been happy for him to be able to find his own dream, not his father's dream for him.

That means that I tend only to look at Gore's endorsements as matters of idle curiosity these days. When he endorsed Dean for the Presidency, it was interesting, but I was much more concerned to see who Bill Clinton might endorse. When Gore made his speech to MoveOn, it was a matter of interest that he was continuing to involve himself in the national campaign with some higher profile, but it was only after I read so much diverse reaction to his speech that I felt compelled to read the speech.

When I read it, I was moved to tears. I was moved to joy. I was so relieved that someone at last had said the things out loud that so needed to be said--and said them in the terms that made powerful sense--and said them in a way that brought strong attention to the message.

What was so good about the speech? Let me start with the bad stuff, just to get it out of the way. There were some issues with delivery. I missed a couple of minutes at the beginning of the tape and about five minutes at the end, but otherwise watched the rest rather closely, because I had read some rather nasty stuff about Gore's delivery. Most of that, of course, came from Limbaugh (no link, find The Bloviator for yourself) but a little from other sillies who have issues with pronunciation. (I have no clue how Mr. Feith's name should be pronounced myself.) Gore made fairly good use of gesture; the gestures seemed natural, unforced. The stage must have been terribly hot. I kept wishing he'd just take out a handkerchief and wipe his face. Eventually he found a towel and did so, but not effectively enough. He could have made some minimizing joke about it and kept it from being as distracting as it was. There were some passages when he was giving long lists of information rather than opinion where he became somewhat dull in delivery; the most resounding passages came when he expressed judgment and allowed his oratory to soar (these, of course, were the parts that most offended his targets). This dullness was exacerbated, I think, by the lack of a teleprompter, since he was obviously having to refer to a printed text on a lectern. As for that shouting--Hallelujah! It was what I loved. In fact, there were a couple of times when his voice dropped too low for me to hear. There was plenty of variety there. Someone (I'll have to find the link) criticized Gore for delivering the speech as if he'd never read it before he got there--I don't think anything could be further from the truth. Gore milked the lines for audience reaction--and he flat knew when he wanted a reaction. It was a friendly crowd, but I'm not surprised at the number of standing ovations.

On the whole, when his speech delivery was best--and got the best response--he was speaking in the mode of many southern preachers. There's a tone and pace that you can hear in any Sunday sermon that came through rather clearly in the more effective parts of his speech. It's also a tone and pace that Bush tries (and mostly fails) to adopt when he's pausing and emphasizing words somewhat inappropriately in his speeches. Someone more familiar with homiletics might analyze Bush's speeches someday to see what he's trying to accomplish.

So what was so good about this speech? Let me count the ways.

George W. Bush promised us a foreign policy with humility. Instead, he
has brought us humiliation in the eyes of the world.

I tend not to want to give George Bush credit for much, but that was a campaign promise that resonated with me. I heartily agreed that a powerful nation still had to conduct itself with some humility in the world. Speaking softly while carrying that old big stick is still a good idea in this day and age, and I had seen enough of the world and the world's attitudes toward the U.S. (pre 9/11) to know that we were already the target of a great deal of ill will whenever we conducted ourselves with too much arrogance and forcefulness. Humility doesn't have to be a sign of weakness by any means--it just means we don't have to be a bully about everything. Instead, we are humiliated. The images from Abu Ghraib overturn every word we've ever said about human rights. And there is a strong whiff of military defeat floating about the lack of security in Iraq.

Why is this a good thing to say? Am I gloating that Al Gore said it? Nope. I'm sickened. I am angry. What pleases me is that it was said in simple and clear terms that reflect the same language that George Bush has used so that anyone who will listen can understand. The promised humility has become humiliation.

He promised to "restore honor and integrity to the White House." Instead,
he has brought deep dishonor to our country and built a durable reputation as
the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon.

This, too, was one of those campaign promises that galled me to agree with. I surely did like Bill Clinton, and I surely was upset with him. Of course, I was even more upset with the Republicans in Congress for the witch hunt that persisted throughout Clinton's administration and the flimsy grounds for impeachment and the sickening obsession with sex on the part of the apparently very repressed Ken Starr. So I was ready to see the honor and integrity, not of the White House, but of the Presidency, restored. The office of the President does, in fact, mean something in this country. It's not just a chance to be the Chief Fox in the Big Henhouse. It doesn't give you the keys to the national treasury. It carries the hopes and dreams of 250 million people--and the responsibility for their safety and, yes, dammit, their honor and pride and dignity. We don't need to know what kind of underwear the president wears or whether he (or she) sleeps in jammies. We do need to know that the president is alert to matters of concern both domestic and international, is sensitive to the broad diversity of this nation, is intelligent enough to adapt to changing circumstances, is sufficiently knowledgeable in the humanities and the sciences to bring critical thought to debates among his advisors, and is canny enough to discern the human frailties of his advisors and overcome them. After that, we can only hope he (or she) has some discretion in the bedroom.

It is a powerful image now for Al Gore to compare George Bush to Richard Nixon. I remember the day when Lyndon Johnson stated that he would not run for re-election. I was just beginning to become political. That fall was my first chance to vote in a presidential election. I started as a supporter of Eugene McCarthy. When he dropped out of the race, I became a supporter of Robert Kennedy. Then, of course, I voted for Hubert Humphrey. I was overseas when the news of the Watergate break-ins was first published in Newsweek. I wondered what was becoming of my country. A couple of years after my return, I was driving my little VW beetle with the car radio on and heard the news that Nixon was resigning. I did not shout for joy. I cried. I cried for the shame and dishonor that he had brought to that high office. Yes, he was a crook.

Note that Gore steered carefully clear of any hint of allegations of criminality toward Bush. Instead, he switched to a litany of broken promises failures in the concept of honor:

Honor? He decided not to honor the Geneva Convention. Just as he would not honor the United Nations, international treaties, the opinions of our allies, the role of Congress and the courts, or what Jefferson described as "a decent respect for the opinion of mankind." He did not honor the advice, experience and judgment of our military leaders in designing his invasion of
Iraq. And now he will not honor our fallen dead by attending any funerals or
even by permitting photos of their flag-draped coffins.

Gore asks next:

How did we get from September 12th , 2001, when a leading French newspaper ran a giant headline with the words "We Are All Americans Now" and when we had the good will and empathy of all the world -- to the horror that we all felt in witnessing the pictures of torture in Abu Ghraib.

I have an opinion on that, but it's time to try to con the grandson into doing some heavy lifting at the grocery store. *evil grandma grin*

Misplaced Help in Africa

2004-05-25T14:09:00.000-05:00

Misplaced Help in the AIDS Fight (washingtonpost.com)

Holly Burkhalter is director of Physicians for Human Rights. She writes:

When it comes to the HIV-AIDS pandemic, generosity isn't enough. Wealthy nations' contributions to fight the disease are unwittingly and unnecessarily exacerbating another crisis in some poor countries: the staggering shortage of health care personnel. African doctors and nurses are leaving public-sector jobs in droves to take more lucrative positions in foreign-funded HIV-AIDS programs. Public hospitals and clinics are being stripped of staffers; rural and slum outposts are being abandoned. The United States, the world's largest donor in the HIV-AIDS crisis, must also take the lead in supporting primary health care infrastructure and nourishing Africa's overwhelmed, underpaid nurses, doctors and other health workers.

Burkhalter's solution is threefold:

Embed AIDS care into primary care

Appropriate more money

Directly fund African health care workers

I don't have a problem with any of those recommendations. They are worthy of implementation. But I have a few more.

Develop sustainable potable water supplies in rural areas.

Improve health education in primary and secondary schools.

Expand adult HIV prevention outreach with emphasis on empowering women.

Find a cure for malaria.

Improve childhood nutrition.

End the war(s) in the Sudan, Congo, Nigeria, . . .

And then there's the problem that hits a little closer to home: the Texas HIV Medication Program will begin the new fiscal year on September 1, 2004, with a $6 million shortfall. On that date, Texas will start implementing "cost containment" measures. That's government-speak for turning people away at the door.

Texas Heroes

2004-05-22T03:32:00.000-05:00

In the wake of September 11, there were many discussions around our house about what made a hero. Were you a hero because you lost your life in the line of duty? Were you a hero because you risked your life as part of your job? Were you a hero because you did your job?

We never resolved the issue. That happens around our house sometimes. We disagree but manage to survive the experience. We find that the issue is more complex than we fully understand. We have something else to discuss and don't get around to solving whatever burning issue held our attention for the while of an interesting discussion.

I'm not sure where we left this one, but it's been something that I was thinking about long before that horrible day. I continue to think about it.

I was uncomfortable with the degree of adulation and hero worship directed toward firemen and police at the time of attack on the World Trade Center. It wasn't because I begrudged recognition for any of those who lost their lives or those who continued to work under dangerous conditions in the aftermath of the attack. I have a high respect for the men and women who serve us in our police and fire departments. Some of them are beloved relatives.

My discomfort came because this had, in fact, been a longstanding issue for me, and I couldn't help but think that there are many among us who are heroes, who serve us, who save us, who do wonderful things--all without recognition by the community. I think doctors and nurses are heroes. I think teachers are heroes. I think (some) lawyers are heroes. And the list could go on.

Let me put this in some personal perspective. My father was a hero by anyone's definition. He served in the Army in World War II. When MacArthur said, "I shall return," Daddy was part of the return to the Phillipines. He won a Bronze Star for his heroism. He turned down two Purple Hearts. Daddy came back from the war, suffering from malaria, severely malnourished. That meant that he was really serious when he said, "If I ever get out of this foxhole alive, I'm going to eat steak every day for the rest of my life." It also meant that for many years, the one thing you did not want to do was try to sneak into a room where Daddy was sleeping to try to get the book you left behind. Until he became too hard of hearing to know that you were there, those combat reflexes stayed sharp. (Those reflexes came in handy when the next door neighbor's daughter needed rescuing from the stalking ex-husband.) And, yet, I think of my father's heroism in other terms. He was generous to a fault. I don't know that he ever gave anyone the shirt off his back, but I do know that he gave money and time and assistance wherever it was needed. He took care of family, friends, and total strangers. He had only one child, but he was a father-figure for many. He was honest and fair. He lived a life of goodness, centered on the needs of others. And he had a wicked sense of humor. Many things made Daddy pretty special in one way or another, but I think his real heroism came because he married Mama.

So now you need to know why I think Mama is a hero (setting aside the fact that she is my mother and does drive me crazy now and then). Mama was the victim of either (a) medical malpractice or (b) the crappy medical standards of the Depression. The end result left her handicapped. It wasn't just a snap of the fingers situation, where one day she's riding horses and the next day her body is twisted so that she walks with a serious limp. There were surgeries. Almost all of them happened during World War II when things like anesthetic were in short supply. There were crutches and wheel chairs and, for a while, that horrible "built-up shoe" that was supposed to help her walk normally but didn't. Later on, there were more surgeries, happily with ample supplies of anesthetics and antibiotics. These surgeries had nothing to do with her handicap directly but were the "collateral damage" of what she had gone through. Years of pain. Years of sickness. And all the while, even during World War II, she was teaching school. She taught for 30 years. She was a Master Teacher. She was responsible for some rather fine education for more than 1000 elementary students in this state. And she did it long before the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed. That meant that, if she dared to ask for any accommodation--like a classroom on the first floor rather than the second because it freakin' hurt to climb stairs--there was always some busybody around to ask why she got special treatment. Mama did whatever she could never to ask for accommodation of any sort unless she just had to, and she hid her deep insecurities about how twisted her body was--and her fear of rejection and hurt--by dressing better and acting happier than anyone around her. If she hadn't been handicapped and just did her job as well as she did do, I'd still have to think of her as a hero. She genuinely loved her students. They all thought she was tough, but they loved her back. (One of her best friends these days is a student from that first class of fifth graders that she taught during the war.) More than once, there was a trip to the shoe store to help out one student or another. She spent hours preparing extra learning tools for her classes, recording tapes to help slow readers follow along with the text, finding books and games that would make classes interesting and valuable to her students. All at a teacher's pay. In pain. Dragging half her body along the way. With laughter.

What it took for Daddy to help her do this even I did not know until he passed away. I know that she is frailer these days and needs more assistance for everything, but he was literally her other leg for the 52 years they had together. And he was just as involved in helping her make her classroom work for her handicap as the ADA might have been at a later time. I think his heroism has to include the foreknowledge that he was going to give a great deal of his life to making her life better.

Well, I do run on, and that's only two heroes. I have a longer list. These two are my favorites, I guess. (Must be that liberal bias showing, or something.) ;) But I think there are heroes among us who never make it to the nightly TV news. I think there are heroes whose deeds affect just a few people, whose sacrifices and services may seem small at first glance, but who make the world--or at least part of it--a better place. Everyday heroes. Unsung heroes. Folks we miss because we think that heroism has to involve pyrotechnics or a ball of some kind.

I suspect I'll have more to say about this later, but I have to go pack the car to go see one of my heroes and put a flag on the grave of another. Memorial Day is coming.

Kerry's English

2004-05-20T04:39:00.000-05:00

Kerryism of the Day - The senator's caveats and curlicues. By William�Saletan

In an effort to be fair and balanced, Slate has taken to citing "Kerryisms," doing so after several years of noting "Bushisms." Any attempt to be fair and balanced in the U.S. today is laudable, especially if it happens to be genuine, although the whole concept of "fair and balanced" has become more of a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" excuse to hare off onto some pretty unfair and unbalanced activities on both ends of the political spectrum these days.

Neither the fairness nor the balance is my concern here. What bugs me is the oversimplification of issues.

Kerry was asked a question:

Question: What is your position on Bush's fight to ban gay marriages?

This was his response:

Kerry: I believe that the president of the United States should not use the Constitution of the United States for election purposes during an election year. It's a document that we haven't touched, certainly with respect to the Bill of Rights, in years, and I don't think it should be used for the purpose of driving a political wedge through America. I think it's wrong. Now, that said, I personally have taken the position I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's my position, and I think that's the way you respect both traditional values. But you can allow civil unions, which protects the rights of people in America not to be discriminated against. And I think you can balance that, and I think it's appropriate to. But I do think that it ought to be left to the states.

This is how Saletan thinks he should have answered the question.

Kerry: I believe that the president should not use the Constitution for election purposes. It's a document that we haven't touched in years, and I don't think it should be used for the purpose of driving a political wedge through America. I think it's wrong. (footnote numbers deleted)

The criticism of Kerry's statement is based on the notion that it is not in "plain English." It is, Saletan says "full of caveats and pointless embellishments."

Let's start at the top. There are no words in Kerry's statement that an eighth grader couldn't understand. Eighth grade reading level is the recommended level for most writing for the general public these days, and Kerry pretty much hit that. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand what he's saying.

There are no words in Kerry's statement that have been garbled or misused. He didn't toss out any malapropisms; he didn't create any neologisms. These are pretty much well-used words you could find in any dictionary.

So what's the deal with plain English? Could it be that Kerry didn't give a good sound bite? Could it be that Kerry actually answered the question in two parts: (1) this is what I think about the proposed strategy for dealing with the issue and (2) this is how I think the issue should be handled? They don't teach complex sentences in J-School these days? Well, not to worry. Kerry used plenty of simple sentences in his statement. He just wanted to get across a complex answer to a complex problem.

The thing about political speech--or most any other speech--is that we often rely on fixed phrases and formulas to enhance what we are saying. Sometimes those formulas come out as cliches. Sometimes they become bridges to help us move from one element of thought to another--and we are so used to them that we don't even notice that they are there. Nonetheless, they do pad our sentences a bit.

Political speech--and much other speech--also relies on assorted rhetorical flourishes to make it striking and memorable. Kerry made fair use of repetition, not only in repeating phrases but also in repeating the idea in other words. (Good teachers do that, too.) He contrasted complex sentences with simple declarative sentences for emphasis.

I'll grant that this response is not the Gettysburg Address. It was apparently an unscripted response to a question. Give Kerry another plus mark for lack of sentence fragments. (Listen to yourself on a tape someday and count how many times you forget to speak in complete sentences.)

My point here is not to contrast Kerry's patterns of speech to Bush's patterns of speech, although that might be fun--or even like shooting fish in a barrel. It's rather that Saletan and, by extension, journalists as a whole-bleeping-lot (admitting sweeping generalization) seem to want the simplest black-and-white statement in response to the most complex of questions. When they can't get it, they look for the simplest, most black-and-white part of a statement to stand for the whole.

In truth, Saletan's version of Kerry's statement reads well. It just doesn't give the whole response, and that unfairly shortchanges Kerry's ability to communicate his full position on the issue. Whether you agree with Kerry's position or not, you are entitled to know what it is. And yes, while you do have to have something more than the attention span of a gnat to hear it, this ain't football folks. It's an election.

[Edited to correct mortifying spelling error--cp]

Takin' on the Hammer

2004-05-19T07:09:00.000-05:00

The down and dirty politics of redistricting got a bit dirtier in Texas last year. While the rest of the country made jokes about it, many of us were quite proud of the Texas House Democrats who shut down the Legislature by de-camping for Ardmore, OK. We were just as proud when the Texas Senate Democrats headed for Albuquerque, NM, and shut down a special called session. In the end, we still wound up with some seriously gerrymandered districts and the potential loss of some fine members of Congress, thanks in very large part to the heavy interference of Congressman Tom Delay, the U. S. House Majority Whip.

For all the silly arguments that Mr. Delay made regarding the need to redistrict, the whole exercise was just another grab at more power. Texas had already been redistricted, as is required after the national census. After 30 years of living in Travis County and being represented by a Democratic state senator, I was shifted to a new state senate district and had to be represented by a Republican. I did not like this. I was already used to the back and forth on my state house district, since we live in a precinct that regularly gets shifted during redistricting. It was nice to have a Democratic voice speaking for me in the Texas House for the ten years between censuses, but I've had to cope with a Republican Representive before, so it wasn't that much of a shock. I was, however, really unhappy to realize that our precinct had been shifted over to a Republican district for the congressional seat. Lloyd Doggett has been my Congressman for several years. I was comfortable with him. No, really damned proud of him. So I was not pleased to be shifted over to a district represented by a conservative Republican.

Still, I accepted those changes as being part of the sausage-making that goes on with redistricting and comforted myself that, at least, Congressman Doggett would still be fighting the good fight for Texans, that my values would still be represented in Congress.

Then along comes the Hammer to try to silence that voice. Nothing would stop him it seemed. And there were, of course, many Republicans in and around state government who went out of their way to help him do it.

Happily, we still have a man of courage in our local district attorney, Ronnie Earle. He has decided to follow the money, and there was a lot of it. As he begins to make the case that corporate funds were illegally used to influence Texas' general election, there is some possibility that even Mr. Delay may face some legal battles in the coming months.

Here are a couple of recent stories:

Citizens group wants outsider to referee election dispute

GOP lobbyist led 2002 election ad campaign

In more good news, it appears that Mr. Delay may, in fact be vulnerable in the next election. Richard Morrison, a SugarLand attorney, is running a strong campaign to unseat the increasingly unpopular incumbent. You can check out his campaign web site at http://www.richardmorrisonfordistrict22.com

There's also a new weblog (that may be related to Morrison's campaign) called
Taking on Tom Delay.

Finally, The Free State Standard has expanded its focus from just one Texas county to cover all 254! Vince Liebowitz seems also to be tracking some the stories on the redistricting and campaign finance issues as they play out in the courts.

Register American voters abroad

2004-05-17T13:02:00.000-05:00

AP Wire | 05/17/2004 | Dems, GOP target American voters abroad

Also in the Kansas City Star

With an estimated 3 million voting age expatriate Americans up for grabs, AP writer William J. Kole says:

Mindful of the recount fiasco that put Bush in the White House four years ago, Democrats and Republicans everywhere from Hong Kong to Hungary are aggressively targeting American expatriates, whose absentee ballots could prove decisive in a tight race.

MSNBC carried a story, dated May 12, about Brett Rierson, an American living in Hong Kong, who started his own "grassroots" effort to get American expatriates registered to vote in the presidential election. The impetus came not only from his own dissatisfaction with President Bush's actions and policies, but also from similar dissatisfaction expressed by non-Americans, who cannot vote in this election but who can speak indirectly when they encourage the Americans that are living in their country to register and vote. Rierson and two colleagues set up a website (www.OverseasVote.com) to do just that. Visitors to the site can follow the links to find out how to register to vote, if they are U.S. citizens. If they are not, they can find a prepared message to send to their American acquaintances to encourage them to vote.

U.S. residents can use the site to encourage friends and family who are living overseas to register and vote. They can also do as I have done and let overseas friends know about the site so that they can tell the Americans that they know about it.

Other useful sites include: Democrats Abroad.

Registration forms are downloadable at the Federal Voting Assistance Program.

Colin Powell as Uncle Tom

2004-05-16T17:44:00.000-05:00

That's the phrase being used on another blog today. I'm sure it's not the first time that the label has been applied to the Secretary of State. I'm taking the issue out of context, I know, and I should probably be responding more directly on that blog. But, given some of the posting restrictions on that site which limit my ability to . . . uh . . . explore the issue, I'll just take it up here and then tell 'em about it later.

And the issue is that "Uncle Tom" is a racial epithet. If you follow the thread a bit, there was some gentle admonition to drop the term, and the response came back that Uncle Tom was, in fact, merely a polite substitution for something more incendiary. And a lively discussion ensued.

What bothered me was the fact that I knew instantly what term was being referred to.

I don't listen to the radio very much, but have, happily and finally, figured out how to program the buttons on the car radio. If I remember to turn the darned thing on, I can just press a button and get the local NPR affiliate. On a short errand this morning, I got to hear a brief bit of a program on the life of the late Thurgood Marshall. The program included a clip of Marshall talking about his father and how he had tried to instill racial pride in his son. He would, it appears, often compliment his son by saying, "That was very black of you." Marshall made the point clear that his father was speaking to be in direct contrast to the complimentary phrase then in current use, "That's very white of you."

I didn't hear the end of the program, but what I heard made me think about those phrases and the fact that I was quite familiar with the latter as well as many others. It was, for example, quite the thing some years ago to point out that one was able to do something, preferably outrageous, because "I'm free, white, and 21." It didn't take many more brain synapses to remember a few other race-related phrases held over from that time, locked, unfortunately in my brain. It made me wonder if there would ever come a time when these phrases were lost to common knowledge, when black and white Americans might ever meet socially, whether in harmony or in conflict, and have none of these phrase pop into mind and then be quickly censored.

Self-censorship or self-correction--either way--when will we come to a time when we simply don't think in those terms and have to correct ourselves?

I have seen the changes in my lifetime. My grandparents were fine people. But I remember my grandfather's disgust when I, Spy, one of my favorite programs, came on the TV one night. He was truly outraged that Bill Cosby would be given such a prominent and positive role on his TV set. Or my grandmother, speaking in complimentary terms, that a black man, who had come to her door in rural Louisiana, still "knew his place," and remained standing on the front step while waiting for her to get whatever he had come for.

My parents were fine people. My late father in particular spent a lot of time, when I was young, pointing out that, "There is some good in everybody." But Daddy, as fine a man as he was, was still a product of his culture and the times he lived in. Even though he probably censored himself more as time went on, the occasional phrase would still pop out. Rather late in his life he did something extraordinarily well. It might have been a difficult repair (he was quite handy) or maybe creating something new out of spare parts (he was quite handy). Whatever it was, he was proud of the accomplishment. He looked at me with a grin on his face and said, "Ain't many white people and no ------- at all can do that!" It was a novel phrase to me, and I thought that he was quite clever in saying it.

And now I can't get the phrase out of my mind. Racial epithets generally don't pop into my mind. Generally, I think, that is because race doesn't matter to me. I forget about it most of the time in my dealings with people. But when I have done something extraordinarily clever, I don't think, like Little Jack Horner, "What a good boy am I!" I'm not a boy. But I am white, and Daddy's clever saying will pop into my mind. And every time it does, I am conflicted, because I just did something damned fine, but that is just such a tacky way to pat myself on the back--even mentally.

My grandson does better, I think. We had to have a long discussion a few months back while he was studying for a history test about whether racism even still existed in America. He spent much of his young life living in the Northwest and wasn't exposed to either the language or, to a large extent, the thinking that still crops up in the South. (Don't think that I'm letting the Northwest off so easily as to suggest that there isn't yet a lot of work that needs to be done there. Racism is just less overt there.) The discussion was interesting because my grandson thought of racism in terms of issues that had been been targeted by legislation (integration, job discrimination, hate crimes), but he hadn't yet realized that racism comes in much subtler forms these days.

I suppose, based on my little "survey sample," that there has been a great deal of progress made over time. In fact, I know that's so very true. But racism continues in our society. Perhaps my grandson's grandchildren will neither know the words nor think the thoughts nor see the effects of racism, and we will have a society that looks at people without letting the amount of melanin in the skin affect our thoughts or deeds. I hope it won't take that long, but I sometimes think it will take longer.

That day is not hastened by calling Colin Powell "Uncle Tom." The term refers to him not only as a black man but also as a slave. It is not in any way benign, no matter whether the person using the term is white or black. Neither Colin Powell, no matter what his actions as Secretary of State may be, nor any other person of color deserves such a label. When such a label is used, it reflects the racism of the speaker, however benignly intended. When it is tolerated, it reflects the racism of the listener, however benignly inclined.

Whatever Colin Powell is doing--good, bad, or indifferent--his race is not the measure of how he does it.

This is not political correctness. If I were being politically correct, I would be implying that I make these statements because they are socially appropriate, but that I don't really believe them. Believe me: I believe this.

The Main Election Issue

2004-05-16T03:21:00.000-05:00

Yahoo! News - Newsview: Iraq May Be Main Election Issue

Tom Raum writes provides a neat little synopsis of the horse race issues that surround the current presidential contest. His central thesis appears to be that "The turmoil in Iraq is changing the political equation for President Bush and Democratic rival John Kerry." To which one can only say: Y'think?

What concerns me are some of the little nuggets scattered further down:
Some analysts now are suggesting the race could broaden into a national referendum on Bush's Iraq policy. . . .
Also, the Massachusetts senator has had to walk a cautious line as he decides how hard to go after Bush as commander in chief without risking a backlash. . . .
Kerry already has drawn criticism from Republicans who accuse him of politicizing the prisoner-abuse issue. . . .
Bush and Kerry spent last week stressing domestic issues. Bush campaigned on education, Kerry on health care.
It was hard for their message to get out when local and regional news increasingly is influenced by pictures and stories from Iraq.

Iraq simply is the number one news story. As interested as I am in seeing Kerry get his message out on education, for example, when I ran across a news story on the topic last week, my reaction was, "Yeah, right, I'll get to that later." And I will. But what I and I can only assume a large number of Americans are concerned about right now are what is going on in Abu Ghraib? where are we supposed to get $25 extra billion to pay for unspecified expenses in Iraq? as the international anger being directed toward this country spreads, sometimes violently, what can we do to turn this trainwreck around?

This puts Kerry in a damned-if-you-do-and-damned-if-you-don't situation. If he goes about the normal business of a presidential campaign at this stage of the race, he'll have a hard time getting his message across. If he responds to the issues that seem most to absorb the public at the moment, he has to balance the strength of his response against the fact that he is dealing directly with national security. He can neither give false impressions to allies or foes about what this nation will do or not do in the next 6 months, nor can he appear to exploit issues simply to be scoring political hits on the President and his administration (regardless of the spin that the Bush campaign wants to put on whether Kerry just blew his nose for some political purpose).

Yet Kerry cannot simply ignore what is so obviously creating havoc both domestically and internationally.

Kerry is doing the things that he should be doing for his campaign. He's raising money. He's criss-crossing the country to make campaign speeches that lay out his position on domestic issues. He's actively interviewing candidates for vice-president. The Democratic Convention is still some weeks away, so, if this were a "normal" election year, he'd not only be right on target, but well ahead of what needed to be done.

The problem is that this year is anything but normal. Kerry has to speak out, partly because he has to give voice to the frustrations and concerns that all decent Americans feel about the events in Iraq and elsewhere in the world. He also has to speak out to make it clear that, while domestic issues matter a great deal in the upcoming election, our foreign relations and how we conduct them have to be scrutinized, evaluated, and (yea, verily) changed to a new and vastly improved model.

What a nuisance!

2004-05-16T02:52:00.000-05:00

The zeal for blogging comes smack up against the techie details of how to get the damned thing running. I suppose I shall figure it out. The annoying thing is having to figure out all sorts of niggling little details while the grand vision just flitters away.

Let's just post this and see how it goes.