Wednesday, July 28, 2004
I couldn't live-blog Theresa Heinz Kerry's speech last night, because it didn't have any actual points to refute. It was standard stump speech fare, but with a French accent. I've been told the accent is Portuguese, but it sounds French to me. I found the accent beguilingly similar to Audrey Hepburns, but Audrey would never have stooped to deliver such a lackluster speech.
I think the stump speech approach is completely wrong. There are many other speakers capable of telling us what John Kerry is going to do for us when he is President. Mrs. Kerry, on the other hand, is uniquely qualified to personalize John Kerry, with funny anecdotes and stories of personal strength and compassion. Instead we get anti-war rhetoric and promises of health care and veterans benefits. John Kerry can sell his tax plan; Mrs. Kerry missed her best opportunity to sell John.
One quibble: who told her it would be good to show her facility with language. Has this ever swayed a voter? I know Bush likes to exercise his Spanish now and again, but he actually comes from a state with a large Spanish-speaking population. Where is the large French-speaking contingent? Really, it just seems like showing off, and it annoys monolingual english-chauvenists like me, which I think are a much larger voting block.
I think the stump speech approach is completely wrong. There are many other speakers capable of telling us what John Kerry is going to do for us when he is President. Mrs. Kerry, on the other hand, is uniquely qualified to personalize John Kerry, with funny anecdotes and stories of personal strength and compassion. Instead we get anti-war rhetoric and promises of health care and veterans benefits. John Kerry can sell his tax plan; Mrs. Kerry missed her best opportunity to sell John.
One quibble: who told her it would be good to show her facility with language. Has this ever swayed a voter? I know Bush likes to exercise his Spanish now and again, but he actually comes from a state with a large Spanish-speaking population. Where is the large French-speaking contingent? Really, it just seems like showing off, and it annoys monolingual english-chauvenists like me, which I think are a much larger voting block.
Lileks is a jerk. He insists periodically that [Monday | Tuesday | Wednesday | Thursday] is now his busy day -- three articles due, plus Gnat's ballet lesson, and the Mrs. needs to be driven to work in St. Cloud -- so he's going to keep it short. And does he? No he does not.
Periodically, like last week and again this morning, he actually does post a very short piece, usually with an apology for not writing more. Then, he returns at noon and posts his longest yet.
I'm pretty sure he does this just to make the rest of us feel inferior. "Look," he's saying, "as busy as I am, I still manage to write 500 words every day, delivered to your desktop for free. And have I mentioned my forthcoming book. I work on it every day after dinner. I dictate while washing up, and then type it while watching TV. I'm doing the layout myself in Adobe Photoshop, but that doesn't count as work; it's pure recreation. Plus, today I have a new section on my website. Go visit it. Cleaned my garage, too. What have you done today, you lazy sack of sand? What? What? What?"
I'll tell you, James, it took me one hour just to look at all the new stuff. If you had cut back like you promised, maybe I'd have some free time.
Have you ever heard a rabbit's heart beat? It's insanely fast. I'm pretty sure rabbits marvel at James' heart rate.
Periodically, like last week and again this morning, he actually does post a very short piece, usually with an apology for not writing more. Then, he returns at noon and posts his longest yet.
I'm pretty sure he does this just to make the rest of us feel inferior. "Look," he's saying, "as busy as I am, I still manage to write 500 words every day, delivered to your desktop for free. And have I mentioned my forthcoming book. I work on it every day after dinner. I dictate while washing up, and then type it while watching TV. I'm doing the layout myself in Adobe Photoshop, but that doesn't count as work; it's pure recreation. Plus, today I have a new section on my website. Go visit it. Cleaned my garage, too. What have you done today, you lazy sack of sand? What? What? What?"
I'll tell you, James, it took me one hour just to look at all the new stuff. If you had cut back like you promised, maybe I'd have some free time.
Have you ever heard a rabbit's heart beat? It's insanely fast. I'm pretty sure rabbits marvel at James' heart rate.
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
In grade school, if we had to sing songs under copyright, couldn't we have sung something other than "This Land is Your Land"? Then again, my sixth grade year, we sang "Jeremiah was a bullfrog", and having little experience with perception
altering drugs, I could not figure out what the song was supposed to be about. Furthermore, it seemed like a particularly silly song, so I couldn't understand why everyone else apparently enjoyed singing it so much, at twice the volume.
I was surprised to find "This Land is Your Land" was a Woody Guthrie original, and his publisher is peeved at JibJab for using it in their Bush/Kerry election spoof.
Woody Guthrie, the commie-pinko, should be spinning in his grave with the publisher's actions, and at double the rpm if he could hear their quote: "This puts a completely different spin on the song.... The damage to the song is huge." Woody Guthrie was not the prototypical Teddy Bear Band musician. My impression is the song is meant to be understood as ironic.
You can get a sense for how Woody felt about private property from "This Land is Your Land":
Here's the slightly modified lines in the version registered to Ludlow, Woody's publisher:
Finally, here's a few extra lines in another version:
Woody was probably not a Republican or a Democrat. Definitely, he was not a Madison Ave. kiss-up. I don't think he'd be overly concerned about the damage to his protest song by a short animation mocking the major party candidates.
altering drugs, I could not figure out what the song was supposed to be about. Furthermore, it seemed like a particularly silly song, so I couldn't understand why everyone else apparently enjoyed singing it so much, at twice the volume.
I was surprised to find "This Land is Your Land" was a Woody Guthrie original, and his publisher is peeved at JibJab for using it in their Bush/Kerry election spoof.
Woody Guthrie, the commie-pinko, should be spinning in his grave with the publisher's actions, and at double the rpm if he could hear their quote: "This puts a completely different spin on the song.... The damage to the song is huge." Woody Guthrie was not the prototypical Teddy Bear Band musician. My impression is the song is meant to be understood as ironic.
You can get a sense for how Woody felt about private property from "This Land is Your Land":
Was a high wall there that tried to stop me
A sign was painted said: Private Property,
But on the back side it didn't say nothing --
[God blessed America for me.]
Here's the slightly modified lines in the version registered to Ludlow, Woody's publisher:
As I went walking, I saw a sign there,
And on the sign it said "No Trespassing."
But on the other side it didn't say nothing,
That side was made for you and me.
Finally, here's a few extra lines in another version:
In the squares of the city - In the shadow of the steeple
Near the relief office - I see my people
And some are grumblin' and some are wonderin'
If this land's still made for you and me.
Woody was probably not a Republican or a Democrat. Definitely, he was not a Madison Ave. kiss-up. I don't think he'd be overly concerned about the damage to his protest song by a short animation mocking the major party candidates.
And now, my last post on Lemony Snicket, unless I take my nephew to the movie.
Book 9, The Carnivorous Carnival, did not break the cycle of needless gloom. Into every life a little rain must fall, but for Snicket, in every case where luck, kindness, or a faithful friend could come in handy, only bad luck, evil, and treachery are documented. Snicket is probably familiar with chiaroscuro. I'm sure Sunny will interject the word someday in an appropriate situation. Chiaroscuro is a painting style that sets off bright foregrounds with dark backgrounds and shadows for dramatic effect. Snicket seems to be a fan, but he forgot to light the foreground.
In short, the books are predictable. Whenever a dramatic situation allows for good or ill, ill befalls someone. If there is a pit of hungry lions, you can be sure someone is going to be eaten. There is some suspense in wondering who or when, but the outcome is as assured as the happy ending of a Disney film. Snicket is narratively different from Disney, not superior.
I held out hope for the series, but in the end my hopes were dashed by the plodding certitude of the author's pessimism. I used to think good would finally come in the final book. Now I am certain it will not.
I'm awfully old, and yet I have given up hope, within the world of the books. If I were younger -- much, much younger -- the constant battering of the book's despondency might carry over into real life. Perhaps the reviewers at Amazon.com who declaim the positive effects of disabusing children of notions that life is fair or that after the rain comes the rainbow find the "realism" of Lemony Snicket to be just the palliative for their budding Goths. Personally, I think seventh grade disillusions all equally, and it comes soon enough.
Book 9, The Carnivorous Carnival, did not break the cycle of needless gloom. Into every life a little rain must fall, but for Snicket, in every case where luck, kindness, or a faithful friend could come in handy, only bad luck, evil, and treachery are documented. Snicket is probably familiar with chiaroscuro. I'm sure Sunny will interject the word someday in an appropriate situation. Chiaroscuro is a painting style that sets off bright foregrounds with dark backgrounds and shadows for dramatic effect. Snicket seems to be a fan, but he forgot to light the foreground.
In short, the books are predictable. Whenever a dramatic situation allows for good or ill, ill befalls someone. If there is a pit of hungry lions, you can be sure someone is going to be eaten. There is some suspense in wondering who or when, but the outcome is as assured as the happy ending of a Disney film. Snicket is narratively different from Disney, not superior.
I held out hope for the series, but in the end my hopes were dashed by the plodding certitude of the author's pessimism. I used to think good would finally come in the final book. Now I am certain it will not.
I'm awfully old, and yet I have given up hope, within the world of the books. If I were younger -- much, much younger -- the constant battering of the book's despondency might carry over into real life. Perhaps the reviewers at Amazon.com who declaim the positive effects of disabusing children of notions that life is fair or that after the rain comes the rainbow find the "realism" of Lemony Snicket to be just the palliative for their budding Goths. Personally, I think seventh grade disillusions all equally, and it comes soon enough.
Monday, July 26, 2004
Speaking of sons of guns and doggone speeches (I was, just a minute a go, as you'll see if you scroll through the next post), what's up with swearing in children's literature? I had to wait until Junior High to find books with the forbidden words in the school library. Actually, I think one of Shel Silversteins books I read in grade school has a swear word in it, but he was a dirty beatnik anyway (he's too old to be a dirty hippy) and probably reveled in his surreptitious corrupting of youth.
Harry Potter was the first time I noticed the phenomenon. As I remember, it was Ron Weasly's older brothers initially who did all the swearing, and it was mild and sometimes reprimanded. In the latest books, Ron swears like a sailor, in spurts. This lends some credence to my assertion that, for other thematic reasons, a child shouldn't start reading Harry Potter until he is in the third grade, preferably the fourth, and should read one book a year. Contrary to popular belief that the books are as addictive as crack to young bibliophiles, I have found my nephew, who loves the movies, is quite capable of putting down the books. He's not superior or inferior to other readers his age. The books just don't hook him like they supposedly do all other prepubescent bipeds.
I bring this up because Lemony Snicket's second book, The Reptile Room, has Count Olaf, the bad guy swearing. Twice, in rather close succession, and I dare say, needlessly, he uses the big-D where darn or dang would have done equally well. The book is a bit of a bust anyway, what with the death of Uncle Monty. There is no mystery and little suspense. It's really a one act play waiting to be scripted. It would be perfect for high school productions, needing only a single set and two prop automobiles. It does have some of the typical Snicket humor, though. Snicket is a very clever writer. It had one very memorable joke. When I remember it, I'll post it here. The book also had a use of the past tense, indicative mood where the subjunctive mood would have been preferable, so Snicket, while head and shoulders above Rowling stylistically, is apparently not infallible.
Harry Potter was the first time I noticed the phenomenon. As I remember, it was Ron Weasly's older brothers initially who did all the swearing, and it was mild and sometimes reprimanded. In the latest books, Ron swears like a sailor, in spurts. This lends some credence to my assertion that, for other thematic reasons, a child shouldn't start reading Harry Potter until he is in the third grade, preferably the fourth, and should read one book a year. Contrary to popular belief that the books are as addictive as crack to young bibliophiles, I have found my nephew, who loves the movies, is quite capable of putting down the books. He's not superior or inferior to other readers his age. The books just don't hook him like they supposedly do all other prepubescent bipeds.
I bring this up because Lemony Snicket's second book, The Reptile Room, has Count Olaf, the bad guy swearing. Twice, in rather close succession, and I dare say, needlessly, he uses the big-D where darn or dang would have done equally well. The book is a bit of a bust anyway, what with the death of Uncle Monty. There is no mystery and little suspense. It's really a one act play waiting to be scripted. It would be perfect for high school productions, needing only a single set and two prop automobiles. It does have some of the typical Snicket humor, though. Snicket is a very clever writer. It had one very memorable joke. When I remember it, I'll post it here. The book also had a use of the past tense, indicative mood where the subjunctive mood would have been preferable, so Snicket, while head and shoulders above Rowling stylistically, is apparently not infallible.
I'm live blogging the Clinton speech, just because I can, and it's a trendy thing to do with a blog.
For starters, Hillary's delivery style has improved since 1996. She doesn't sound like she's yelling (or nagging) all the time, but I still can't stand to listen for long. About the only way to make it worse would be to add a Texas twang. Then you'd have Ann Richards.
Pull quote: "They need a divided America. We don't." I like the quote for its internal inconsistency. This is an Oxford scholar, remember. I know technically he was probably referring to the Republicans in power. It amuses me nonetheless.
And on national unity, accusing Republicans of poisoning the well of good feelings and dispersing the spirit of unity after 9/11: How long was it before Clinton pointed out he mentioned Bin Laden to Bush during the handover debriefing? Two years, tops.
On our respect in the world: Which president submitted the Kyoto treaty to congress for ratification. If you said Clinton, guess again. Which president submitted the treaty on the International Court of Justice? If you said Clinton, guess again.
On tax cuts: Clinton got a big tax cut. Apparently, he thinks the rest of us are paying for it. Funny, I got a tax cut too. In fact, I don't think anybody got a tax increase. If the bill comes due in the future, what makes him think whoever's in charge won't be sticking it to the rich then?
On trade: "How can we enforce our trade laws against our bankers?" he asks, by which he means China. Our trade deficit has increased with China during Bush's term, it's true. On the other hand, which President was it that gave China permanent most favored nation status? If you said Clinton again, this time, you'd be right. Renewing Most Favored Nation status used to be a yearly thing, giving the U.S. some leverage over China. Congress made it permanent in 2000 at Clinton's urging. We had to rename "Most Favored Nation" to "Normal Trade Relations" to cover our shame (actually in 1998, but I thought then it was related). Plus, it takes some gall for Clinton to call China "our bankers" after the 1996 shenanigans he pulled to get Chinese money into his presidential campaign. Johnny Chung? Remember, Bill?
"We tried it their way for twelve years, we tried it our way for eight, and theirs for four more," he says. I can't argue that many people were better off four years ago. I, on the other hand, still have my job and a much lower home payment. I'm ready for an economic expansion, but the answer to the question from a wholly selfish point of view, ignoring the nervousness induced by company-wide layoff a couple years ago, is I'm better off now.
By the way, did he mention his stock market bubble? That hurt me. I started investing in 1997. Most of my money went in in 1998 and 1999. There was no way to avoid the pain of the bubble bursting, except perhaps to react faster, but from March 2000 until January 2001, when Bush was inaugurated, the Dow fell about 1000 points, about 10 percent. I, or more accurately, my mutual funds, seem to have been heavily in NASDAQ, however, which fell from 5000 to 3000 in the same period. Don't feel sorry for me, though. I made up for my losses with my home equity.
And record home ownership under Clinton? Sure it was high, but it's higher now. And what about terrorism? Were you better off after eight years of Clinton or four of Bush? I wish a lot of things had gone down differently these past three years, but the Clinton approach (a missile here, a missile there) wasn't going to work.
Finally, funny how important a war record is in 2004 to Bill Clinton. Didn't seem to be very important in 1992 or 1996. It's possible for many folks to tout Kerry's war record, just not Bill Clinton.
I'll say this, though. He may be a lying son of a gun, but all in all, he gives the best doggone political speeches in America, judged solely emotionally.
For starters, Hillary's delivery style has improved since 1996. She doesn't sound like she's yelling (or nagging) all the time, but I still can't stand to listen for long. About the only way to make it worse would be to add a Texas twang. Then you'd have Ann Richards.
Pull quote: "They need a divided America. We don't." I like the quote for its internal inconsistency. This is an Oxford scholar, remember. I know technically he was probably referring to the Republicans in power. It amuses me nonetheless.
And on national unity, accusing Republicans of poisoning the well of good feelings and dispersing the spirit of unity after 9/11: How long was it before Clinton pointed out he mentioned Bin Laden to Bush during the handover debriefing? Two years, tops.
On our respect in the world: Which president submitted the Kyoto treaty to congress for ratification. If you said Clinton, guess again. Which president submitted the treaty on the International Court of Justice? If you said Clinton, guess again.
On tax cuts: Clinton got a big tax cut. Apparently, he thinks the rest of us are paying for it. Funny, I got a tax cut too. In fact, I don't think anybody got a tax increase. If the bill comes due in the future, what makes him think whoever's in charge won't be sticking it to the rich then?
On trade: "How can we enforce our trade laws against our bankers?" he asks, by which he means China. Our trade deficit has increased with China during Bush's term, it's true. On the other hand, which President was it that gave China permanent most favored nation status? If you said Clinton again, this time, you'd be right. Renewing Most Favored Nation status used to be a yearly thing, giving the U.S. some leverage over China. Congress made it permanent in 2000 at Clinton's urging. We had to rename "Most Favored Nation" to "Normal Trade Relations" to cover our shame (actually in 1998, but I thought then it was related). Plus, it takes some gall for Clinton to call China "our bankers" after the 1996 shenanigans he pulled to get Chinese money into his presidential campaign. Johnny Chung? Remember, Bill?
"We tried it their way for twelve years, we tried it our way for eight, and theirs for four more," he says. I can't argue that many people were better off four years ago. I, on the other hand, still have my job and a much lower home payment. I'm ready for an economic expansion, but the answer to the question from a wholly selfish point of view, ignoring the nervousness induced by company-wide layoff a couple years ago, is I'm better off now.
By the way, did he mention his stock market bubble? That hurt me. I started investing in 1997. Most of my money went in in 1998 and 1999. There was no way to avoid the pain of the bubble bursting, except perhaps to react faster, but from March 2000 until January 2001, when Bush was inaugurated, the Dow fell about 1000 points, about 10 percent. I, or more accurately, my mutual funds, seem to have been heavily in NASDAQ, however, which fell from 5000 to 3000 in the same period. Don't feel sorry for me, though. I made up for my losses with my home equity.
And record home ownership under Clinton? Sure it was high, but it's higher now. And what about terrorism? Were you better off after eight years of Clinton or four of Bush? I wish a lot of things had gone down differently these past three years, but the Clinton approach (a missile here, a missile there) wasn't going to work.
Finally, funny how important a war record is in 2004 to Bill Clinton. Didn't seem to be very important in 1992 or 1996. It's possible for many folks to tout Kerry's war record, just not Bill Clinton.
I'll say this, though. He may be a lying son of a gun, but all in all, he gives the best doggone political speeches in America, judged solely emotionally.
Thursday, July 15, 2004
I just finished reading Richard Cohen's column ripping into Ron Reagan for appearing at the Democratic National Convention. Cohen correctly points out Ron Reagan has done nothing to merit such a speaking position, aside from being the son of Ronald Reagan and being willing to exploit the platform of presidential offspring to criticize George Bush.
In this case, he is exploiting his name to decry limits on stem cell research put in place by Bush, a position with which Cohen agrees. Apparently Cohen considers himself an intellectual of the first water, and Bush and Ronald Reagan quite the mediocre thinkers. That's fine. Such hubris is expected of liberals in general, and de rigeur for columnists of all stripes. (I'm sure George Will is confident in his intellectual superiority over Bush and Reagan, his inability to recognize that nobody wants to hear him opine on baseball notwithstanding.)
So, here are two pull-quotes from the Cohen column:
If Cohen is a rigorous thinker, in contrast with Bush, how does he boil Bush's concerns about stem cell research down to the pitiful conclusion that Bush considers stem cells equivalent to human beings. It is said men of good will can disagree, but it appears Cohen either isn't a man of good will or isn't bright enough to understand his opponents' position. (I lean toward the latter explanation, having read more than enough of his columns to form an opinion.)
Bush is quite clear he has no problem with stem cell research, simply with stem cell research using cells from aborted fetuses. His problem is quite clearly the abortion and the possible market for the remnants of abortion, a market that could blur the national conscience in future decisions on abortion policy.
I personally am against making lamp shades out of human skin. I don't consider human skin equivalent in stature to a human being. I'm sure a small market demand could be met by making lamp shades out of skin leftover from liposuction. A larger market could be met by using the skin of dead folks. Ya know, if you're going to cremate grandma anyway, why not cover some of your costs by shaving a layer or two of dermis?
I'm not against using human skin for lampshades strictly for the yuck factor, or because in the past such uses were limited to madmen and Nazis. I'm against it because it violates human dignity to use human cells for such a banal purpose.
Am I being distasteful? Obviously, the issue with stem cells is that the positive ramifications go far beyond better lamp shades. Human skin is farmed to use as skin grafts for burn victims and other purposes. I'm not against that. But that skin is taken without killing the donor, or from corpses (now I'm being distasteful). If embryonic and fetal stem cells pan out, there could be quite the market for aborted fetuses. Even if embryonic stem cells came from lab-grown zygotes, the idea of creating human life with the express purpose of terminating it before it has legally recognized rights is distasteful to many Americans, starting with the 50 percent that are solidly pro-life, and I think a persuasive argument could be made that would sway many Americans who do not have an issue with abortion laws in the U.S.
The purpose of Bush's ban is to make fetal stem cell research more onerous at the margins, so that adult stem cells seem like a viable research alternative. Already, some of this research, which might otherwise have waited years for funding, or, if fetal stem cells panned out, never received funding, has born fruit.
So what am I saying? I'm saying, even a mediocre intellect like my own is capable of far more rigorous and subtle thinking than an ossified, insular, over-confident hack with a column by dint of hanging in there, like Cohen.
I also think I'm capable of more interesting writing than Cohen, and unlike George Will, I can imagine when I'm testing my reader's (singular possessive for a reason) tolerance for a topic, so I'll be returning to less viscerally controversial issues. (On the other hand, I can almost guarantee one more Lemony Snicket posting, so sometimes, even when I sense reader boredom, I plow ahead anyway.)
In this case, he is exploiting his name to decry limits on stem cell research put in place by Bush, a position with which Cohen agrees. Apparently Cohen considers himself an intellectual of the first water, and Bush and Ronald Reagan quite the mediocre thinkers. That's fine. Such hubris is expected of liberals in general, and de rigeur for columnists of all stripes. (I'm sure George Will is confident in his intellectual superiority over Bush and Reagan, his inability to recognize that nobody wants to hear him opine on baseball notwithstanding.)
So, here are two pull-quotes from the Cohen column:
"The possibility that a cure is out there and yet, because of Bush's edict, will be delayed or not reached at all is pretty hard to stomach. That the suffering of a Parkinson's victim should continue one day more than is necessary is unconscionable. Bush maintains that the stem cell is a human being -- an extension of the antiabortion argument to the point, really, of inanity."
"...there is no way of knowing where Ronald Reagan would have stood on stem cell research. He was not, to say the least, a rigorous thinker and might well have wound up in Bush's corner. Who knows?"
If Cohen is a rigorous thinker, in contrast with Bush, how does he boil Bush's concerns about stem cell research down to the pitiful conclusion that Bush considers stem cells equivalent to human beings. It is said men of good will can disagree, but it appears Cohen either isn't a man of good will or isn't bright enough to understand his opponents' position. (I lean toward the latter explanation, having read more than enough of his columns to form an opinion.)
Bush is quite clear he has no problem with stem cell research, simply with stem cell research using cells from aborted fetuses. His problem is quite clearly the abortion and the possible market for the remnants of abortion, a market that could blur the national conscience in future decisions on abortion policy.
I personally am against making lamp shades out of human skin. I don't consider human skin equivalent in stature to a human being. I'm sure a small market demand could be met by making lamp shades out of skin leftover from liposuction. A larger market could be met by using the skin of dead folks. Ya know, if you're going to cremate grandma anyway, why not cover some of your costs by shaving a layer or two of dermis?
I'm not against using human skin for lampshades strictly for the yuck factor, or because in the past such uses were limited to madmen and Nazis. I'm against it because it violates human dignity to use human cells for such a banal purpose.
Am I being distasteful? Obviously, the issue with stem cells is that the positive ramifications go far beyond better lamp shades. Human skin is farmed to use as skin grafts for burn victims and other purposes. I'm not against that. But that skin is taken without killing the donor, or from corpses (now I'm being distasteful). If embryonic and fetal stem cells pan out, there could be quite the market for aborted fetuses. Even if embryonic stem cells came from lab-grown zygotes, the idea of creating human life with the express purpose of terminating it before it has legally recognized rights is distasteful to many Americans, starting with the 50 percent that are solidly pro-life, and I think a persuasive argument could be made that would sway many Americans who do not have an issue with abortion laws in the U.S.
The purpose of Bush's ban is to make fetal stem cell research more onerous at the margins, so that adult stem cells seem like a viable research alternative. Already, some of this research, which might otherwise have waited years for funding, or, if fetal stem cells panned out, never received funding, has born fruit.
So what am I saying? I'm saying, even a mediocre intellect like my own is capable of far more rigorous and subtle thinking than an ossified, insular, over-confident hack with a column by dint of hanging in there, like Cohen.
I also think I'm capable of more interesting writing than Cohen, and unlike George Will, I can imagine when I'm testing my reader's (singular possessive for a reason) tolerance for a topic, so I'll be returning to less viscerally controversial issues. (On the other hand, I can almost guarantee one more Lemony Snicket posting, so sometimes, even when I sense reader boredom, I plow ahead anyway.)
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
I have now read a second Lemony Snicket book, entirely to keep ahead of my nephew, you understand. I am not a close reader of children's books. Reading out loud to my nephew, I discovered mixed metaphors and other signs of writing fatigue. Also, some of Lemony's cutesy style, specifically of repeating himself in the way British comedians do in absurd ways to be funny, became grating by the end of the book. (If you don't know what I'm talking about with over-styled writing and British redundancy, try Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series. It was funny when I read it in my teens, but after a few more decades, it becomes less amusing.)
Anyway, unlike the New York Times, I like to correct my mistakes, and that is the purpose of this post. I claimed the children could never be in mortal danger because the eldest, Violet, was indispensable to Count Olaf's plans to steal their family fortune. In the second book I read, their was in fact a plan on her life. A rather silly plan, but I will say it involved decapitation, which even in jest is difficult to countenance. So, I have upped my recommendation for the proper age of a reader to the fifth grade at least. There is also some dangerously muddled thinking in an escape plan, involving rubber bands and a third story window. My sister tells me that's not the sort of thing little boys take seriously. I was a little boy once, unlike her, and I'm not so sure.
For reference, I have read book 6 and 8, in that order. I'm not big on reading children's series in order, and I can't wait around at the library for books to be checked in. I may be back later with another re-evaluation.
Anyway, unlike the New York Times, I like to correct my mistakes, and that is the purpose of this post. I claimed the children could never be in mortal danger because the eldest, Violet, was indispensable to Count Olaf's plans to steal their family fortune. In the second book I read, their was in fact a plan on her life. A rather silly plan, but I will say it involved decapitation, which even in jest is difficult to countenance. So, I have upped my recommendation for the proper age of a reader to the fifth grade at least. There is also some dangerously muddled thinking in an escape plan, involving rubber bands and a third story window. My sister tells me that's not the sort of thing little boys take seriously. I was a little boy once, unlike her, and I'm not so sure.
For reference, I have read book 6 and 8, in that order. I'm not big on reading children's series in order, and I can't wait around at the library for books to be checked in. I may be back later with another re-evaluation.
Late to the party, I read a discussion by Ramesh Ponnuru and Jonathan Adler about the abortion and the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing whether the Supreme Court is ever going to let stand limits on abortion like the Partial Birth Abortion Act, which outlaws all abortions that use a procedure that resembles partial delivery (Intact Dilation and Extraction, "Intact" being the operative word).
The discussion was triggered by this blog entry by Stuart Buck, which is directed to people like me who believe that a majority of the U.S. Supreme court is likely to overturn all but the most minor limitations. Indeed, perhaps it is directed also to some federal judges, given that the Partial Birth Abortion Act has been or may be suspended by various lower courts (California, Nebraska, New York) due to lacking an exception for the health of the mother, an exception proponents of the ban claim is unneeded because there are other safer procedures that could be employed in all cases (I am unqualified to evaluate that claim).
A week prior to Buck's entry, I had read in a blog (not a reliable source of information) that France outlaws all abortions after five months, and Germany after six. These are not known as socially conservative countries (by reputation, anyway; my reading on the web indicates both have some very conservative tendencies). I can't find the blog where I read that, but I can use google, which challenges either my memory's accuracy or the blog's veracity.
Here's a ref for the limit in France, eleven weeks. And here, the U.N. says abortion is available on demand up to twelve weeks in Germany and prohibited after 22. The U.N. has a summary of abortion laws in most nations.
I found this informative presentation on abortion in Europe. It indicates France and Germany have parental notification laws and mandatory waiting times as well, two provisions that have periodically been struck down as overly restrictive or cumbersome by state and federal courts. Both seem to pass muster with the U.S. Supreme Court if the law is written properly.
The discussion was triggered by this blog entry by Stuart Buck, which is directed to people like me who believe that a majority of the U.S. Supreme court is likely to overturn all but the most minor limitations. Indeed, perhaps it is directed also to some federal judges, given that the Partial Birth Abortion Act has been or may be suspended by various lower courts (California, Nebraska, New York) due to lacking an exception for the health of the mother, an exception proponents of the ban claim is unneeded because there are other safer procedures that could be employed in all cases (I am unqualified to evaluate that claim).
A week prior to Buck's entry, I had read in a blog (not a reliable source of information) that France outlaws all abortions after five months, and Germany after six. These are not known as socially conservative countries (by reputation, anyway; my reading on the web indicates both have some very conservative tendencies). I can't find the blog where I read that, but I can use google, which challenges either my memory's accuracy or the blog's veracity.
Here's a ref for the limit in France, eleven weeks. And here, the U.N. says abortion is available on demand up to twelve weeks in Germany and prohibited after 22. The U.N. has a summary of abortion laws in most nations.
I found this informative presentation on abortion in Europe. It indicates France and Germany have parental notification laws and mandatory waiting times as well, two provisions that have periodically been struck down as overly restrictive or cumbersome by state and federal courts. Both seem to pass muster with the U.S. Supreme Court if the law is written properly.
Friday, July 02, 2004
Maybe I'm sensitive, but the quote in this story about Ralph Nader seems to practically require consciencious Americans to vote for Kerry or Bush this November. I'm wondering if Nader will be sliding any further into his dementia as the campaign progresses.
I also ran across this quote from Michael Moore in a piece by David Brooks. I'd cut him some slack in that he talks too much, and it's hard to avoid saying stupid things when your mouth is never closed. Plus, he said this after a long stay in Europe, and they still have some Israel/Jewish hang-ups. Still, it's a strange thing to pass an educated man's lips.
Hmm... doesn't that contradict the thesis of Fahrenheit 911 that Bush is a tool of the Saudis?
What has been happening over the years is a predictable routine of foreign visitation from the head of the Israeli government. The Israeli puppeteer travels to Washington. The Israeli puppeteer meets with the puppet in the White House, and then moves down Pennsylvania Avenue, and meets with the puppets in Congress. And then takes back billions of taxpayer dollars. It is time for the Washington puppet show to be replaced by the Washington peace show.
I also ran across this quote from Michael Moore in a piece by David Brooks. I'd cut him some slack in that he talks too much, and it's hard to avoid saying stupid things when your mouth is never closed. Plus, he said this after a long stay in Europe, and they still have some Israel/Jewish hang-ups. Still, it's a strange thing to pass an educated man's lips.
"It's all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, Halliburton."
Hmm... doesn't that contradict the thesis of Fahrenheit 911 that Bush is a tool of the Saudis?
Thursday, July 01, 2004
Happy Canada Day!
I stumbled on Canada Day a few years ago while reading a blog and surprised some Canadian co-workers with holiday greetings. Since then, I like to make a note, but it's usually Independence Day before I remember.
Being a natural conservative or perhaps just a stick-in-the-mud curmudgeon, I prefer to call it Dominion Day.
I stumbled on Canada Day a few years ago while reading a blog and surprised some Canadian co-workers with holiday greetings. Since then, I like to make a note, but it's usually Independence Day before I remember.
Being a natural conservative or perhaps just a stick-in-the-mud curmudgeon, I prefer to call it Dominion Day.
Here's a little story on avarice and justification I would have missed had I not come on it by accident during a search at CNN.
Now, taking advantage of all your opportunities I understand. I think it should be clear to everyone who has ever done this that it is wrong, but some might have been more entitled than others, if for instance they spent the first ten years of their working careers in Social Security paying jobs.
However, once it is clear taxpayers are on to the scheme, and are so outraged they took steps to end it, one would expect a certain amount of circumspection in those who continue to exploit the loophole.
One would expect too much. Here's a high school principal, for heaven's sake. She knows she has never paid a dime into Social Security, but she doesn't care. And to top it off, she justifies it by saying, she doesn't want to be a burden on anyone else. Well where the heck does she think social security comes from? Apparently not other people. Maybe she thinks her new monthly check will come from her savings.
Most Texas teachers do not pay into Social Security and instead participate in a state pension fund. But the loophole allows them to receive Social Security benefits if their last day of work before retirement is in a job covered by Social Security.
School districts around the state helped teachers out by hiring them to work janitorial or maintenance jobs for just a day. The loophole ends Wednesday.
Junior high school principal Margie Nancarrow said she wanted to spend at least two more years at her school in suburban Dallas, but the benefits were too tempting at a time of soaring costs for health insurance and prescription drugs.
"I'm not wanting to do anything extravagant," said Nancarrow, who spent her last day before retirement moving furniture. "I just want to live a modest lifestyle and take care of myself and not be a burden on anyone else."
Now, taking advantage of all your opportunities I understand. I think it should be clear to everyone who has ever done this that it is wrong, but some might have been more entitled than others, if for instance they spent the first ten years of their working careers in Social Security paying jobs.
However, once it is clear taxpayers are on to the scheme, and are so outraged they took steps to end it, one would expect a certain amount of circumspection in those who continue to exploit the loophole.
One would expect too much. Here's a high school principal, for heaven's sake. She knows she has never paid a dime into Social Security, but she doesn't care. And to top it off, she justifies it by saying, she doesn't want to be a burden on anyone else. Well where the heck does she think social security comes from? Apparently not other people. Maybe she thinks her new monthly check will come from her savings.
