Blather Review

2003-07-19T18:46:00.000-04:00

BLATHER REVIEW HAS RELOCATED

I can now be found at http://blatherreview.mu.nu

Remember, there is no "www" in that URL!!

I now have Comments that can actually be read (and that post from top to bottom, as they really should...).

2003-07-18T18:06:00.000-04:00

THE MARRIAGE INITIATIVE
Welfare as Matchmaker: sound investment or Big Brother bloats up?

The Bush Administration has some good intentions, and is pushing an initiative to promote marriage among Welfare recipients as part of an overhaul of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. See a news item here.

The bill would earmark $300 million to do...er...what exactly?

"The Administration is vague about what the money would go for, but says it would help couples that are already interested in marriage, perhaps through financial incentives or by offering counciling."

So, we're going to pay people, with public funds, to get married? Or, perhaps, just council them into it? Hmmm. The obvious question is; "Why would the Federal Government have any business even CARING about who gets married and who doesn't?" The obvious answer is: "Because it spends our money."

This is yet another illustration of how the self-appointed "social engineers" in Government rationalize their ever-more pervasive presence in our lives; Since the Government is paying for it, the Government must regulate anything that effects the bottom line. And that means regulating our Choices.

Since the Government offers to provide a healthcare program, It has the authority -- nay, moral duty -- to levy fines, in the form of taxes, on our personal choices about what we eat, drink, smoke, etc.
Since the Government offers so generously to send the States' they're own money back for the funding of roads and bridges, It has the Power -- nay, moral duty -- to extort the States into writing speed limit laws and "National Drinking Age" laws.

In this case, the Marriage Initiative in the revamped Welfare Reform Act, it's a little more subtle (participation would be, presumably, voluntary for couples already interested in marriage), but the principle at it's core is the same thing: the Fed's assumed Authority to regulate whatever effects It's bottom line.

While touting the initiative's well-intentioned goals, Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa), said, "The fact of the matter is, marriage is very important tool for economic survival."

Of course. Wouldn't it be wonderful if all parents were also spouses! The kids have a family that is whole again! Yes, yes, yes, that's all well and good. But do the keepers of the Public Purse really believe that marrying for money...a more secure financial situation... is something that single mothers and fathers have never thought about before? "Wow, I wont be so broke if I got married? That's amazing insight Mr Government Counsellor! And thanks for the check!"

The extortion, as usual, is directed at the States:

"The Government would spend $300 million per year on programs promoting marriage. That includes $200 million in federal dollars, and $100 million States would have to spend in matching funds."

(((Actually, since I haven't seen the actual text of the bill that passed in the House, I'm having trouble figuring out how the extortion will be enforced.
The "national speed limit" and "national drinking age" are enforced by threatening any State that refuses to write the neccessary laws with requiring that their Highway funds by directed at promotional campaigns against drinking and driving and speeding and thinking. If a State refused to budget for the Marriage Initiative matching funds, would they then have to re-direct their Welfare funds to...er...a promotional campaign tauting the benefits of marriage? I'll have to look into that...)))

There's a very simple Law of Good Intentions; good intentions aren't enough. Throwing our good money into this proposed program -- whose promise of any meaningful success is, it seems to me, anemic -- is a classic example of why our personal and State sovereignty is being co-opted and centralized at the "top"; the Constitution is not respected when it's in the way of "progress".

In Politics; poll results are the only results that matter.

2003-07-16T22:15:00.000-04:00

BACON, EGG & CHEESE McGRIDDLE

Yummm!!!!

2003-07-15T23:55:00.000-04:00

<---WOO HOO!!! I did it...thanks to Susie!!!! Now all I gotta do is figure out how get "comments" and I'll be in blogosphere central....

2003-07-15T19:38:00.000-04:00

Hey, check this out: Liberal Assclown

FrankJ, I know you specified that we should put the link on the main page and not in a post. I gave up my cool template for one that had a "Links" list, but I can't figure out how to add a link; my blogger "help" button doesn't work!!! Grrrrr!!!! and I hate this template...

Perhaps having a working blogroll is a feature I'd have to pay for....just like adding "comments" and stuff. If I knew I'd have any traffic other than my close friends and family I'd not only start blogging again, I'd pay for the comments and links features. So, come on...let me slide on this one!! ( After all, the post will still be here in a weeks time..)

2003-04-20T19:31:00.000-04:00

DOUBLE MURDER CHARGE FOR SCOTT PETERSON?
The Slippery Slope Of Being Human

Mavra Stark, NOW's Morris County, New Jersey chapter President, has expressed some concerns over charging Scott Peterson with the murder of his and his dead wife Laci's eight-month old fetus. A Bergen Daily Record article about this can be read by clicking HERE.

As Ms. Stark states her concern; "If this is murder, well, then any time a late-term fetus is aborted, they could call it murder." "There's something about this that bothers me a little bit," Stark said. "Was it born or was it un-born? If it was un-born
then I can't see charging (Peterson) with a double-murder."

The issue is abortion rights, and how "elevating" an un-born fetus to a status whereby it's intentional demise (by a third party--mother exempted presumably) could bring a murder charge upon the person(s) responsible for it's death. If the killing of an eight month old fetus is be considered murder, is that only the first step in the slippery slope toward calling all abortion murder?

The legal and philosophical questions can give you a migraine. Roe vs Wade guarantees an abortion on demand to any woman during the first trimester of her pregnancy. After that a State can write it's own laws regarding the status of the fetus. One State can outlaw any and all abortions after the first 90 days, another can legally protect any and all abortions right up until the actual birth of the child. Since the Federal government doesn't recognize a person as a citizen or non-citizen until they're born, the States are free to put whatever restrictions on abortion they see fit.

According to the linked article, "Under California law, murder charges can result if the fetus is older than seven weeks." This is either a misprint -- as seven weeks falls well within the first trimester wherein Roe vs Wade has operatively ruled that a fetus is not a person entitled to any legal protection whatsoever -- and it should read "seven months", or, the California laws allow the fetus to be protected if the mother is not the one responsible for the loss.

Assuming that the language in the article is accurate and the latter interpretation is correct, the legal and philosophical gymnastics inherent is fashioning coherent abortion law is at the heart of the Peterson double-murder debate. When is a fetus a person, and who is to decide that? One six month old fetus is not a person because it's mother decides it is not a person. Another six month old fetus is a person, because it's mother decides that it is.

That's all well and good for many Americans, it seems like an acceptable compromise between our conflicted thoughts and feelings about the issue. But when the subjective individual decisions on the status of a human is codified into law there is a curious problem: equal protection doesn't extend to the un-born. If the legal status of the fetus is settled by the whim of the mother, then it's not the fetus' rights that are being protected; it is the mother's. But, then, if the fetus has no such inalienable rights, it can have no such status that the mother might claim it to have. A would-be "murderer" is at the mercy of the Rule Of Fiat, not the Rule Of Law. But it's the Law that allows this to be! Oy, my brain hurts!

I believe that NOW, at least as evidenced by Marva Stark, is in favor of legal abortions right up until birth since she also said:

"He (the 8 month old male fetus) was wanted and expected, and she (Laci Peterson) had a name for him (Connor), but if he wasn't born, he wasn't born. It sets a kind of precedent."

She is clearly in favor using only the Federal government's criteria for deciding upon the status of the un-born: If it ain't born it ain't a person, and has no legal status and no right of protection under the law. She (and presumably NOW) opposes any restriction on abortion on demand through the entire nine month term. State laws that put restrictions on abortion after the first trimester that are actually enforced represent a "kind of precedent" that she fears will lead to the spread of more restrictions, resulting in the those rights only guaranteed by Roe vs Wade....and then that will fall as well.

Not for nothin', but I think that opposing the double-murder charge for Scott Peterson is evidence that Stark is a bit paranoid. It's kind of like a pro-2nd Amendment guy saying "If they take away our anti-aircraft missle launchers then our shotguns are next!" One shouldn't be so worried about the slippery slope of vanishing rights that one supports infanticide to defend one's privacy.

Well, I think Ms. Stark is aware of that as she did qualify her understandable concerns with the caveat, "it's just something I've been ruminating on." I've been ruminating on it, too...and now I need some Advil.

2003-04-12T19:46:00.000-04:00

DEEP THROAT

I just want to say, for the record, in writing, on this date, that I know who "Deep Throat" was.

Yep, figured it out years ago. It was easy, too. All I did was read Woodward and Bernstein's All The President's Men, take note of what information D.T. provided, and see who among the cast of characters could have had that knowledge.

Strangely, Bob Haldeman said he did the same thing, and came up with a man who I've never heard of--and can't remember now. But, how could he have missed it? IT'S SO OBVIOUS!!!!!!!!!

So, here's the answer: Deep Throat was Fred LaRue.

Who? Fred LaRue! He was an assistant/deputy/under-Attorney General under John Mitchell. It's been years since I first figured this out (I believe it was 1992), so I don't recall exactly what the details of the "smoking gun" were; but it had to do with a meeting in Key Biscane (sp?). Deep Throat provided details of a meeting attended by 3 or 4 people; Nixon, Mitchell and LaRue (there may have been Al Haig, or someone).

So, there you have it. And when LaRue dies and Woodward and Bernstein announce that he was Deep Throat, you can say; "Duh! Knew that already, guys! Blathering Bob told me!"

2003-04-01T22:15:00.000-05:00

PFC JESSICA LYNCH RESCUED!!

So, while the Fedayeen Saddam is shooting villagers who refuse to take up arms against the coalition, and as examples to others, and as husbands are held hostage while their wives and children are being driven in a van through military checkpoints, and all other manner of torture and terror are being inflicted on Iraqi soldiers by their own fellow soldiers; our Navy Seals and Army Rangers are risking their lives to save one of their own.

Note on intelligence: Not only did they know what building she was in (a hospital?), they knew what room she in! If you're Saddam Hussein (and you are alive), and watching this, you gotta pretty damn worried about what our guys know about your whereabouts!

For a peek into what Saddam is really thinking these days, check out his weblog by clicking HERE.

2003-03-25T23:50:00.000-05:00

O.K., NOW I'M PISSED

I try--I really do try--to understand all angles and interpretations of an arguement. But, geeze, I am getting really sick and tired of having to listen to shit-haired para-pundits yammer on and on about how America is seen throughout the world as some kinda hegemonic imperial bully bent on conquest and subterfuge.

Iraqi dipshits are mortar-shelling Basra's civilians, dressing up as US soldiers and executing would-be surrenders, keeping women and children as unwilling human shields, faking surrender and then turning their guns on our guys, shooting anyone who dares to try and flee the city limits of Baghdad...

We just had a $%@*&% soldier (Abul Akbar--or whatever the f#%@$& his name is) throw grenades into the tent of his sleeping Captain and others--killing the Captain and wounding 15 others. And what did we do about it? Did we pull his &^*^%*$ fingernails out and pour sodium sulfide on the open wounds? NO! Did we hang him by his testosterone-challenged testicles? NO! Did we torture him in front of his wife and children? NO! Did we feed him feet first into a plastics grinder? NO! Did our soldiers--pissed off as they were--even take the wholly defensible act of shooting the f@%#&(@?? NO!! We placed him under ARREST...and he will now *boo hoo* face a TRIAL! So don't give me anymore sh#%^&t about how the rest of the @$^*& world decides to see us...we are PRETTY %$@*)^)@! CIVILIZED!!!

The rest of the world should fall to it's jelly$@& knees to what America represents. Russia, France, and anyone else who places commerce above the common good of man; we're learning more and more about yer dealings and we're taken names.

A year-and-a-half ago we said the Age Of Irony is dead. That's truer than a whole lotta bureaucrats yet realize.

2003-03-22T18:45:00.000-05:00

IT'S A WAR ON TERROR, STUPID!

As the anti-war protests in New York begin to turn ugly, there's a UPI story that's creating alot of chatter. A group of would-be human shields had fled Iraq and entered Jordan with videotaped interviews with Iraqis. One Iraqi mentioned that just as the American came to Iraq willing to die for peace, he was willing to die for his freedom. This is the operative paragraph:

"A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which had not been seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head."

As an example of "before and after"; I was just watching a news report where a protester in New York was being interviewed by a reporter:

reporter: So you agree that Saddam must go?
protester: Oh, yes!
reporter: But, you think it should be done in a way other than by war?
protester: Exactly!
reporter: All right, then; how?
protester: Uuuuuuummmmmm.........
...at which time she gazed off into the distance while searching her mind for an answer and finding only tumbleweeds blowing down the ghost town of her depth of understanding.
In terms of most protesters and human shields, I believe she represents the "before", and Kenneth Joseph is the "after".

But, the organizers of the protests, the hardcore anarcho-socialists, don't suffer from such moments of unclarity. They would probably read the above UPI excerpt and dismiss the Iraqis' desire for liberation as a product of their being so consumed by the immediate terror of Saddam that they have no time to consider the higher abstract concepts of agenda-laced anti-Americanism. (And, anarcho-socialism is not merely anti-Bush, it's politically anti-democracy, economically anti-lassez-faire, wholly anti-American.)

2003-03-20T21:58:00.000-05:00

'T'AIN"T EASY BEING ORANGE

The terror alert has been raised to "orange" again. I was just thinking back on how pundits and peons yammered about how confused it all seemed at the time the color-scale was first introduced. So, here's my idea:

Our traffic lights should have the same color scheme as the terror alert code. The colors are (from top to bottom): red, orange, yellow, blue, green. Doing this would address some the nuances of traffic law;

red = stop.

orange = come to a full stop, look around and be sure that the road is clear, go. It's in the vein of the "right on red" law--with no pesky "no turn on red" signs to look around for.)

yellow = caution, the light's about to turn red (or orange.)

blue = this will warn that the light will be turning yellow. This comes in reeeeeeaally handy on them wide-open, depth-perception-defying, main routes (i.e.: US-1) where every car is cruises at 40mph. When the light up ahead turns yellow you gotta hit the brakes and slow from 40 to 0 in 3 seconds.

green = go! man, go!

Plus, seeing the color scheme in a regular routine, everyday on the road, will help us all to remember A) which color falls where on the terror alert scale, and B) that driving your SUV helps to support the rebuilding of the infrastructure of newly liberated former dictatorships.

2003-03-08T20:46:00.000-05:00

TERIYAKI SALMON

Wow! It's been a full week since I last attempted a post. Yeesh!

It's not that I have nothing to say; it's just that I've noticed that I can "write" whole essays in my head on a certain topic while at work, and by the time I get home I have no patience to put it all together again. *sigh* I'll try to do better.

But I did make some awesome teriyaki sauce for my baked salmon tonight!! And, unusually, actually thought to write down what I was doing so I could reproduce it! (Can't tell ya how many times I've made tasty treats and could never do it again. Damn culinary impulsion...)

I searched the web for some teriyaki sauce recipes and wrote several down. Then took some elements from that batch (based on what sounded good and what I had on hand) and came up with a plan. Put the plan into action; and found teriyaki salmon heaven!)

What'd I do? I took notes! So, here's the dope:

For the soy sauce; use one that ain't so dang salty. Lea & Perrins is too salty (their Worchestershire sauce had my blood pressure rising just from tasting it on my finger-tip). Kikkomon is better, but still border-line ('specially taste-wise). Check the label and compare mg of sodium on the nutrition info chart. De facto premium brands (meaning: expensive brands you may have never heard of sold in smallish bottles) are usually the best bets for quality taste. In this recipe I used Kikkomon Light (low sodium).

1 cup of Soy Sauce

3/4 cup light brown sugar (I used light because it's what I had. Might actually be better with regular; though you may need a sledge hammer to sift it...)

2 tsp jarred crushed garlic (because I didn't have the patience tonight to mince fresh garlic. If you want to chop yer own I'd suggest limiting it to one large clove or two small &/or medium cloves).

3 tbsp powdered ginger (I say powdered because I've always found fresh ginger to have a sharpness that overwhelms the tastiness; though, like garlic, the simmering may mute that to some extent.)

4 tbsp sesame oil

2 tbsp apple cider vinegar (I used Heinz Is there any other?)

4 tbs orange juice, freshly squeezed (strain out the pulp)

2 tbsp corn starch

1/2 cup water (more for a thinner consistency [*see below].)

Preheat the oven to 375 as you mix all the above ingredients together in a small sauce pan and bring 'em to a boil. After the sauce reaches a boil immediately lower the heat and let it simmer. STIR IT OFTEN!

When the oven is heated (and the sauce has been simmering 15 minutes or so [more if yer using fresh garlic and/or ginger, and not immediately baking it]), pour the sauce over the salmon steaks (I'm presuming you've already laid them out in a baking dish), and pop 'em in the oven. Let 'em bake for about 30 minutes.

Snatch the salmon from the oven and serve hot with the side dishes of yer choice (I made mushrooms and butter-slathered peas...I haven't learned to make miso soup yet).

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Bone up a teat!!

2003-03-01T21:19:00.000-05:00

WHO ARE THEY TO DO THAT?

coming soon, must go make dinner now...

2003-03-01T18:23:00.000-05:00

OPINION POLL CONFIRMS: MOST PEOPLE ARE MORONS

A Blather Review-CVS poll conducted over the past week reveals that most Americans are surprisingly stupid. Some are more thick-headed in certain area, some in others, and still others are blithering idiots across the board.

The poll, conducted on site by unemployable post-grad english majors while loitering outside of CVS Pharmacies across the country, reflects the views of 1,483 passersby who seemed to have nowhere in particular to go.

The first question asked respondents if President Bush "should seek a 19th Resolution from the U.N. Security Council authorizing the use of military force in Iraq." The results largely in accordence with expectation;

52% Yes
33% No
15% Not sure

When asked if they were aware that the 18th Resolution, res. 1441, had already authorized military force in Iraq, they answered

51% No
37% What?
9% Yes
3% Not sure

The responses to next question; "Do you fear that an engagement in Iraq might become another Vietnam?", showed that concerns run deep with respect to our ability to accomplish the military goals in a timely manner;

73% Yes
12% No
15% Not sure

When asked then to name one man who was U.S. President during the Vietnam War, the responses were many, and usually given in more of a questioning rather than answering tone, and accompanied by a far away stare evoking the sound of crickets, or tha image of tumbleweeds rolling wistfully down the main street of a desolate 19th century ghost town.

15% Ronald Reagan
13% John F Kennedy
11% Abraham Lincoln
10% Richard Nixon
8% George Bush
7% John F. Kennedy Jr
7% Martin Luther King Jr
6% Martin Sheen
6% Charlton Heston
5% Alfred E. Neuman
4% Viet Nam
3% Winston Churchill
2% Paul Bunyon
2% Larry Storch
1% Lyndon Johnson

Switching gears, the pollsters next asked "Should the individual right to keep and bear arms continue to be guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution?" , and the respondents replied

53% No
28% Yes
19% Not sure

And when asked if they "believed that space aliens had crash landed in Roswell, New Mexico in 1947" they replied

61% Yes
37% Not sure
2% No

And to the follow-up question "What's that behind you ?", the responses were, unsurprisingly;

10% My ass
7% A hole in the ground
83% Not sure

Respondents were then given a list of things and events and asked to identify fiction from non-fiction. The results:

fact/fiction/not sure

38% 41% 21% Loch Ness Monster
41% 40% 19% Freedom to excercize religeon
63% 6% 31% Alien Autposy photos
8% 77% 15% Oswald killed Kennedy
39% 52% 9% Moon landing was a NASA hoax
82% 11% 7% Al Gore won in 2000
3% 3% 94% Abortion ends a human life
17% 62% 21% Global Warning
68% 14% 8% Bruce Springsteen works for minimum wage in a steel mill in rural Ohio

Noting that the poll results show that those who say they believe that the Judicial Branch of government has authority to overturn legislation it finds personally disagreeable (72%), also believe that the statues on Easter Island were erected by ancient visitors from the Pliaedes star system (73%), seems to support the conclusion that, as we've all suspected for a long long time: we're largely a society of dumb-ass mush-heads.

But perhaps the most disturbing result of the poll is the answer given to the final question, "Would you like to see America become a true Democracy, governed by the will of the people as determined by referenda and/or opinion poll results?"

73% Yes
22% Not sure
5% No

This poll is unscientific and has a margin of error of +/-97%.

2003-02-27T23:05:00.000-05:00

WHO ARE WE TO DO THIS?
the overdue choice of a reluctant warrior

Who are we? We're Ted Bundy, and we're Todd Beamer. We're Charles Lindberg and Charles Manson. Ghandi and Stalin are in there, too, arguing...the one determined to topple the other. When examined down to the brass tacks, is there any meaningful difference between them? Are they seperate but equal philosophers, each right in his own way, according to his point of view? Since they each sprang from the same human gene pool, who among us--sprung from that same muddled puddle--can pass judgement on what is right and what is wrong? On what then should our moral choices be based? Should we even bother to agonize ourselves over "moral" choices at all?

Werner Heisenberg, the great German physicist, had a choice to make. Nazi Germany was taking shape...a twisted shape. With war raging and Hitler expanding his reign and his weaponry and what with concentration camps filling up with people and all, Albert Einstein fled Germany for America. Neils Bohr fled Denmark for America. Nuclear physicists, under cover of some of the darkest of all European nights, were escaping Hitler's realm, lest they be "invited" to work for the Nazi nuclear program.

Heisenberg's main achievement was his "Uncertainty Principle"; the realization that the more we established a particle's velocity, the less we are able to determine it's location, and vice-versa. And not just because of a technically limited ability to measure those properties, but because uncertainty is a basic property of sub-molecular form. Uncertainty at the base level of matter was a new and fascinating notion. Extending the idea from the microscopic to the macroscopic world was philosophically inviting. Nietzsche's "Beyond Good And Evil" was a popular read among the intellectuals of 1930's Europe, and it had two well-placed admirers.
Heisenberg found Nietzsche's thesis intriquing. Hitler found it useful. Finding no certain justification to condemn the morality of Hitler over any other, Heisenberg led Hitler's nuclear project, his quest for the atomic bomb.

In America, Albert Einstein implored President Roosevelt to get to work on an atomic weapon...as Heisenberg would surely be making significant progress. Although having made a late start, the Robert Oppenheimer-led Manhatten Project succeeded where Heisenberg's project had failed. Perhaps it was because the best scientists had fled Europe, or perhaps it was because Heisenberg's heart wasn't wholly in it. Either way, one thing that the Nazi atomic bomb project lacked was moral purpose.

It isn't very "intellectual" to talk about moral purpose. Intellectualism is, by default, academic; thoughtful, unextreme...inconclusive. But one wonders in what way that kind of academic non-definitiveness applies to the real world. Moral relativism may be a kind of denial; an "intellectual selflessness". But since when are we ever not ourselves? That amorality is a kind of unreality poetically seems to be self-evidenced by the fact that when a particular point is moot we call it "academic." Thought experiments that don't interface with life experience are moot. They are academic.

France (at times anyway) doesn't consider morality to be a moot point. When Princess Diana et al were killed in a car crash resulting from a high-speed evasion of paparazzi photographers on motorbikes, French (or, perhaps, merely Parisian) law was to come down hard on the bystanders, including the paparazzi, who offered no assistance to the crash victims. Parisians agree, then, that bystanders to a tragedy are not innocent, they are involved in the moment at hand just as much as are the victims and victimizers. To excuse one's self from the events at hand, especially moments of tragedy and/or atrocity, is to have chosen alienation over empathy; selfishness over selflessness. Amorality then reveals itself to be more than a bit self-serving.

Elie Weisel spent some time in a Nazi concentration camp. He's a Pulitzer Prize winning author whom wrote, in "Man In Search Of Himself", about that experience; and his education as a result of it. I remember clearly he imploring President Clinton (at--if memory serves--the 50th anniversay of D-Day commemorative service on June 6th, 1994) not to look the other way while "ethnic cleaning" scourged within what was left of Yugoslavia. What struck me the most was that I discerned a curious expression on the President's face as Weisel, staring to his right and directly at the President, called for what sounded like international intrusiveness. Clinton's expression seemed thoughtful...yet agitatedly so. Actually, the expression had an almost nervously self-conscious dismissiveness to it. Aw hell; Clinton seemed downright irritated by the appeal, as if he were mulling through his mind "Who are we to do this?"

Bill Clinton did eventually do it. He knew he had to intervene because, morally, it was right. And, instructively, he didn't waste time trying to corral the U.N. He simply chose not to join in the synchronous writhing of the Security Council's endlessly contorted academic self-doubt.

Today, with respect to Iraq, the U.N. is trying to decide if it cares whether or not it enforces it's own resolutions. It seems to me that the time has come to either enforce them, repeal them, or just whistle merrily down the same path to obsolescence first blazed by the League of Nations. Wake up and smell the East River, boys; to lead is to choose.

I've seen coverage of the large anti-war rallies that have recently filled world capitals...heard their arguments...witnessed their vitriol at the very idea that we have a "right" to depose a "sovereign" tyrant. In New York I saw Americans; Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, African-Americans, German-Americans. But we have to ask: where were the Iraqi-Americans? More specifically, where were the Iraqis whom are free to protest?

They were in Jordan, having crossed the border under cover of the darkest nights they've ever had to find the strength to see each other through. They were in American cities, too, pleading for the libertation of their country and their countrymen. We won't find Iraqi-Americans at the anti-war rallies, because they know all too well something every willfully ethically conflicted academician will never know: moral purpose. Iraqis know what evil is because they've seen what it does.

And so have we. Todd Beamer, Jeremy Glick, and the others...all the others; the guy with a steak knife ready to take on his first fight since 2nd grade...the flight attendent with the pot of piping hot coffee--ready to splash it over a high-jacker's face and hands...the Air Force pilot who would take the hot seat if the insurgence were to be--fingers crossed--successful.

Each woke up that morning an average Joe, a plain ol' Jane...same as we had. They, too, had grown up with cats and dogs and slingshots and Mr. Rogers... only they suddenly found themselves in a circumstance where they'd make themselves fully locked and loaded and determined to assault their captors with a brutality that they, up to that moment, probably thought could only arise from within a darkened heart. Yet, all they did was refuse to accept that their fates were sealed.
They knew that they were likely to die trying. And if they couldn't take back that plane, they would at least spare the lives of others at the sheep-shaggers' intended target.

Morality is something we can--and should--examine; but not as a maze of semantic vaguery that we'll never be able to exit. Sometimes we don't think we know that as clearly as we do. The passengers of flight 93 weren't constipated with some academic uncertainty when they faced their moment of decision. They made a choice (perhaps--I hope--the only choice that we could have made), and it was correct. We know that because we honor their choice.
And not just because it may have saved others on the ground. We, I think more deeply, honor their choice because of what it showed us about ourselves. We may have Ghandi and Hitler within us, hiding and arguing somewhere in an unexplorable recess of our psyche; but we know now, through vivid example, that we have every reason to expect that we too can rise above isolation, alienation, and fight...yes, fight...for the reclamation of life, liberty and dignity.

I am a very reluctant warrior, and it's taken me a long time to come around to support the mission to liberate Iraq. And it will be a struggle; ground troops will have to go in (you can't occupy a country from 15,000 feet). But I believe that the degree of horror that is Saddam's method--judging from what is known of it and what is feared to be discovered--as it terrorizes a nation, is enough madness to call us to reclaim the human nature of moral clarity from the soft-bellied doubt of a cynical academia.

Do we have to free a nation--or a region--from the terror in the mirror we call Saddam? No. But we know we can do it. And maybe that's all we need to know--because, even more deeply, we know we should do it. Because that's who we are.

2003-02-27T18:14:00.000-05:00

FRED ROGERS (1928-2003)

I learned what a platypus was from Mr. Rogers, and have some foggy memories of the puppets' personalities and voices (all done by Fred himself). But I remember the sets the most vividly; the opening pan of model streets and houses, the owl's tree, the trolley that disappeared into the wall and reappeared at King Friday XIII's castle...

But what I still, to this day, want to know is; what was the deal with that house? Who's house was it? I mean, the show opens with the panning shot, following the street en route to the little red house, and then Fred opens the door and walks into the house, but we're already in it. Then at the end he changes from loafers to shoes, sweater to jacket, and walks out the door leaving us inside. Huh? Was it supposed to be our houses he was visiting? No, 'cause Fred's stuff was in the closet, Fred's food was in the kitchen, and it's where Mr. McFeeley delivered Fred's mail. So when Mr. Rogers left at the end of the show, why was he leaving us there, and where was he going? It stymied me as a kid, and doggone it, it still does.

But my most memorable visit to Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood wasn't a childhood visit. In the summer of 1995 several friends and I took a trip up to York, Maine for a week. Norm and I were up early one morning and turned on the TV. "Wow, Mr. Rogers! Haven't seen this in twenty years!"

There was a momentus event in the Land of Make Believe; a dancing horse and Henrietta Pussycat were to be introduced.
Now, my memory of the show I'd seen in the early '70's is hazey, but I remember Henrietta. She would say things like "how meow meow are you Mister meow meow Rogers?" This time the cat was dressed as a witch. Then it started to get weird.
First they were the "World's Smallest Dancing Horse and the Talking Cat-Witch". Eventually they became "the Dancing Horse and the World's Smalling Talking Witch" ("meow meow Cat-Witch" she corrected). I wouldn't doubt that they finally ended up as "the World's Smallest Talking Horse and the Dancing Cat-Witch". Bugs and Elle joined us during the show, and we were just laughing hysterically in a post-all-nighter morning fog as the bizarre storytelling unfolded.

I also remember Fred destroying the illusion. He had model sets of the Land of Make Believe, and would set them up in a line, to show us how they might look as one. And he would occassionally show the actual model of the town that was shown in the opening and closing credits.
So I think the set was not so much a house as it was a home. It was was where we spent our special time together. Fred's sweaters were in the closet and his milk was in the 'fridge just because he was Fred and we were us. It was a special place that wasn't his or yours or mine; it was ours. It was as much a part of the Land of Make-Believe as X the Owl's treehouse.

My friend Stacy, back in high school, met Fred Rogers on the Metroline commuter train that runs from New Haven to New York City. She got his autograph, and gave it to me:

"To Bob, Best wishes from your TV neighbor. Mr. Rogers 1980." I still have it. It's something I keep to remember two friends by.

2003-02-25T01:03:00.000-05:00

WHAT IS LOVE?

I totally owe Dawn Olsen for inspiring this drivel:

Love is like time; I know what it is until you ask me what it is...then I don't know. But much of the the character of love is time.

Patience is, I think, the best clue. We have the most patience with those we love the most.
Love is where we invest ourselves. We live our lives WITH other people, other things, otherness. Eager for connection. Maybe it isn't always pleasant, but it's what we want anyway.
Love is generous and needful, like any event...any relationship "Please make the most of me--I promise I'll make the most of you." Love is the meaning of life. Without the promise of love why would we even bother.

To see the view from the top of the mountain is worth the effort to climb it. Love is worth that struggle, all of it. But some have climbed that mountain and fallen from it--or have been pushed from it--and have decided that's it's better to settle in the valley than to struggle up the mountainside again.
Maybe the view wasn't worth the heartache. Maybe the view wasn't all it was cracked up to be.

Then, sometimes you climb the mountain and not fall off; but rather the mountain sinks and eventually crumbles underneath you.
Or, maybe, you're on the summit, she's brilliant and beautiful, you love each other like crazy...then she guzzles a bottle of uppers and hangs herself with the belt to your bathrobe. The view suddenly looks really really different. So you fold your arms, whistle a happy tune, and amble back down the mountain...with no regrets.

Yeah, sometimes we'll wonder why we even bother. That's normal enough. Then my nephew will wonder aloud how a camera works, coin the phrase "lunch powder", and refuse to smell his cousin's fragrant hair. ("Smell ya later" he said.)
We could spend our lives pondering just what love is, and why we should bother it. Me? I don't waste my time anymore. Say cheese and pass the lunch powder.

Smell ya later...

2003-02-24T22:26:00.000-05:00

WHO BY FIRE? revisited

In "Who By Fire" [see below] I intentionally implied that the band, Great White, might be foremost to blame for the tragedy at The Station nightclub in West Warwick, Rhode Island--and they surely share in that blame. But, as I also, by careful caveat, said that we don't have enough information yet to make any solid determination of who is ultimately responsible. But as more and more information becomes available, it's looking more and more like there's plenty of blame to go around.

This item casts doubt on the club owners' complicity, and the fire inspector's incompetence, in an ever more apparent sleepwalk to disaster.
Darn it, my gut feeling told me that that club owner, in that press statement, was maybe...hmmm...over-emoting. Maybe he was protesting to much(?). All concerned seem to have been force-feeding their time into a routine they'd all been through a thousand times before--comforted by the experience that it had all passed before without incident.

Why not gather the band, the club owners and the fire safety inspectors in a grand circle jerk of professional indifference and shower them all with the sparks of a dozen shows-worth of fireworks until they pass out from the pain? Huh? Then maybe wake 'em up and start again?

Yeah, okay; maybe only the material victims of that holocaust can claim a right of vengeance. But they're all dead.

2003-02-23T18:12:00.000-05:00

INDEPENDENCE vs. THE COURTS
Entrenchment of the Incumbant Party

Well, the 2002 election ballots are still warm and the 2004 cycle has begun. Richard Gephardt becomes the 47th Democrat to announce his intention to seek the nomination, John McCain is mulling over a possibility that he might challenge George W. Bush for the Republican nod. Or is he...?

It may seem like old news now, but when all this talk of election campaigns starts raging, my thoughts often turn to that travesty of a New Jersey Supreme Court decision made last October. You remember the one: Robert Torricelli--in a scandal induced freefall in the polls--bowed out of the race in order to be replaced on the ballot by a Democrat who had a chance of winning. The one where State law was tossed aside by the Democrat-packed bench. The one where the so-called "two-party system" was officially codified into law.

In 2000, Sen. McCain threatened court action in the case of the New York state Republican primary--where George W. Bush was the only one of the several contestants listed since, by law, the Republican Party of New York had the right to list only the candidate(s) it wished to list. Steve Forbes, in a televised debate, spoke against the practice as the institution of "a Soviet-style" forced party conformity. Shouldn't Republican primary voters have a choice among willing candidates? While the inner-workings of a political party may seem out of the jurisdiction of a state court; the outer-workings of a general election are clearly subject to existing statute. If McCain decides to seek a "third-party" nomination in '04, he may find his tussle with the New York Republicans to have been inadequate preparation for what lies ahead.

There are many reasons to protest the 2002 NJSC ruling. Sure, they ignored the statutory 51-day deadline for a party to change it's Statewide ballot. Sure, they substituted their definition of a "right to vote" for the Legislatures Constitutional authority to proscribe the voting process. Sure, they invoked their "duty" to divine the legislative intent of a statute that was wholly unambiguous. But those aren't my main concerns with the ruling. (Those are, of course, important concerns. But, for the sake of this post, I'll confine myself to the most unprecedented aspect of the ruling.)

Consider this seemingly high-minded portion:

"...the Court being of the view that -(it) is in the public interest and the general intent of the election laws to preserve the two-party system and to submit to the electorate a ballot bearing the names of candidates of both major political parties as well as all other qualifying parties and groups." "And the Court remaining of the view that the election statutes should be liberally construed --to allow the greatest scope for public participation in the electoral process, to allow candidates to get on the ballot, to allow parties to put their candidates on the ballot, and most importantly, to allow the voters a choice on Election Day."

Since they are claiming that this ruling, on the clear and unambiguous election law, is to "preserve the two-party system", and to make sure that candidates "of the two major parties" get on the ballot, they are stating in no uncertain terms that the Democrat and Republican parties (the Incumbant Party) are to be treated, in a court of law, with priviledge and deference not to be extended to any other party. The "Soviet-style" establishment of political parties has taken root in the New Jersey Judicial branch.

Political parties are not government institutions, they are associations of citizens pooling their resources and working together toward a common cause. The candidate on the New Jersey ballot was Bob Torricelli, not the Democratic Party.
Their defense of voter choice, as they consider that to be "most important", is completely indefensible. The voters had, as allowed by law, a Democrat candidate on the ballot--and his name was Torricelli. There were also six other candidates on the ballot. The fiat that there would have been no choice without both major-party's fronting of a candidate establishes that "third-party" candidates (no matter how many there are, they're always called "third-party" candidates) are henceforth functionally illegitimate; they offer no choice: they are not an option.

One can only conclude that if the New Jersey Legislature were to exercise their constitutional authority and, as was once common practice, appoint their Senators, the NJSC would have to rule that action unconstitutional. Also, that if the justices of NJ were instead in Massachusetts, or Virginia, or any of hundreds of other states, towns and districts, that uncontested elections (such as the uncontested re-election campaigns of John Kerry [D-Ma] and John Warner [R-Va]) would have to be ruled unconstitutional. Shall we mandate that political parties must sponsor a candidate? Should that mandate be restricted only to the "major" parties?. Is that any of the Courts damn business?

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, we've been told. New Jersey may have saved the Democratic Party from defeat last November, but they've paved the way for all "non-major" parties to be lawfully discriminated against in the future. These "third parties" are also associations of citizens pooling their resources and working together for a common cause, and entitled to equal protection under the law. Yet the Court, by virtue of the very stated rationale that formed it's judgement in the Torricelli case, has ruled against them. Shall we all hail the death of dissent?

2003-02-23T13:56:00.000-05:00

UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS
The legislation that ate my freedom

Seems US Congressmen actually take notice when they realize that the victims of their well-intentioned incremental erosion of liberty turn out to be themselves.
It just makes me giddy these politicians will pass campaign laws they haven't read. They don't notice it--or care--that much when their willful incompetence governs the rest of us, but when the unintended consequences come back to bite them, well, they're positively horrified.

See Wednesday's New York Times story on the McCain-Feingold seminars. It made my week!

Seeing the number of constitutional issues involved (speech, assembly, due process, equal protection et al), one can't help but be further convinced that legislators are willing to knowingly pass unconstitutional laws, add language about "severability", and wait and see if the courts will bother to clean up the mess. In fear that opposition to a popular measure (though campaign finance reform never really was "popular") in defense of the Constitution and rule of law--as they'd taken an oath to do--may not sit well with their constituency, the alleged protectors of liberty shrug, pass the buck, and become the architects of tyranny.

The precedents for this operative contempt for the Constitution have been mounting. The national speed limit, the national drinking age, the Controlled Substances Act, and many others, all claim Federal authority in areas where none is granted by the Constitution.

In the Controlled Substances Act, title 21 sec 801, the difference between inter-state commerce and intra-state commerce is made irrelevent in Federal Satute when the needs of the Government to enforce the spirit of it's pet policies are literally limited by Art. I sec. 8.
In the speed limit and drinking age laws, the 10th amendment is overrun by Federal extortion and strong-arming. The statutes even go so far as to claim that the States still retain their sovereignty since they are free to make a choice about where their Federal dollars are going to be directed; for roads and highways-as they're designed to be, or for public service projects to educate the unwashed masses about the evils of drinking and driving.

When a State or Individual's "free choice" carries consequences, and retaliation, from the Federal government, that Constitutionally protected Sovereignty no longer exists.

2003-02-22T18:06:00.000-05:00

WHO BY FIRE?

A live performer will do almost anything to excite his audience.
I say this as a live performer and as a member of many audiences. It's hard to give up a dream...especially one that's become a way of life. When a fisherman wakes up to discover that half the world has gone vegetarian he'll work twice as hard to corner as much of the market that remains. It's his livelihood afterall.

Last week I watched JAWS for the umpteenth time. By now you'd think I could quote the script word for word from memory. But I can't. The scenes I have the most trouble remembering by rote--particularly the inflections--are the ones that move me the most; the ones that put a lump in my throat that would choke a snake.
"It's a man-eater...it's a Great White!" Matt Hooper tells the Mayor of Amity Island. At least I think those are the exact words.

I read something somewhere recently where Peter Benchley (author of book-form Jaws) talked about his struggle to settle on a title for his story. "Jaws Of Death." "Within The Jaws." "When Jaws Attack" and other such options. The only word anyone liked was "Jaws", and so it became just that.

"In a suburb of Providence, Rhode Island, the '80's band Great White..." the radio spit out before I could hit the snooze button. "Sharks in New England again..." I thought. "...were playing a concert at a nightclub called The Station when a pyrotechnics display set the club ablaze."
More details followed. 30 patrons have perished. Then 35 were gone. The number was sure to rise, we were told.

I'd heard of the band, I must have. Heck, they were nominated for a Grammy--so we're now informed. I don't know their music. But I know now that they began their show; and moments into the opening number sparks were flying. A magnificent site judging from the video that's been playing on the news--taken inside the club by a film-maker doing a documentary on nightclub safety. Yes, the crowd was shouting, woo-hoo'ing, bottles of beer ritually raised in the air. Then there was fire behind the band. A guitar player, tight, a trooper going through his well-practiced riffs and phrases, was staring at the wall. Something had gone terribly wrong, the band played on. Three minutes later a hundred people were dead or dying. The rest were bottle-necked at the front door, firemen trying to pull them apart, to jostle them free. Three minutes; not even enough time to wonder how on God's green earth this could have happened.

"Stare not for too long a time into the fire, lest fire soon be all ye see," someone had cautioned Ishmael in Moby-Dick. Ishmael was mesmerized by burning whale oil, but his cautioner was talking about something else: obsession.

The assignment of blame has begun. The club owners claim they were never asked for permission for the band to use fireworks. The band claims that they asked, and were granted, permission verbally. The club owners had no permit to have pyrotechnic displays in their venue. At least four club owners who've hosted earlier dates in Great White's tour--the Stone Pony in New Jersey for one--claim that the band used those sparklers without permission. Some others say that the band had asked for permission, were denied, and obliged without protest.

Whatever the truth is--and we don't have enough information yet to know what the truth is--someone has made a grave miscalculation.

Could the club owners have been so obsessed with an inflated patronage that they allowed pyrotechnics in the 60-year-old low-ceiling wooden structure?
Could the band have been so obsessed with exciting their audience that they would use the white hot visual aids without regard to the niceties of written permission?
A live preformer will do almost anything to excite his audience. Being that the patrons weren't expecting any fireworks when they arrived at the door; one of those options seems more likely than the other.

2003-02-22T16:51:00.000-05:00

LINK #1

And now; a test of my ability, or inability, to add a link to a post. As a 2nd Amendment guy I choose my first link to be this. I hope that reads "this" and nothing else after I post it. Here goes...

2003-02-22T14:13:00.000-05:00

YOU LEAVE ME NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO ASK YOU NICELY AGAIN!

Apparently the "severe consequences" mentioned in UN res. 1441 that were to befall Saddam should he fail to disarm--or show proof that he has disarmed--did NOT refer to military action in the mind's of the French, German et al UN delegations. The "severe consequences" were to be more debate and, possibly, more resolutions. Judging by the headache all of this is giving me, those are indeed severe consequences. Not for Saddam, of course, but for free people around the globe and those yearning to breathe free in Iraq.

2003-02-22T13:39:00.000-05:00

AND SO IT BEGINS
Welcome to Blather Review courtesy of blogger.com!
I hope this will be an interesting read for a long time to come.