i'm back, though not with anything good to say. the vacation included the aforementioned flu, several rousing (read: loud) debates on political philosophy, and (after the flu) way too much chocolate.
i also had time to visit grand forks (albeit for only 24 hours). anne put together a truly excellent fondue party, and the next morning we went to the urban, where i saw one of my close high school friends for the first time in something like two years. if i had jenni to hang out with, maybe i could just about handle living in san diego. maybe.
trying to adjust to the vacation length recognized by the real world is no fun -- anything less than two weeks at home, and i don't even have time to sleep well. alas...
25 December 2003
19 December 2003
read this molly ivins essay on george w. bush's blindness to the havoc he has created. ivins is right on so many levels here. the anti-intellectualism, yes. the blatant and seemingly impenetrable class bias, yes.
but she gives short shrift to bush's most major shortcoming, religiosity. not that religiosity in itself is a shortcoming (this is me writing here, after all). it's just that bush's particular brand of christianity appears to have very little substance other than happy, self-satisfied feelings and the opportunity to smile beatifically outside some methodist church every once in a while.
i'm sure it wasn't always, but i think bush's disastrous spiritual life is now a substantial driver of his other biases, blindnesses, and cruelties. we all know he's "born again," whatever that means, and apparently that makes him nicer to his wife and less dependent on substances. unfortunately, it has also made him painfully, embarrassingly smug. i bet bush goes to a church a lot like the one i attended growing up: there's a liturgy, and some pretty music, and sermons that never direct or exhort. i bet the bushes hear about things like "simplifying" one's life, and are never told explicitly that simplification involves sacrifice and humility. i bet they are enjoined not to commit adultery, and warned about the evils and social ills of modern society, and never challenged to think about the effect of their own affluence on the problems of society.
i sat in the balcony at church last week, right next to ledlie at the high pulpit. he got a little teary when he was talking about the people who were maimed or injured or forced to live in poverty so that he could wear silk for preaching. sitting next to the slanty ceiling, i had a vision: me, ripping the gospel reading out of the lectionary and affixing it to bush's face.
the gospel (from luke, john the baptist is speaking) reads in pertinent part:
3:10 And the crowds asked him, "What then should we do?"
3:11 In reply he said to them, "Whoever has two coats must share with anyone
who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise."
i know it's not nice to want to tape/staple the president's head, but it's also not nice to read the bible only for your own benefit. when i talk to people who are angry and distrustful at christianity in general, they have people like george w. bush in mind -- people who support the "defense of marriage," but undermine the poor, from whose labor, over generations, their own families have become wealthy.
note the important phrase people like before bush's name: it's not just the president, although given his power to destroy he is particularly guilty. i am worried about all of us who, at one time or another, have been religious in an easy, self-serving way, a way that allows us to ignore the wisdom of people who know better or to turn our eyes from the consequences of our actions.
but she gives short shrift to bush's most major shortcoming, religiosity. not that religiosity in itself is a shortcoming (this is me writing here, after all). it's just that bush's particular brand of christianity appears to have very little substance other than happy, self-satisfied feelings and the opportunity to smile beatifically outside some methodist church every once in a while.
i'm sure it wasn't always, but i think bush's disastrous spiritual life is now a substantial driver of his other biases, blindnesses, and cruelties. we all know he's "born again," whatever that means, and apparently that makes him nicer to his wife and less dependent on substances. unfortunately, it has also made him painfully, embarrassingly smug. i bet bush goes to a church a lot like the one i attended growing up: there's a liturgy, and some pretty music, and sermons that never direct or exhort. i bet the bushes hear about things like "simplifying" one's life, and are never told explicitly that simplification involves sacrifice and humility. i bet they are enjoined not to commit adultery, and warned about the evils and social ills of modern society, and never challenged to think about the effect of their own affluence on the problems of society.
i sat in the balcony at church last week, right next to ledlie at the high pulpit. he got a little teary when he was talking about the people who were maimed or injured or forced to live in poverty so that he could wear silk for preaching. sitting next to the slanty ceiling, i had a vision: me, ripping the gospel reading out of the lectionary and affixing it to bush's face.
the gospel (from luke, john the baptist is speaking) reads in pertinent part:
3:10 And the crowds asked him, "What then should we do?"
3:11 In reply he said to them, "Whoever has two coats must share with anyone
who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise."
i know it's not nice to want to tape/staple the president's head, but it's also not nice to read the bible only for your own benefit. when i talk to people who are angry and distrustful at christianity in general, they have people like george w. bush in mind -- people who support the "defense of marriage," but undermine the poor, from whose labor, over generations, their own families have become wealthy.
note the important phrase people like before bush's name: it's not just the president, although given his power to destroy he is particularly guilty. i am worried about all of us who, at one time or another, have been religious in an easy, self-serving way, a way that allows us to ignore the wisdom of people who know better or to turn our eyes from the consequences of our actions.
17 December 2003
ok...i know i said "bring on the schism" a whole bunch of times back in the summer. but this news still makes me sad.
as is pointed out in the article, it's not as if this is a move that will lead immediately to the dissolution of the episcopal church as we know it. it does, however, signal a maddening fundamentalist trend in my heretofore pretty thoughtful church. what a shame. i am more glad than ever that my own church doesn't support this sort of terroristic christianity.
the right christians had an interesting post yesterday regarding fundamentalists' need for biblical inerrancy. allen brill (smart man) wrote, "To prevail, he must cling both to a narrow interpretation of the Bible and biblical inerrancy, neither of which can be supported by a full and honest reading of the text."
the key words here, both for albert mohler (about whom brill was writing) and for conservative episcopalians, are "to prevail." what mohler's piece essentially admits is that he has a specific preference for social organization -- traditional roles for women and nonrecognition of homosexuality -- which must be inserted into the bible on a narrow and ill-informed reading thereof.
luckily for everyone, the bible is not about albert mohler's, or the diocese of fort worth's, preferences for traditionalism. it is not a tool with which political agendas are to be supported. the bible is radical, always has been, and its only clear agenda (on my reading, at least) is all-inclusive, self-sacrificing, revolutionary love.
as is pointed out in the article, it's not as if this is a move that will lead immediately to the dissolution of the episcopal church as we know it. it does, however, signal a maddening fundamentalist trend in my heretofore pretty thoughtful church. what a shame. i am more glad than ever that my own church doesn't support this sort of terroristic christianity.
the right christians had an interesting post yesterday regarding fundamentalists' need for biblical inerrancy. allen brill (smart man) wrote, "To prevail, he must cling both to a narrow interpretation of the Bible and biblical inerrancy, neither of which can be supported by a full and honest reading of the text."
the key words here, both for albert mohler (about whom brill was writing) and for conservative episcopalians, are "to prevail." what mohler's piece essentially admits is that he has a specific preference for social organization -- traditional roles for women and nonrecognition of homosexuality -- which must be inserted into the bible on a narrow and ill-informed reading thereof.
luckily for everyone, the bible is not about albert mohler's, or the diocese of fort worth's, preferences for traditionalism. it is not a tool with which political agendas are to be supported. the bible is radical, always has been, and its only clear agenda (on my reading, at least) is all-inclusive, self-sacrificing, revolutionary love.
damn it!
i really thought i was going to be able to bolster my not-a-kneejerk-partisan credentials by trumpeting my support for george ryan...but i guess it's not to be. seriously, is there anything sadder than finding out that a person you thought was really impressive, really respectable, is actually just...typical?
[actually, yes, there is. i find that politicians who never experience their moment of mercy and humility waaaay more upsetting than a guy like ryan. ahem, george w. bush. nevertheless...how upsetting.]
i really thought i was going to be able to bolster my not-a-kneejerk-partisan credentials by trumpeting my support for george ryan...but i guess it's not to be. seriously, is there anything sadder than finding out that a person you thought was really impressive, really respectable, is actually just...typical?
[actually, yes, there is. i find that politicians who never experience their moment of mercy and humility waaaay more upsetting than a guy like ryan. ahem, george w. bush. nevertheless...how upsetting.]
emergency contraception is going otc.
...and, predictably, opponents of contraception and abortion are up in arms, saying EC will usher in a whole new era of libertinism. as usual, the argument is that without threat of 'punishment,' pregnancy for example, people (by which they mean female teenagers) will be having indiscriminate sex with practically everyone they can find to have indiscriminate sex with.
have they been living in caves? (or maybe in holes? in iraq?) there is no evidence that the provision of contraception causes more sex among teenagers. none.
i shouldn't be so surprised, though. this is not about science, and it's not really even about sex. it's about power and control. every new method of contraception is a new opportunity for women to gain autonomy over their bodies, their sexual lives and their plans. and every new opportunity for autonomy is a threat to people bent on vesting all substantive authority in males.
as alyssa would say, ay chihuahua.
...and, predictably, opponents of contraception and abortion are up in arms, saying EC will usher in a whole new era of libertinism. as usual, the argument is that without threat of 'punishment,' pregnancy for example, people (by which they mean female teenagers) will be having indiscriminate sex with practically everyone they can find to have indiscriminate sex with.
have they been living in caves? (or maybe in holes? in iraq?) there is no evidence that the provision of contraception causes more sex among teenagers. none.
i shouldn't be so surprised, though. this is not about science, and it's not really even about sex. it's about power and control. every new method of contraception is a new opportunity for women to gain autonomy over their bodies, their sexual lives and their plans. and every new opportunity for autonomy is a threat to people bent on vesting all substantive authority in males.
as alyssa would say, ay chihuahua.
16 December 2003
postgraduate admissions = class warfare 101
here is an itemized list of things i have spent money on so far in the grad school/law school game, in no particular order:
1. GRE -- $115 (required)
2. LSAT -- $108 (required)
3. LSAT -- $108
4. LSDAS -- $99 (required)
5. LSDAS second report -- $10 (required)
6. harvard application fee -- $80 (required)
7. yale application fee -- $85 (required)
8. michigan application fee -- $60 (required)
9. berkeley application fee -- $60 (required)
10. san diego application fee -- $60 (required)
11. nyu application fee -- $60 (required)
12. penn application fee -- $60 (required)
13. LSACD online applications -- $54
14. postage and copies -- ~$15 (required)
add that up in your head (if you can). it comes to $974. that is well over half of my monthly income. it is well over twice my monthly rent. and it's wrong. you will say, "but amelia, you could have gotten a fee waiver if you weren't such a lazy bastard." and you will be right. on the other hand, i don't much appreciate that the penalty for being (absolutely or relatively or whatever) poor is that you have to know, absolutely, what you're doing, several months before anyone else does. applying for a fee waiver means finding tax returns and pay stubs and writing embarrassing little essays about why you don't have any money for this and why the school should take pity on you. i did that for college admissions, and i hated it. this time around, despite my best efforts, i was so unsure of my plans that i didn't even have the opportunity.
the scariest part is knowing that i may have dropped a thousand bucks for nothing. there aren't any safety schools because (a) i'm not interested in safety schools, really and (b) i couldn't afford it even if i were. oh well...i guess i just wait until march, now.
here is an itemized list of things i have spent money on so far in the grad school/law school game, in no particular order:
1. GRE -- $115 (required)
2. LSAT -- $108 (required)
3. LSAT -- $108
4. LSDAS -- $99 (required)
5. LSDAS second report -- $10 (required)
6. harvard application fee -- $80 (required)
7. yale application fee -- $85 (required)
8. michigan application fee -- $60 (required)
9. berkeley application fee -- $60 (required)
10. san diego application fee -- $60 (required)
11. nyu application fee -- $60 (required)
12. penn application fee -- $60 (required)
13. LSACD online applications -- $54
14. postage and copies -- ~$15 (required)
add that up in your head (if you can). it comes to $974. that is well over half of my monthly income. it is well over twice my monthly rent. and it's wrong. you will say, "but amelia, you could have gotten a fee waiver if you weren't such a lazy bastard." and you will be right. on the other hand, i don't much appreciate that the penalty for being (absolutely or relatively or whatever) poor is that you have to know, absolutely, what you're doing, several months before anyone else does. applying for a fee waiver means finding tax returns and pay stubs and writing embarrassing little essays about why you don't have any money for this and why the school should take pity on you. i did that for college admissions, and i hated it. this time around, despite my best efforts, i was so unsure of my plans that i didn't even have the opportunity.
the scariest part is knowing that i may have dropped a thousand bucks for nothing. there aren't any safety schools because (a) i'm not interested in safety schools, really and (b) i couldn't afford it even if i were. oh well...i guess i just wait until march, now.
15 December 2003
i wish perestroika were as good as millennium approaches.
we watched the second half of hbo's angels in america adaptation last night. it felt clunky. and...still compelling, though nothing like the first part. in the context of now, 2003 as opposed to 1993 (when the plays were written) the most tragic part of it is kushner's assertion (essentially the final words of the play) that people with AIDS will no longer die secret deaths.
i mean, thank God for protease inhibitors, but AIDS is not a chronic-but-manageable condition, really. it's still not containable. and...like good americans, we have forgotten the suffering of the rest of the world now that the suffering here in the US is a little more muted. there are millions of people dying deaths in africa that might not be secret there, but that don't get much attention over here. millions.
on a theatre, as opposed to a world-crisis, level, perestroika is just too grasping. alyssa said that it tries to answer too many of its questions, and i agree. the strongest parts of millennium approaches (and DAMN are they strong) are the exchanges between individuals -- conversations between louis and prior, joe and louis in the bathroom, joe and harper, roy cohn and ethel rosenberg. they manage to introduce huge and important themes without a big blinking sign that says LOOK! HUGE IMPORTANT THEMES AHEAD!
perestroika doesn't do so well with its big ideas. they are mostly just that -- ideas -- and we're never quite sure why, or if, we care. in the end, i just wasn't impressed with the mike nichols/emma thompson rendering of the angel -- the embodiment of these big ideas. still...the roy cohn scenes were incredible. it's a testament to the power of tony kushner's imagination that we can feel so disgusted, and appalled, and angry, at this man and still want ethel rosenberg to sing to him before he dies. and he killed her!
wow.
we watched the second half of hbo's angels in america adaptation last night. it felt clunky. and...still compelling, though nothing like the first part. in the context of now, 2003 as opposed to 1993 (when the plays were written) the most tragic part of it is kushner's assertion (essentially the final words of the play) that people with AIDS will no longer die secret deaths.
i mean, thank God for protease inhibitors, but AIDS is not a chronic-but-manageable condition, really. it's still not containable. and...like good americans, we have forgotten the suffering of the rest of the world now that the suffering here in the US is a little more muted. there are millions of people dying deaths in africa that might not be secret there, but that don't get much attention over here. millions.
on a theatre, as opposed to a world-crisis, level, perestroika is just too grasping. alyssa said that it tries to answer too many of its questions, and i agree. the strongest parts of millennium approaches (and DAMN are they strong) are the exchanges between individuals -- conversations between louis and prior, joe and louis in the bathroom, joe and harper, roy cohn and ethel rosenberg. they manage to introduce huge and important themes without a big blinking sign that says LOOK! HUGE IMPORTANT THEMES AHEAD!
perestroika doesn't do so well with its big ideas. they are mostly just that -- ideas -- and we're never quite sure why, or if, we care. in the end, i just wasn't impressed with the mike nichols/emma thompson rendering of the angel -- the embodiment of these big ideas. still...the roy cohn scenes were incredible. it's a testament to the power of tony kushner's imagination that we can feel so disgusted, and appalled, and angry, at this man and still want ethel rosenberg to sing to him before he dies. and he killed her!
wow.
12 December 2003
[howl of intellectual agony::warning -- poorly organized rant to follow]
since i'm currently engaged in The Most Boring Possible Paralegal Task (digesting depositions, thank you very much), i've spent a fair number of minutes this morning reading the "should i go to grad school" thread on invisible adjunct. this is, of course, an argument that's been flopping around in my head quite a lot lately. should i go to grad school? well, as with every question, it depends on whom you ask. it also depends on the day, of course...some of my advisors seem enthusiastic one day and completely down on me the next.
more importantly, it depends on what and where the person you ask is. it shocks me, absolutely shocks me, that my swarthmore professors (and other swarthmore professors: read tim burke for a really good example) are often so cynical and exclusive about who can go to grad school, where one has to go to grad school, and what will happen to you during and afterwards. i spent the first almost-eighteen years of my life outside the lofty realm that is east coast academe, and in that time it always seemed that grad school was something you could do if you wanted to. something honorable, yet not unreachable. "indoors, no heavy lifting," my dad always says.
now it all seems unreachable. and expensive. and uncertain. it's a measure of my privilege that this is approximately the first time that the "do i actually want to" and "should i" and "can i" questions might all have different answers. ("absolutely;" "depends on where;" "there is a slim possibility," respectively.) the politics of the application process are incredibly confusing and arcane, the application process itself is sinfully expensive, and apparently everyone on the face of the earth currently wants a political science ph.d. BUT...somehow i can't go back to the midwestern second tier. i love my father and respect his scholarship, quite a lot, but i have less than no inclination to teach at UND, or st. cloud state, or, God forbid, st. thomas.
why? well, part of it, i must admit, has to do with my now-much-regretted childhood habit of reading papers written for my dad and correcting the grammatical errors (there were often many). and then there's the part where many smart folks i know from, say, UND, have become increasingly reactionary on the topic of identity politics -- simply because of their exposure to colleagues whose intellectual laziness and personal insecurity should require that they not be allowed to read pomo without a chaperone.
...none of which is to say that ungrammatical grad students and lockstep leftists don't exist at, say, harvard -- just that the proportion is smaller.
so i will bitch, and moan, and wish the application processes at the harvards and yales weren't what it evidently is, and nevertheless i will submit myself to this torture in the hopes that eventually i can be in a position to tell people like me that only academical demigods such as myself can and should go to graduate school.
...either that, or i'll go to law school. i won't be as fulfilled, but i'll be not-quite-as-fulfilled in three years flat.
since i'm currently engaged in The Most Boring Possible Paralegal Task (digesting depositions, thank you very much), i've spent a fair number of minutes this morning reading the "should i go to grad school" thread on invisible adjunct. this is, of course, an argument that's been flopping around in my head quite a lot lately. should i go to grad school? well, as with every question, it depends on whom you ask. it also depends on the day, of course...some of my advisors seem enthusiastic one day and completely down on me the next.
more importantly, it depends on what and where the person you ask is. it shocks me, absolutely shocks me, that my swarthmore professors (and other swarthmore professors: read tim burke for a really good example) are often so cynical and exclusive about who can go to grad school, where one has to go to grad school, and what will happen to you during and afterwards. i spent the first almost-eighteen years of my life outside the lofty realm that is east coast academe, and in that time it always seemed that grad school was something you could do if you wanted to. something honorable, yet not unreachable. "indoors, no heavy lifting," my dad always says.
now it all seems unreachable. and expensive. and uncertain. it's a measure of my privilege that this is approximately the first time that the "do i actually want to" and "should i" and "can i" questions might all have different answers. ("absolutely;" "depends on where;" "there is a slim possibility," respectively.) the politics of the application process are incredibly confusing and arcane, the application process itself is sinfully expensive, and apparently everyone on the face of the earth currently wants a political science ph.d. BUT...somehow i can't go back to the midwestern second tier. i love my father and respect his scholarship, quite a lot, but i have less than no inclination to teach at UND, or st. cloud state, or, God forbid, st. thomas.
why? well, part of it, i must admit, has to do with my now-much-regretted childhood habit of reading papers written for my dad and correcting the grammatical errors (there were often many). and then there's the part where many smart folks i know from, say, UND, have become increasingly reactionary on the topic of identity politics -- simply because of their exposure to colleagues whose intellectual laziness and personal insecurity should require that they not be allowed to read pomo without a chaperone.
...none of which is to say that ungrammatical grad students and lockstep leftists don't exist at, say, harvard -- just that the proportion is smaller.
so i will bitch, and moan, and wish the application processes at the harvards and yales weren't what it evidently is, and nevertheless i will submit myself to this torture in the hopes that eventually i can be in a position to tell people like me that only academical demigods such as myself can and should go to graduate school.
...either that, or i'll go to law school. i won't be as fulfilled, but i'll be not-quite-as-fulfilled in three years flat.
11 December 2003
1. she lives with her boyfriend?!?
2. you are, at least ostensibly, a candidate for president.
3. so why do the losery thing, mr. kucinich?
i mean, eyes on the prize and all, and yay for the department of peace, but i'm just not down with presidential campaigns that are nothing but goofy.
2. you are, at least ostensibly, a candidate for president.
3. so why do the losery thing, mr. kucinich?
i mean, eyes on the prize and all, and yay for the department of peace, but i'm just not down with presidential campaigns that are nothing but goofy.
well, that's interesting. the linked story is yet another example of how far we have to go before iraq can be independent again: nearly half of the 700 members of iraq's army have quit. CNN, of course, doesn't allow itself to get any ideas about why these folks might have quit -- and anyway, that's not the most interesting part of the story.
i'm much more concerned with that 700 figure. 700! an army of 700! compare that to the current american occupying force (of well over 100,000), and it becomes entirely clear that the bush administration's expected exit date (july) is...well, either an outright lie or another episode of "narnia in my closet" thinking.
i'm much more concerned with that 700 figure. 700! an army of 700! compare that to the current american occupying force (of well over 100,000), and it becomes entirely clear that the bush administration's expected exit date (july) is...well, either an outright lie or another episode of "narnia in my closet" thinking.
10 December 2003
from the right christians, a short post about senator paul simon, who died yesterday after undergoing heart surgery.
apparently, senator simon called howard dean from his hospital bed to endorse dean's candidacy for president.
apparently, senator simon called howard dean from his hospital bed to endorse dean's candidacy for president.
09 December 2003
for some reason, the previous post failed to, well, post -- until now. silly blogger.
in further bad news from my region of origin, it appears that missing und student dru sjodin is probably dead. or at least, so says the front page of the strib (check the link at left if you want). the lazy asses at the grand forks herald haven't posted anything new since early this morning, but the jist is there: her blood in the car.
no good! it's no good! and while i know bad things like this happen regularly, grand forks isn't supposed to be the sort of place where they happen. for good reason: rural midwesterners (BROAD GENERALIZATION ALERT), by and large, seem to have a poor sense of perspective when it comes to crime and criminals -- the sort of poor perspective, in fact, that lends itself to sentimental thoughts of old-fashioned retributive justice. the republican governors of north dakota and minnesota don't seem to be doing much to stanch the flow of hang-em-high rhetoric, either. (in fact, they're encouraging it.) the politics of this tragedy are precisely the sort of thing that makes me never want to move back home.
the combination of end-of-times advent lessons in church and generally evil US foreign policy and awful crimes in my previously idealizable hometown make it unpleasantly simple to think apocalyptic thoughts. i'm looking forward to christmas vacation.
in further bad news from my region of origin, it appears that missing und student dru sjodin is probably dead. or at least, so says the front page of the strib (check the link at left if you want). the lazy asses at the grand forks herald haven't posted anything new since early this morning, but the jist is there: her blood in the car.
no good! it's no good! and while i know bad things like this happen regularly, grand forks isn't supposed to be the sort of place where they happen. for good reason: rural midwesterners (BROAD GENERALIZATION ALERT), by and large, seem to have a poor sense of perspective when it comes to crime and criminals -- the sort of poor perspective, in fact, that lends itself to sentimental thoughts of old-fashioned retributive justice. the republican governors of north dakota and minnesota don't seem to be doing much to stanch the flow of hang-em-high rhetoric, either. (in fact, they're encouraging it.) the politics of this tragedy are precisely the sort of thing that makes me never want to move back home.
the combination of end-of-times advent lessons in church and generally evil US foreign policy and awful crimes in my previously idealizable hometown make it unpleasantly simple to think apocalyptic thoughts. i'm looking forward to christmas vacation.
so bill janklow is guilty.
i mean, we knew he was guilty. but now he's actually been found guilty. i'm glad, and a little surprised, that the jury did the right thing. i mean...flandreau, south dakota. i always thought vermillion was tiny, and even there the big fish in the little pond could do a whole hell of a lot, but flandreau is rural. and janklow is, or was, an extremely big fish.
part of me hopes he serves time. (of course, part of me hopes that every republican lawmaker eventually serves time, but that's a little beside the point.) maybe if janklow goes to jail he'll have time to think about the nature of responsibility and compassion. maybe he'll talk to people who have been screwed by his policy choices. maybe he'll be better for it.
...and maybe if janklow goes to jail stephanie herseth will get his seat.
i mean, we knew he was guilty. but now he's actually been found guilty. i'm glad, and a little surprised, that the jury did the right thing. i mean...flandreau, south dakota. i always thought vermillion was tiny, and even there the big fish in the little pond could do a whole hell of a lot, but flandreau is rural. and janklow is, or was, an extremely big fish.
part of me hopes he serves time. (of course, part of me hopes that every republican lawmaker eventually serves time, but that's a little beside the point.) maybe if janklow goes to jail he'll have time to think about the nature of responsibility and compassion. maybe he'll talk to people who have been screwed by his policy choices. maybe he'll be better for it.
...and maybe if janklow goes to jail stephanie herseth will get his seat.
so gore endorsed dean. that's AMAZING. i'm also slightly worried that it might drive a few of the leftiest folks away from dean's campaign -- given the (rightful) gore/lieberman bashing that essentially founded this campaign. poor joe lieberman...this is almost enough to make me feel sorry for him. but the REAL loser move comes from the kerry campaign, whose e-mail PR response to the endorsement somehow included an internal note at the top. that's just sad.
08 December 2003
midmorning break was devoted to the meyers-briggs inventory linked from ben g's site. i am a Teacher (ENFJ); Teachers are a small subset of the Idealists. clicking around on the explanatory site, i found this, and laughed out loud. so now my office thinks i'm a weenie. whatever.
dear friends,
in case you were tempted, please never ever ever ever ever go to an abercrombie and fitch store...i mean, unless you're planning on committing some vandalism.
love,
amelia
in case you were tempted, please never ever ever ever ever go to an abercrombie and fitch store...i mean, unless you're planning on committing some vandalism.
love,
amelia
we have to do better than this.
if there are still taliban and qaeda fighters in afghanistan (and there are), the united states should be devoting tremendous resources to finding them, individually, and bringing them to justice. we're not, though; instead we kill civilians--lots of them--at weddings and at dinner and drawing water and playing marbles. old people and businesspeople and mothers and fathers and, this time, lots of kids. little boys who are my brother's age, in fact. "hundreds of civilians," reads the times article.
why? what are we doing instead that makes this necessary? the answer, of course, is that we are doing iraq. we are in iraq at the cost of fighting terrorism effectively and at the even more disturbing cost of many, many innocent lives.
there was no apology from the bush administration, apparently because the bush administration doesn't give a shit. it's long past time for a new president.
=====
in other and admittedly insubstantial news, stay far far away from the monstrosity that is "love actually." this movie features several of my very favorite actors doing absolutely nothing, as well as an appallingly offensive profusion of gender stereotypes and fat jokes, all bound together by...oh wait. absolutely nothing, since there's no plot and no script. also, since when is a size-eight woman chubby? somebody kill me. no wait, kill the producers of this film. right.
if there are still taliban and qaeda fighters in afghanistan (and there are), the united states should be devoting tremendous resources to finding them, individually, and bringing them to justice. we're not, though; instead we kill civilians--lots of them--at weddings and at dinner and drawing water and playing marbles. old people and businesspeople and mothers and fathers and, this time, lots of kids. little boys who are my brother's age, in fact. "hundreds of civilians," reads the times article.
why? what are we doing instead that makes this necessary? the answer, of course, is that we are doing iraq. we are in iraq at the cost of fighting terrorism effectively and at the even more disturbing cost of many, many innocent lives.
there was no apology from the bush administration, apparently because the bush administration doesn't give a shit. it's long past time for a new president.
=====
in other and admittedly insubstantial news, stay far far away from the monstrosity that is "love actually." this movie features several of my very favorite actors doing absolutely nothing, as well as an appallingly offensive profusion of gender stereotypes and fat jokes, all bound together by...oh wait. absolutely nothing, since there's no plot and no script. also, since when is a size-eight woman chubby? somebody kill me. no wait, kill the producers of this film. right.
05 December 2003
paul krugman says,
"The prevailing theory among grown-up Republicans — yes, they still exist — seems to be that Mr. Bush is simply doing whatever it takes to win the next election. After that, he'll put the political operatives in their place, bring in the policy experts and finally get down to the business of running the country.
But I think they're in denial. Everything we know suggests that Mr. Bush's people have given as little thought to running America after the election as they gave to running Iraq after the fall of Baghdad. And they will have no idea what to do when things fall apart."
as usual, he's right -- except for the part where "grown-ups" believe in magic. i may have some sympathy for the occasional religious miracle, but in general political miracles are few and far between: it's all strategery as far as the eye can see. so can we allow that these folks in denial are really grown-ups?
the "prevailing theory" that krugman cites reminds me rather uncomfortably of a passage in nick hornby's about a boy: the main character, who has not yet truly come to terms with the consequences of lying to people you care about, recounts an episode from his childhood wherein he told a friend that a wardrobe in his parents' home, rather like the one in the lewis novels, was a portal to an alternate world. he knew it was false. he could have cancelled. but he really wanted it to be true, so he and the friend spent an embarrassing saturday afternoon poking around a large, dark closet.
the moral of the story is that, despite the desperate hopes of "grown-up republicans," there's about as much chance of responsible governance from this administration as there is of finding narnia in my bedroom closet.
another moral of the story is that nick hornby novels ROCK.
"The prevailing theory among grown-up Republicans — yes, they still exist — seems to be that Mr. Bush is simply doing whatever it takes to win the next election. After that, he'll put the political operatives in their place, bring in the policy experts and finally get down to the business of running the country.
But I think they're in denial. Everything we know suggests that Mr. Bush's people have given as little thought to running America after the election as they gave to running Iraq after the fall of Baghdad. And they will have no idea what to do when things fall apart."
as usual, he's right -- except for the part where "grown-ups" believe in magic. i may have some sympathy for the occasional religious miracle, but in general political miracles are few and far between: it's all strategery as far as the eye can see. so can we allow that these folks in denial are really grown-ups?
the "prevailing theory" that krugman cites reminds me rather uncomfortably of a passage in nick hornby's about a boy: the main character, who has not yet truly come to terms with the consequences of lying to people you care about, recounts an episode from his childhood wherein he told a friend that a wardrobe in his parents' home, rather like the one in the lewis novels, was a portal to an alternate world. he knew it was false. he could have cancelled. but he really wanted it to be true, so he and the friend spent an embarrassing saturday afternoon poking around a large, dark closet.
the moral of the story is that, despite the desperate hopes of "grown-up republicans," there's about as much chance of responsible governance from this administration as there is of finding narnia in my bedroom closet.
another moral of the story is that nick hornby novels ROCK.
03 December 2003
they'll say anything
tim pawlenty, muddleheaded republican governor of minnesota, has decided to use the disappearance of dru sjodin in grand forks as a lever with which to propel reinstatement of the death penalty in minnesota.
it's entirely possible that something awful happened to her -- this girl who is the same age as me, and was standing in a mall entrance i stood in probably hundreds of times -- though no one knows that yet. she is still missing.
it's already a tragedy. why make it that much more barbaric and crass?
tim pawlenty, muddleheaded republican governor of minnesota, has decided to use the disappearance of dru sjodin in grand forks as a lever with which to propel reinstatement of the death penalty in minnesota.
it's entirely possible that something awful happened to her -- this girl who is the same age as me, and was standing in a mall entrance i stood in probably hundreds of times -- though no one knows that yet. she is still missing.
it's already a tragedy. why make it that much more barbaric and crass?
let's play count the wolfowitzes!
"The first thing that strikes the lay student of military commissions is the enormous power vested in the US deputy secretary of defence, Paul Wolfowitz, who is the commissions' 'appointing authority'. The judges - seven in a capital case - are appointed by Wolfowitz. Any judge can be substituted up to the moment of verdict, by Wolfowitz. The military prosecutors are chosen by Wolfowitz. The suspects they charge, and the charges they make, are determined by Wolfowitz. All defendants are entitled to a military defence lawyer, from a pool chosen by Wolfowitz. The defendants are entitled to hire a civilian lawyer, but they have to pay out of their own funds, and by revealing where the funds are, they risk having them seized on suspicion of their being used for terrorist purposes, on the order of Wolfowitz. Defendants need not lose heart completely if convicted. They can appeal, to a panel of three people, appointed by Wolfowitz. When it has made its recommendation, the panel sends it for a final decision to Wolfowitz."
the preceding is from an excellent guardian expose of the guantanamo system, including the conditions in the camp and the (total lack of) trial process:
part one
part two
i think the most astounding part is the extent to which the bush administration has simply made up rules to suit itself. i know it shouldn't be unbelievable, after two years, but...wow. it's still unbelievable to me.
"The first thing that strikes the lay student of military commissions is the enormous power vested in the US deputy secretary of defence, Paul Wolfowitz, who is the commissions' 'appointing authority'. The judges - seven in a capital case - are appointed by Wolfowitz. Any judge can be substituted up to the moment of verdict, by Wolfowitz. The military prosecutors are chosen by Wolfowitz. The suspects they charge, and the charges they make, are determined by Wolfowitz. All defendants are entitled to a military defence lawyer, from a pool chosen by Wolfowitz. The defendants are entitled to hire a civilian lawyer, but they have to pay out of their own funds, and by revealing where the funds are, they risk having them seized on suspicion of their being used for terrorist purposes, on the order of Wolfowitz. Defendants need not lose heart completely if convicted. They can appeal, to a panel of three people, appointed by Wolfowitz. When it has made its recommendation, the panel sends it for a final decision to Wolfowitz."
the preceding is from an excellent guardian expose of the guantanamo system, including the conditions in the camp and the (total lack of) trial process:
part one
part two
i think the most astounding part is the extent to which the bush administration has simply made up rules to suit itself. i know it shouldn't be unbelievable, after two years, but...wow. it's still unbelievable to me.
02 December 2003
from the times: "...American military officials seemed to relish the opportunity on Monday to claim credit for dealing the fighters a punishing blow.
'They got whacked, and won't try that again,' a senior military official in Washington said. The Pentagon insisted the body count was accurate."
are they really saying what i think they're saying? that killing 54 people is a good thing?
for the moment, let's not even deal with the fact that the "54 insurgents" estimate may actually be more accurately put as "ten or so civilians." can we just take a moment and think about the level of callousness that allows an "official in Washington" to celebrate these deaths? or the level of myopia that allows that same official to believe that such killings will be a "lesson" rather than fuel for the insurgents' fire?
ugh.
'They got whacked, and won't try that again,' a senior military official in Washington said. The Pentagon insisted the body count was accurate."
are they really saying what i think they're saying? that killing 54 people is a good thing?
for the moment, let's not even deal with the fact that the "54 insurgents" estimate may actually be more accurately put as "ten or so civilians." can we just take a moment and think about the level of callousness that allows an "official in Washington" to celebrate these deaths? or the level of myopia that allows that same official to believe that such killings will be a "lesson" rather than fuel for the insurgents' fire?
ugh.
01 December 2003
of note
the colorado supreme court threw out CO republicans' redistricting plan, though unfortunately not on you-guys-are-what's-wrong-with-democracy grounds. basically, the ruling takes note of some nice, clear language in the colorado constitution that mandates redistricting only once a decade, after the census. such redistricting had already been accomplished, by a judge, after democrats and republicans failed to agree on a districting plan after the census. (republicans then rammed through their own plan, arguing that redistricting is a legislative, not a judicial act -- to which the court responded with a quick slap upside the head: "sorry, y'all missed your chance.")
the decision, as the article points out, might have some interesting ramifications for the texas plan, as well as for the (many) other states who redistrict after each census.
only somewhat relatedly, this sort of conflict is what makes me wish there were stronger respect for decorum, a.k.a. "the spirit of the law," in american politics. the times had an oh-for-the-good-old-days article about the collapse of civility in congress yesterday, and while i'm generally a bit unsympathetic to pundits who seem to think democrats and republicans shouldn't be arguing--about anything--quite so hard, i'm way, way more unsympathetic to folks whose procedural gambits and rule-bending are about power, rather than policy. these are the folks who extend a fifteen-minute vote for three hours; the folks who lock minority members out of committee deliberations; the folks who want to redraw district lines to disenfranchise opposition voters.
seriously, if this continues i may be forced to post an overly didactic polemic about the evils of the single-member district.
...and on an entirely unrelated note, holy shit, it's december. i hope everyone had a happy thanksgiving.
the colorado supreme court threw out CO republicans' redistricting plan, though unfortunately not on you-guys-are-what's-wrong-with-democracy grounds. basically, the ruling takes note of some nice, clear language in the colorado constitution that mandates redistricting only once a decade, after the census. such redistricting had already been accomplished, by a judge, after democrats and republicans failed to agree on a districting plan after the census. (republicans then rammed through their own plan, arguing that redistricting is a legislative, not a judicial act -- to which the court responded with a quick slap upside the head: "sorry, y'all missed your chance.")
the decision, as the article points out, might have some interesting ramifications for the texas plan, as well as for the (many) other states who redistrict after each census.
only somewhat relatedly, this sort of conflict is what makes me wish there were stronger respect for decorum, a.k.a. "the spirit of the law," in american politics. the times had an oh-for-the-good-old-days article about the collapse of civility in congress yesterday, and while i'm generally a bit unsympathetic to pundits who seem to think democrats and republicans shouldn't be arguing--about anything--quite so hard, i'm way, way more unsympathetic to folks whose procedural gambits and rule-bending are about power, rather than policy. these are the folks who extend a fifteen-minute vote for three hours; the folks who lock minority members out of committee deliberations; the folks who want to redraw district lines to disenfranchise opposition voters.
seriously, if this continues i may be forced to post an overly didactic polemic about the evils of the single-member district.
...and on an entirely unrelated note, holy shit, it's december. i hope everyone had a happy thanksgiving.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)