Stereotypeable Sundays

2005-12-14T16:09:00.000-08:00

Ok. I just want to make a point. Supposedly, according to a "software trade group," a "ten-point drop in the estimated 35 percent global software piracy rate would create 2.4 million jobs and $400 billion in economic growth over four years."

Perhaps I have a stake in the negative opinion here, but I want us to truly consider this statement. First, who is the "software trade group"? Second, what does "estimated 35 percent global software piracy rate" mean? Stick with me on this one. What is the 35% of? Is it 35% of total software trade worldwide? Is it 35% market-share of software, by which I mean 35% of the total possible revenue?

I don't know. And the article blithely does not say. How very irritating, and how convenient, as leaving out that important note makes it a lot easier to drop other relevant questions, like what factors lead to this conclusion?

My guess is that this study is based upon a 1:1 switch. In other words, for every piece of pirated software, the cost of an equal piece of legal software is added. If so, it would make sense that the number might be so high. Dropping either 10% or 33% (depending on what the hell they are talking about) of the total piracy worldwide would certain generate a ton of revenue, if every single person that used pirated software started using legal software.

But that simply isn't likely to be the case. My guess is that at least 50% of the people who use pirated software (probably more) would never go out and buy the legal versions. To use a popular and famous example:

Photoshop costs about $200 dollars and is one of the most pirated pieces of software in the world. Or was at one time. Now let's do a little math problem. Suppose there are 10 people who use pirated Photoshop. That's $2000 in lost revenue. Now let us see what happens when 30% of those people stop using photoshop. Only $1400 in lost revenue! But what if, instead of saying only $1400 in lost revenue, we said $600 in GAINED revenue!!!

This, I think, is what this trade consortium is doing. Unfortunately, that idea is ridiculous. Who were these three people? Probably poor people who had access. How many of these three people are likely to go out and buy a $200 program for editing pictures? I'm guessing about zero.

Of course, all of these theories could be baseless if only the article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20051214/tc_pcworld/123918

:had been willing to actually discuss the report itself, rather than the possible rammifications of the report, and then demonstrated that estimates were based upon real and reasonable numbers. However this was not the case, so I'm going to go ahead and continue calling bull.

2005-11-17T00:47:00.000-08:00

Hi. Just thought I'd add something. One issue that differs greatly between intelligent design and evolution is the notion of disprovability. In other words, at its most basic ideal, evolution states that creatures are going to change from generation to generation based upon whatever factors make reproduction most likely.

In other words, if being hairier means I am more likely to have a hairy baby who in turn has a baby due to extreme hairiness, then I (and my progeny) are going to be hairier.

This is the hypothesis of evolution. It can be disproven. It's simple. If hairiness is extremely helpful to reproduction, but after a few generations hairiness does not become a predominant trait (aka if everyone isn't hairy), then the hypothesis of evolution has been disproven.

However, as we know, thanks to flowers and flies, it was not disproven, but rather supported.

Intelligent design, however, cannot be disproven. Its hypothesis is that some greater power determined our evolution. What kind of experiment might prove that not true? Answer: so far, none.

And that is the issue. Intelligent Design is NOT science because no experiment can be run to either disprove or provide evidence.

To make it even simpler, imagine a coin toss. My hypothesis is that it will come up heads. If it comes up tails, my hypothesis will be disproven.

In an allagorical way, Intelligent design has no "tails." If taught in science class, this theory WILL harm our children's already tenuous grasp of what makes science science.

So there you go. And there is the challenge. Scientists will start to accept ID as science the moment it starts becoming science. One of you crazy creationist kooks needs to come up with an experiment that COULD proove intelligent design wrong. If you do so, then FAIL to prove it wrong, science must accept you.

If not, sorry, you will continue to be ignored.

2005-10-24T11:22:00.001-07:00

Ok. So this is just ridiculous. Did anyone else read the NY Times story today about how the Republican leadership plans to fight back if Rove and Libby are indicted for perjury rather than anything that actually has to do with their giving up the name of a CIA operative?

Here's a quote from Senator Hutchison of Texas, she hopes, says the Times, "that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars."

If any Senatorial or House republican that held office in 1998 follows this theme, assuming that is what plays out, it will be the single greatest hypocrisy of these two decades. Bill Clinton was only the second ever president served with articles of Impeachment and nearly tossed out of office for "some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime."

In this particular case, I'd much rather see some sort of charge that directly relates to the CIA individual, but that simply isn't the point of this post. The point is that I do NOT want to see such an obviously hypocritical display from the individuals in control of the nation.

2005-09-25T14:37:00.000-07:00

In other news, the trip to Bozeman from Butte, MT is one of the more beautiful trips in Montana.

2005-09-25T14:36:00.000-07:00

My roommate tells me that the cheyenne believe that when a ring of clouds encircle the moon, colder weather will be upon us. In this case, it seems he was correct.

2005-09-14T23:25:00.000-07:00

And here is a pic of some girls who were impressed w/ my mountain climbing skill.

2005-09-14T20:07:00.000-07:00

Sometimes, when climbing starts to where you out, you just need to crouch and think deeply about not so much....

2005-09-14T20:05:00.000-07:00

Here I am, scaling a death defying bridge.

2005-09-14T20:04:00.000-07:00

Rain, rain on my face.

2005-09-14T20:00:00.000-07:00

So I visited Lava Lake near Big Sky, MT a while ago. Thought you all might like to see a bit.

2005-06-10T23:17:00.000-07:00

Hey, everyone, this post is in response to a recent remark (and ensuing argument) comparing Pres. Bush to a character named Sedgwick Bell from the movie the Emperor's Club. If you haven't seen the movie, my review is that it was ok - maybe a bit like mixing Mr. Holland's Opus with Dead Poets Society. Anyway, enjoy. Oh, also, I take a brief moment to make fun of someone that suggested outlawing alcohol as a cure to society's ills.

Um. hi, everyone. Just thought I'd add my own little, miniature comment in, hopefully to stir up controversy or whatever you will.

First off, guitargod, we tried the outlawing alcohol thing. As far as anyone can tell, it seems to mostly just provide an opportunity for the onset of massive organized crime. One figures that if someone is going to make money of the sale and consumption of alcohol, it may as well be the government, rather than the criminals (this is your cue to make many semantics related jokes).

Now, on to moralizing, the ethics of presidents, and the point.

Let's do those in reverse order.

It seems to me that the point of this movie isn't just about morals or ethics or rich, spoiled, machiavellian kids. It seems to me to be a story about the mark one leaves behind at the end of one's life, one's legacy. There are those who become powerful, respected, famous, rich; they are conquerors, bringers of peace or war, fighters, revolutionaries, economists, et cetera, etc. Yet, at the end of their lives, it is possible that they may look back and discover that though they did many great things, they were not, as such, great men. The purpose of the rest of the movie is to try to define the things that truly do define a great man. Or woman, I suppose, though that exact point was never mentioned.

Presidents Bush and Clinton seem to be remarkably different men, in the sense that they each tend to represent their own party's ideal and their opposing party's most terrible. And I think this is primarily because the ethical focus in each political party is directed in almost opposing directions.

Specifically, democrats at the core and at this point in time care very about personal ethics and care much more about global ethics. For example, your traditional democrat wouldn't give two craps (if you'll excuse my french) about how many women a man has slept with or how many times he's read the bible or even how regular is his routine. Beyond that, they typically become concerned when a president starts to introduce his own, personal beliefs into the national dialogue, rather than his profesional beliefs. Clinton is an excellent example of such a man, but an even more perfect example is that of Earl Warren as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Now here was a truly reprehensible man; here was the man who ordered the Asian internment camps during WWII, yet the moment Warren accepted the tennants of Supreme Court Justice, his personal motives were pushed aside and decisions were made based upon a professional and moral understanding of the Constitution and its amendments.

Meanwhile, to modern Republicans (and I'm not speaking of you old school republicans who are slowly discovering you are really libertarians - I'm talking neo-cons), the notion of putting aside one's faith and personal morals isn't reprehensible; it's inconceivable. One is guided by one's values and acts upon them. In a sense, presidents are elected based upon what they believe and do personally, not what they do professionally. Under Bush's tenure as president, the nation has fought two wars, slid into a recession (which probably isn't his fault), failed to recooperate from that recession in any quick and meaningful way (which is certainly at least partially his fault), enmeshed inself into a turmoil that is remenicent of (but no where near as bad as) Vietnam, failed to make abortion illegal, slowed and possibly even reversed some work in environmental recovery, and become more politically polarized than it has been in a century. On the other hand he doesn't like gay people, abortion, terrorists, or the nation of Iran (Saudi Arabia is cool, though).

Sorry, a little sarcasm popped in there, please, allow me to continue.

The thing is, President Bush does appear to be a very personally moral man in the American sense. He is not a womanizer. He reads the bible regularly. He wants to protect whatever sanctity marriage has left. He talks like he isn't from the Northeast, even if he doesn't know how to pronounce Nevada. These things are real, important things, and I apologize if my personal bias makes them sound in any way trivial, such is not my intent. These things are either unimportant or, if taken in a specific light, immoral to a core democrat, yet they are vital to the minds of the core republican. Reagan was a template (albeit a slightly less relgious one) for these values.

The moral of all this is that neither man truly fulfills the legacy of Sedgwick Bell. He was personally amoral, but he was also professionally amoral. As such, it is very easy to see the faults of either president in this one man, if you just lean in one direction. As I'm sure you can tell, I obviously lean one way, but I am certainly not professional enough in this field to say that my way of thinking is the correct one. When hiring someone, I like to look at track records. As far as I'm concerned, it's equally reasonable to look at background history.

2005-05-05T00:12:00.000-07:00

I just read a blog entitled a Twist of Kate, and it put my in an odd frame of mind. A few years ago, I liked to make fun of how self-involved people from Johnson county, KS were. These days, I look to the people of the east coast and can't help but feel the same way. It's as if there is some entire world there that has nothing to do with the south, midwest, bible belt, mountain zone, southwest, pacific northwest, and california (which I've decided to count as its own region). On the other hand, maybe all of these various regions are that way to some small degree.

I guess the thing that irritates me the most about the whole thing is that old money allows individuals in this region to attend an extremely expensive liberal arts school, secure in the knowledge that they'll be taken care of thanks to the powerful skill of nepotism.

That "skill" part was, of course, sarcasm.

Um. That's all. Happy cinco de mayo.

2005-05-01T21:08:00.000-07:00

If you don't know where I stand, here you go.

The following paragraph also appears in the previous post's comments section; however, I thought it might be nice to let anyone else who reads this know exactly where I stand on most issues of the moment. This doesn't cover everything, but it gets pretty close. Also, it's really just one long paragraph, so brace yourself.

As to what you could call me... I guess "small town catholic moderate/liberal" might do the job. In other words, I tend to be for the people, against the corporation, pro-life (in most cases), against the death penalty (which should mean the same thing but doesn't), generally unconcerned about guns (though I do stand in disagreement of the statement "guns don't kill people, people kill people"; I would prefer "guns don't kill people, people kill people with guns"), opposed to foreign oil dependence and coal usage, for the use of renewable resources, a believer of creative solutions, a disliker of oil barons, and a champion of truth (which is, in fact, very rarely a part of either the left or the right). I have no problem with sex or words like "fuck, shit, crap, etc." I believe it is everyone's job to do as much as they can for the nation, but also believe that "as much as they can" rarely has anything to do with military service. I respect our military, if not our commander in chief and his decisions. I don't approve of an us vs. them approach to foreign affairs and wish America were more of a tossed salad and less of a melting pot. I think people should, as some point in their lives, make an attempt to learn a foreign language, especially if that person wants to be in high political office. I believe all children warrant some form of health care, regardless of their station. I fear urban sprawl may be faster to destroy this nation than any terrorist group (I'll let you decide whether that means I put a lot of weight behind my dislike of urban sprawl or almost no weight behind the fear of terrorism). I feel that public education is vastly underfunded and underappreciated. I worry for our children and the children of our children. If I had my political way, I'd argue that our nation is not a bipartisan one. It is tripartisan. You have your extreme left, extreme right, and middle. I identify with the middle and am truly sad that the two extreme groups make so much more noise.

So there you go. Who I am in a basic nutshell. I guess you could call me a democrat, but in my opinion I am to democrats what John McCain is to republicans. Barely one. Though I must say that McCain is much more popular, interesting, and famous than me.

2005-04-26T00:25:00.000-07:00

Perhaps one of the more difficult problems in maintaining a blog such as this is lack of motivation. No one knows who I am or where this blog is and no one comments. It can be disconcerting and disheartening at times. Also, while many important topics exist in the world, I remain too under-educated about most of them and feel uncomfortable making a judgment about something I don't know.

However, there are two recent events that I feel pretty confident discussing.

First, was the Daily Show the only news source to mention the lack of solidarity among the republicans in the senate committee overseeing John Bolton's UN placement? Admittedly, a few days later there was coverage concerning the fact that he might not get in, but there was very little discussion why. I would have thought it an important note of the day....

PARTY LINES CROSSED!
PARTY DIVISIVENESS DECREASES AS REPUBLICAN RELUCTANTLY ADMITS NOMINATION MIGHT BE INSANE!!!

I'm willing to concede that my headline might be marginally slanted to the left, but it doesn't take a genius to realize that putting a man in the UN who hates the UN might not be the most brilliant idea. Forgive me for still thinking I might be fairly moderate on the issue when I say that such an action feels like one of a long string of surprisingly extremist moves. The concepts of extremism and moderation are, of course, subjective ones, but I really think I might be in the majority in this case.

Back to point. As has been pointed out before, the nation is currently very divided. As far as I am concerned, the reason for this is quite simple. The party of the president usually follows the lead of the president. President Bush didn't win the popular vote the first time around and only won it by a slim majority in the second go. Previous presidents in this situation tended to realize their predicament and attempted to moderate their more extreme opinions and political moves.

President Bush has not done that. Instead, extreme ideals are some of his more heavily promoted. The Republican congress doesn't mind this, because they like those ideals and it isn't as if their heads will role if things don't come out right, so they follow along, and they follow along with great solidarity. Meanwhile, minority Democrats recognize that a slightly conservative movement is going on, but refuse to accept the extreme conservativism proposed by the President, believing the general public does not fully support such action. Of course, they could be wrong, but in many cases I doubt it. Opinion polls over the past 5 years support this suggestion, save on the issue of war. However, even there, opinion polls are beginning to shift away from the President.

A shame that didn't happen 7 months ago.

However, much of that seems to be changing, now. Two factors appear to be pushing a major, if silent, swing in the Republican party. Bush's popularity numbers continue to drop. And Tom Delay, the man who, many believe, was the true engineer of the recent republican solidarity, is slowly falling out of power like a boulder rolling slowly off a cliff.

One of the first true signs of this action happened Wednesday or Thursday, the day What's His Face, R-Ohio, said that he did not feel comfortable giving his vote to suggest Bolton be confirmed by the Senate. A subtle but important chink in the armor of republican solidarity had been exposed. Perhaps it means nothing, and perhaps it is very important. If so, one of two things will likely happen.

The republican congress will maintain power, in which case they will find themselves becoming much more moderate, following the lead of McCain et al. Or the republicans will lose power. In that case, I really don't know what will happen.

Either way, I expect it will be very interesting.

TOMORROW (or whenever): a diatribe on how pissed off people who hate fat people must be about this latest report by the CDC.

2005-04-18T13:03:00.000-07:00

I went to Los Angeles this weekend and was struck by what appears to be an essential difference between LA and many other cities. Black people are often wealthy in LA. It was an idea that struck me early and often. I'd seen well off black families before. I've seen many african american middle class households residing in those standard suburbs of west wichita. But in my head the role of over-dressed, slightly pompous looking rich person had been reserved for fat, white men and over-tanned women.

This weekend, it was as if a bulb went off in my head. A stereotype that I'd longed to see altered in my head was finally shifting. I've decided to like Los Angeles for any number of reasons. I reminds me of a smoggier, busier, palm tree-filled Wichita. It is busy and exciting and there's always a chance that you'll accidentally walk into a famous Jewish person's bar mitzfah (long story). Everyone is pleasant (when they aren't attempting to kill you on the 101). The ocean is right there. Every conceivable store is near and attractively built. Most importantly, though, is the city's diversity. In many places you'll hear at least one or two more languages. Black people, white people, and latino people are all working together. In the same strip mall you might see signs for russian food, greek food, asian food, and hamburgers.

What a place.

2005-04-08T16:43:00.000-07:00

Yeah! I got a response! Admittedly, it's just Joel, but it's something!!! As such, I feel I've started a discourse. Let's get to it.

"I feel the same has happened with the president. There's no trust between the office and the press any longer, thus the doors are closed and its nearly impossible to report stuff.

And about your "golden days" of journalism, how golden were they? So great that the press never revealed the extent to which FDR was crippled? So honest that they consistantly looked the other way as women slipped out of the Kennedy White House?

And I don't think any secret government agents have tried to shutdown your blog that's been updated twice in the last 6 months."

Yes. I think those years were and are still golden. And it's because I think back then those kinds of reports were considered bullcrap. Did women having sex with Kennedy make him a bad president? Would we have made it to the moon without the guy? Maybe. Who can say? But it may well have taken far longer. If Kennedy had sex with fewer women, would it have taken us less time to make it too the moon?

Would there be any chance of FDR being elected today? No. FDR would NEVER have been elected in this America. Because you'd have 3000 "watchdogs" paying zero attention to his ideas and record and paying complete attention to his ability to walk.

It's banality today. Its noise and wind blowing from your television set. I concede that Tim Russert was a poor pick to exemplify, but I believe the notion remains sound. News today happens in the newsroom. It does not happen in the real world, unless some producer thinks there might be a jump in ratings if they got a camera shot of situation X or scene Y.

Strangely, I actually think the only place where good, solid news remains is in the world of sports. And the only reason I say that is because people actually ARE so interested in sport outcomes that there is no need for a side-story about Derrick Thomas having sex with 30 women in one night. The only time those kind of stories appear, at least in my limited experience, seem to be when the rest of the press gets a hold of them. Otherwise, personal stories always revolve around the individual and the sport itself.

Now, I'm not saying that sporting news is better or more moral that other kinds. I'm just saying that both the press and the audience are much more clear on what should and should not be covered, and it seems to match the reality of what should and should not be covered.

Returning to the actual quote I singled out: there's no trust between the press and the presidency. I agree, and I think two things have caused this. First, the press spent eight years of the clinton white house reporting about true and untrue sex affairs. Certainly, they spent a healthy share covering important matters, but you always knew that news of some sexual tryst was not far from the lips of any major reporter (save, perhaps, the ones stationed in Africa, or Ireland, or Bosnia, or some other out of the way place where people kept dying and crap). In other words, I think the press spends too much time talking about the president as a person, and not enough time talking about him as a president.

Second, so far (and I only have second hand reports on this), a great deal of distance appears to be coming from this particular white house. Have you not heard the reports that this white house seems to be more secretive than any presidency in the last hundred years? Along with a "culture of life" comes, it seems, a "culture of suspicion."

I love the Daily Show.

Anyway, before deriding an entire idea because of weak examples, consider the whole idea. On the other hand, this is the internet, where whole ideas tend to be ignored and everyone exists in a land of minutia, so go ahead and keep arguing the crap. It works for the major news outlets.

2005-03-18T03:13:00.000-08:00

Ladies and Gentleman....

I have returned.

Following, as many of you many have noticed, quite a lengthy hiatus, I've decided to come back and talk about some things that bother me.

Thing #1: When was the last time you saw Tim Russert anywhere outside of a newsroom? This is a mere example. Think broad. More and more, the news seems to be broadcast by people in newsrooms, in front of green screens, in a hotel room 20 miles from the bombing where unclean pimento is the closest thing to horror.

Where is the journalism? Where are the stories of atrocities revealed? Have all the atrocities simply vanished over night? Is there no longer a reason to worry and hope and pray for this world? Of course not. So why don't we seem to hear about it?

Where are the attack dogs? Why do we keep flinging ourselves against faux stories, looking for the smoke in a wet grass fire? Is it because a lot of smoke on tv looks better then a towering inferno? Why is Jackson receiving more coverage than haliburton? Why Condi's nonexistent bid for the presidency receiving more press than SE Asian? Why is not a single American camera not present in Africa at the moment?

Why are we focusing on insurance agencies, rather than young, black women, who represent one of the most startling and horrifying aids epidemic in american history? When did news start being a business?

Here's an even more painful question. Why do bloggers like myself represent a threat to the news industry? The answer is simple. We do what they've been doing over the past few years FOR FREE! That's it! That's the problem! That's why radio talk show people are threatened. That's why some people keep denouncing us. That's why other people think we should get the same rights as journalists (hint: it's because, if they don't do anything more than we do, they need a justification for their benefits).

Ok. You wanna know why the BBC and NPR are the best news servicing in the business at the moment? It's not because they are particularly liberal or conservative. it's not because they're more philosophical and elitist. It's because they don't give a crap about making money. Their only goal is the tell the news. Commercial news orgs. goal is to make money telling the news. How do you make money? By cutting costs, such as FINDING OUT WHAT THE FREAKING NEWS IS!!!

That's all. G'night.

2004-11-15T11:12:00.000-08:00

Cloning. What's wrong with that?

Today I've determined to discuss this issue of cloning, simply because at least a few perspectives on cloning irritate me. I will admit that there are a few issues concerning cloning that are reasonably debateable: harvesting organs, methods of protracting life..., there may be more, but they aren't coming to me at the moment.

Anyway, here's my take on cloning. Go for it. If you want to clone yourself. If you want to clone dead kids. If you want to clone Einstein, let it happen. It won't matter, because your clone ISN'T YOU!!!!!!!!! People who think cloning is controversial (outside of the realms I mentioned moments ago) need just a wee bit of education. By definition, your identical twin is actually more like you than your clone would be. How is that possible? you ask. It's simple. Identical twins (also known as monozygotic twins) originally came from a single cell. As such, they have exactly the same DNA, just like your clone would.

However, DNA isn't the whole story. See, DNA isn't actually what we're made up of. DNA is simply the road map for the proteins that ACTUAL determine what we are. Even those proteins aren't what we're made of. We also include water, fat, lipids (which is really just another word for fat), and various other things that I don't have the necessary degrees to mention. In other words (as any good identical twin will tell you), two creatures that have the same DNA are not the same creature in two different shells.

Identical twins often have different personalities and always have different finger prints. They've experienced different things, developed slightly differently in the womb, and ingested different things throughout life. Now imagine for a moment that your clone is basically your identical twin, born between 20 and 50 years after you were. Can you even imagine how different the two of you would be? The only thing you'd both have in common would be a roadmap. Even your bodies (let's call them shells for fun) would be a great deal different.

And, if you are catholic or in some religion that believes in the concept of souls, you should already know that souls can't be split or divided. Your clone wouldn't be you, simply because your clone wouldn't have your soul. Ultimately, unless your concern is scientific study, organ harvesting, or the like, you should have no freaking problem with cloning, unless you happen to hate twins. And, as far as I can tell from that Miller Lite commercial, no one hates twins.

2004-11-10T00:48:00.000-08:00

While I've pretty much gotten over last Tuesday, I, like many others, feel the need for soul searching. As such, I've determined to read Thomas Frank's book "How the conservatives stole the heart of kansas" or some such title. As well, I intend to single handedly reinvent my party as exactly what it already is, only maybe presented a bit more like MLK jr. would have presented it.

However, just to help describe my sense of frustrated sadness, I've decided to print the following article from the humor webpaper, The Onion.

WASHINGTON, DC—The economically disadvantaged segment of the U.S. population provided the decisive factor in another presidential election last Tuesday, handing control of the government to the rich and powerful once again.

"The Republican party—the party of industrial mega-capitalists, corporate financiers, power brokers, and the moneyed elite—would like to thank the undereducated rural poor, the struggling blue-collar workers in Middle America, and the God-fearing underpriviledged minorities who voted George W. Bush back into office," Karl Rove, senior advisor to Bush, told reporters at a press conference Monday. "You have selflessly sacrificed your well-being and voted against your own economic interest. For this, we humbly thank you."

Added Rove: "You have acted beyond the call of duty—or, for that matter, good sense."

According to Rove, the Republicans found strong support in non-urban areas populated by the people who would have benefited most from the lower-income tax cuts and social-service programs championed by Kerry. Regardless of their own interests, these citizens turned out in record numbers to elect conservatives into office at all levels of the government.

"My family's been suffering ever since I lost my job at the screen-door factory, and I haven't seen a doctor for well on four years now," said father of four Buddy Kaldrin of Eerie, CO. "Shit, I don't even remember what a dentist's chair looks like... Basically, I'd give up if it weren't for God's grace. So it's good to know we have a president who cares about religion, too."

Kaldrin added: "That's why I always vote straight-ticket Republican, just like my daddy did, before he lost the farm and shot himself in the head, and just like his daddy did, before he died of black-lung disease in the company coal mines."

Kaldrin was one of many who listed moral issues among their primary reasons for voting Republican.

"Our society is falling apart—our treasured values are under attack by terrorists," said Ellen Blaine of Givens, OH, a tiny rural farming community as likely to be attacked by terrorists as it is to be hit by a meteor. "We need someone with old-time morals in the White House. I may not have much of anything in this world, but at least I have my family."

"John Kerry is a flip-flopper," she continued. "I saw it on TV. Who knows what terrible things might've happened to my sons overseas if he'd been put in charge?"

Kerry supporters also turned out in large numbers this year, but they were outnumbered by those citizens who voted for Bush.

"The alliance between the tiny fraction at the top of the pyramid and the teeming masses of mouth-breathers at its enormous base has never been stronger," a triumphant Bush said. "We have an understanding, them and us. They help us stay rich, and in return, we help them stay poor. See? No matter what naysayers may think, the system works."

Added Bush: "God bless America's backwards hicks, lunchpail-toting blockheads, doddering elderly, and bumpity-car-driving Spanish-speakers."

THE END

Now I don't necessarily believe and agree with everything written in this column intended entirely for humorous purposes. I just think the right has somehow won the war of words. A friend of mine recently stated she voted for the president who stood on the platform of Values, Morals, and Beliefs. The crazy bit is that I really don't think she did. She believes she did. It seems over half of America may believe it has. I just think they may be wrong. I feel we're being hoodlummed, shnookered, bamboozled, and all of those other words that mean being taken for fools. The democratic party stands for rights, equality, health, education, and hope. The democratic party is the party that stood behind MLK jr. as he dreamt of a world where black children and white children could eat at the same table. We champion the weak, the poor, the underpriveleged, the uneducated, and the unappreciated. Our presidents have gone on to be humanitarians. Republican presidents have gone on to be criminals and oil barons.

Perhaps I am overstating the case, but, excusing the minutia, it is a valid point.

And so I am left to wonder. Where did this disconnect come from? We still champion these ideals, yet the general public seems to disagree. Is it because we don't support a constitutional ban on gay marriages? It's possible, yet to support such a ban would be to go against the very fiber of the democratic spirit. There is a reason the first ten amendments were called the Bill of Rights, rather than the Bill of Persecution. Is homosexuality immoral? I'm pretty sure it isn't. Was it immoral for black people to work with white people years ago? Some said it was. Was it immoral for women bare ankles 100 years ago? I'm gonna hazard a guess of yes. Was it immoral for people to drink alcohol 80 years ago? Once again, I'll say... yes.

Guess what? The only time we elliminated a right of the general public using a constitutional amendment, we overturned it. I'm pretty sure democrats believe the MOST immoral thing in the world is hating those of us who do things that we dislike, when those things hurt absolutely no one.

A second possibility exists. Maybe the disconnect happened 20 years ago, when abortion became legal. Maybe it happened 15 years ago, when democrats generally began to agree that they'd support women's rights. I've already discussed this issue, so I won't go too far into it; however, let me say again, for the first time: making something illegal doesn't stop it, and stopping something doesn't always involve making it illegal. It's just a thought, but it certainly feels like an important one. Remember, Clinton was the first president we ever had who was openly in favor of choice, yet under Clinton, abortions decreased annually. This may not make sense, but I suggest you think about it, long and hard.

The third possibility is a little more depressing, because it hangs the guilt squarely upon my social psychology friends. Maybe the republican party really did hoodwink everyone using the tricks of social psychology better than the democratic opposition. In essense, maybe the republican leadership had better screenwriters and a better director. If that is the case. If the nation is being run by far right money grubbers whose only real agenda is tax cuts, cheaper oil, richer rich and poorer poor, and scare tactics, then perhaps we do have a problem.

2004-11-02T01:28:00.000-08:00

I was watching some talking heads show on CNN or CNBC or something. The heads were discussing Catholics and noted something sad, though not surprising. In years past, presidential hopefuls looks to earn the "catholic vote." Basically, this means catholics voted as a block (bloc?), and our opinions were all very similar. These days, that no longer seems to be the case. Zogby, Pew, CNN, and everyone else has come to the painful conclusion that catholics are as divided as the nation.

For every conservative catholic, there seems to be a liberal one. For every archbishop who loudly refuses Kerry communion, there is another who quietly mumbles something contradictory.

These are painful years. These are bipartisan years. These are years in which we only see the world as left and right, when such a dialectic may be hurting us as a people more than it is helping us and teaching us to grow.

As I read this letter from the Archbishop and Coadjutor Archbishop of KC, I was startled to find myself becoming angry. Not so much at the opinions expressed, but at the lack of empathy for other, possible opinions. Does that make me an immoral catholic?

Maybe.

I found myself startled when killing an innocent life was considered an intrinsic evil. Does that mean killing other kinds of life some other form of evil, and perhaps not evil at all?

I don't know. I only know that I'm sad and dissappointed that America has progressed to the point that the people of catholicism are so obviously divided down a political line. When did pre-emptive war become debatable in its immorality? The question seems to be not whether it was right to attack Iraq. The question is where does it stop? Saddam killed hundreds, perhaps thousands of people (the northern, insurgent Kurds) and put them in mass graves. We stopped him. Since our war began, some estimates suggest 100,000 Iraqis have died. Should we continue this practice? Should we attack anyone who kills its citizens?

Is the new point of catholicism to stop death with more death?

I'm sorry. I'm not frustrated. I'm just so sad that our foreign and local policy solutions must always seem to fall under one of two alternatives. I'm sad a nations creativity for alternate solutions to problems seems to have died in some shallow grave somewhere. I'm sad that when we agree with one part of a policy, we feel the need to agree with other segments that may be wrong. And I'm sad that we assume the alternative is agreeing with the other side.

I suppose I'm rambling now. It's just, what if we started something new? What if we started something incredible? We could call it Catholics for Creative Alternatives. We could stop accepting what the left and right are telling us as scripture. Instead, we could take all the facts we are provided with, come up with goals, and make our own solutions. The politicians in washington aren't smarter than us, and they definitely are caught up in a culture where you are either left or right and nothing else. What if we changed all that?

2004-11-01T13:52:00.000-08:00

The following is an article from Pauline Arrillaga, an AP journalist. It doesn't really have any issues in need of discussing, I just figured I'd post it because it so nicely encompasses how most of America seems to feel about this election.

Four years ago, when 105 million Americans cast ballots for George W. Bush or Al Gore , there was peace and relative prosperity. Airport security meant a quick zip through an X-ray machine, not a shoeless pat-down. Iraq was a place where a fast war was fought and won. Florida was about Mickey Mouse, not hanging chads.

What were the issues then? some voters now ask. A few need prompting to even recall whom they voted for.

In the next breath, in voices full of passion, they explain why things are so different this time. Why voters so closely monitored the race between President Bush and John Kerry. Why citizens endured lines at election offices to ensure they were registered. Why the debates drew more viewers than baseball.

Why, this year, the presidential campaign is America's pastime.

The last time the people of Anthony, Kan., chose a president, Memorial Park was a patch of grass with picnic tables and elm trees but no memorial to speak of. Rising from the earth now is a tribute to the turning point of the past four years — parts of steel beams from the World Trade Center, a block of limestone from the Pentagon, some dirt from a field near Shanksville, Pa.

Osama bin Laden is as common a household name as John Deere. The postal carrier's son spent eight months in Iraq and might have to return. Wheat farmers at the co-op feel the pinch of soaring diesel costs. And business at the Pride of the Prairie Quilt Shoppe has collapsed as manufacturing layoffs left customers cutting back.

Change has visited Anthony's 2,440 souls. It's in their park and pocketbooks and fields, in the eyes of their friends.

And it's very much in their hearts and minds as they get ready to pick a president again.

"I'm real concerned, real concerned about this election," says the quilt shop owner, Debbie Mangen. "This country is a lot more vulnerable than we were. That makes it very important."

The consensus in Anthony and Anywhere, U.S.A.: Election Day 2004 matters one heck of a lot.

Americans use words like scared, frustrated, disgusted, angry to describe the campaign. But mostly, they echo Mangen.

They are real concerned.

Will their votes count? Will they wake up Wednesday and not yet know who the nation's next leader is — again? Who can protect them, provide them insurance, create a job for them, lead them out of war? Will they make the right choice for the times? Will whomever they choose make a real difference in their lives?

"This election is more important to me than any other election I've voted in," says Clint Flanagan.

"This year, there's a lot of issues I feel strongly about," says Jimmy Gosnell.

Both Gosnell, 45, of Irmo, S.C., and Flanagan, 33, of Frederick, Colo., are Iraq-bound. As they prepared for deployment, many things shared space on their to-do lists: getting wills in order, spending time with their families — and voting.

Gosnell supports Bush. Flanagan supports Kerry.

What they agree on is how invested they are in the outcome this time.

"My life is on the line," says Flanagan.

Far from any warfront, Margie Miller sees it that way, too. She wonders whether her kids will be safe from terrorists — or killed like her husband, Joel, who was sitting at his desk on the 97th floor of the World Trade Center when an airplane hit and "vaporized him."

"Every election's important, but ... my very survival is an issue, and that never was," says Miller, 55, of Baldwin, N.Y. "I'd like to know I'm gonna live another 20 years, that I'll have grandchildren. All I care about is safety, safety, safety."

Miller, a self-proclaimed "loyal Democrat," was undecided heading into Election Day. As she put it: "in turmoil."

Mary Maglidt — one of those millions of uninsured everyone's heard so much about — is desperate to know how the next president will help her afford her medicines for diabetes and arthritis. Trouble is, the 64-year-old Wal-Mart cashier has been unable to wade through the negative ads and personal attacks to get a sense for either candidate's plan.

Kerry's Vietnam service? Bush's National Guard record? Maglidt, of Parkville, Md., quickly got her fill.

All this "bashing back and forth" has left her undecided, she says. "Sometimes I even think like my husband does — `Why bother?'"

But she darn well plans to bother, because: "Every vote counts." She remembers Florida four years ago.

Palm Beach County, Fla., was election-fiasco-central in 2000. And that's where Florence Zoltowsky, 74, will vote. "I know it won't count," she says. "It won't make a difference. Am I cynical? Yes I am."

Zoltowsky was a plaintiff in one of the many lawsuits over Florida's confusing butterfly ballots; in 2000, the Gore supporter accidentally cast her vote for Pat Buchanan. This year, she's infuriated over pre-election lawsuits and word that so-called "SWAT teams" of lawyers are geared up for a postelection battle.

"They're already in line to sue and to sue and to sue. It's not supposed to be like that," she says. "A vote should be holy."

So who gets hers? She's uncertain.

Miller, Maglidt and Zoltowsky are three of the much-sought-after undecideds ready to finally decide. In past years, their choice was clear-cut. What changed?

Miller's explanation: "I can't seem to filter out one person's spin versus the other's to find the truth. I guess we never do get the truth, but I guess I never cared as much to know the truth."

It all comes down to that. People care, many more than ever before.

In Anthony, Kan., folks turned a patch of grass into a memorial to the victims of Sept. 11, 2001, not because someone with ties to Anthony died that day — no one did. They built it because the attacks somehow felt ... personal.

This Election Day, they feel much the same way.

It's less about lawsuits or flip-flopping or finger-pointing. It's about whether mail carrier Randy Patterson's son has to quit college and go back to Iraq, whether co-op manager Dan Cashier's patrons can afford fuel to plow their fields, whether Debbie Mangen can hold onto her quilt shop.

Election 2004 is about more than politics. This year, it's downright personal.

2004-10-28T15:44:00.000-07:00

With this election, I believe I've discovered an instance in which the democratic ideal is truly being tested. Consider: democrats consider themselves the champions of the weak and oppressed. The motto at the base of the State of Liberty is our motto. "Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." Langston Hughes poem speaks to the core of democratic values

O, let my land be a land where Liberty

Is crowned with no false patriotic wreath,

But opportunity is real, and life is free,

Equality is in the air we breathe.

As liberals, as catholics (in my case and the case of many) we find ourselves unsure. We root for the underdog. We seek to give rights to the weak and oppressed. In abortion we have finally found a wrong the gives us pause. We want to help those who cannot help themselves, but we simply seem unable to DO that for these two groups. If we help women, we destroy the unborn. If we help the unborn, we destroy the freedoms of women.

What do we do? The church seems fully decided. It is the duty of catholics to help the unborn at the possible detriment of women. In an unusual break, the democratic party also seems fully decided. It is the duty of democrats to help women at the detriment of the unborn.

Both views seem simple and weak minded. They are both correct. They are both wrong. They are both blind to the realities of the opposite side.

A professor of mine argued that with enough creativity, it is possible for everyone to come out happy in a conflict. And so I have homework for any readers I might have (i.e. I guess nobody). Find an answer. It can be brilliant. It can be idiocy. Just find it. How do we stop destroying the unborn, while maintaining the rights of all women?

I wish you good luck and pray you don't stop without an answer.

2004-10-20T23:39:00.000-07:00

In a quest to keep this argument fermenting, I'm gonna post Jon Stewart's discussion with Ted Koppel. It is an interesting and important discussion. Could there be truth behind what is either right or left? I think, to an extent there may be.

I'll let you make your own decisions.

DNC: A serious interview with Jon Stewart
While eating breakfast with reporters in Boston on Monday, Jon Stewart accused the media of being "stage managed." Now Nightline's Ted Koppel asks Stewart some tough questions about his role on The Daily Show. What follows is a partial transcript of an incredible (and oddly serious) interview:

KOPPEL: Back 40 years ago, we would actually come to these events with the expectation that something unexpected was going to happen.

STEWART: But unexpected things used to happen in the world. They don't happen anymore.

KOPPEL: Oh, sure they do.

STEWART: Very rarely. Very rarely is an event not parsed prior to when it happens. And when it happens unexpectedly, it's only because the speculation was off cue.

KOPPEL: When there were only three of us [networks], we were not that easy to manipulate because you could only play A off against B off against C.

STEWART: Ok, that I agree with.

KOPPEL: Right? Now you got 200 of us. You don't like what Jon Stewart is doing? Go to...

STEWART: But we're separate. We're a peripheral, we're a Sunday bar. We're reactive and not actual news, so if you don't like Jon Stewart, you'll have to go to another comedy program, not a news program.

KOPPEL: You're refreshing honest about that, and I appreciate that, but the reality of it is -- and it's no joke anymore -- there are a lot of people out there who do turn to you for...

STEWART: Not for news.

KOPPEL: Well...

STEWART: For an interpretation. A comedic interpretation.

KOPPEL: To be informed. They actually think they're coming closer to the truth with your...

STEWART: Now that's a different thing. That's credibility. That's a different animal.

KOPPEL: That's what I want you to get into a little bit. This notion of... for example, people who listen to Sean Hannity also are looking for...

STEWART: Want a narrative.

KOPPEL: Al Frankin...

STEWART: Gives a narrative.

KOPPEL: A different group of people, different narrative.

STEWART: Right.

KOPPEL: That's the slice. So what I'm trying to get to here, is what is going on now with these literally -- I don't even if there are even hundreds anymore -- there may be close to a thousand outlets here.

STEWART: It's that the partisan mobilization has become part of the media process. That they realize that, this real estate that you possess, television, is the most valuable real estate known to rulers. If Alexander the Great had TV, believe me, he would have had his spin guys dealing. Napoleon would have had people working. The key to leadership is to have that mouthpiece to the people. And that's what this is. You guys are... This is the battle for the airwaves. And that's what we watch, and I think that's what is so dispiriting to those at home who believe that... I think, there's a sense here that you're not participating in that battle, and there's a sense at home that you're ABSOLUTELY participating and complicit in that battle.

KOPPEL: Go a little further on that.

STEWART: I'm a news anchor. Remember this is bizarro world. And I say, the issue is health care and insurance, and why 40 million American kids don't have insurance -- 40 million Americans are uninsured. Is this health insurance program being debated in Congress good for the country? Let's debate it. I have with me Donna Brazile and Bay Buchanan. Let's go. Donna. "I think the Democrats really have it right here. I think that this is a pain for the insurance companies and the drug companies and this is wrong for America." Bay. "Oh no, what it is..." And then she throws out her figures from the Heritage Foundation, and she throws out her figures from the Brookings Institute, and the anchor -- who should be the arbiter of the truth -- says, "Thank you both very much, that was very interesting." No it wasn't! That was Coke and Pepsi talking about beverage truth. And that game has, I think, caused people to think, "I'm not watching this."

KOPPEL: Alright, so you have found an answer through humor...

STEWART: No. It's not an answer.

KOPPEL: Well, an answer that...

STEWART: I found an outlet. I found a catharsis. A sneeze, if you will.

KOPPEL: It's not just a catharsis for you, it's a catharsis for your viewers. Those who watch say, at least when I'm watching Jon, he can use humor to say BS, that's a crock.

STEWART: But that's always been the case. Satire has always been...

KOPPEL: Ok, but I can't do that.

STEWART: No, but you CAN say that's BS. You don't need humor to do that because you have what I wish I had which is credibility and gravitas. This is interesting stuff, and it's all part of the discussion and I think it's a good discussion to have, but I think it's important to take a more critical look. You know, don't you think?

KOPPEL: No.

STEWART: And certainly not from me.

KOPPEL: No, not from you. I've had enough of you.

STEWART: I know my role, I'm the dancing monkey.

KOPPEL: You're finished. (Smiles)

(Shake hands.)

2004-10-20T01:08:00.000-07:00

One other post for tonight. For the hilarious views of a psycho who takes absolutely no time to back up her extreme, asinine comments, read the following. Ann Coulter at her best.

Amazon.com: How important is this presidential election in the larger context of the Republic and its history?
Ann Coulter: Insofar as the survival of the Republic is threatened by the election of John Kerry, I'd say 2004 is as big as it gets.
Amazon.com: Is there one standout issue, and why does it make a difference? What are the most crucial issues?
Coulter: I repeat: The survival of the Republic is threatened by the election of John Kerry. I'd say that's the big one.
Amazon.com: What are the top five books you'd recommend to become an informed voter? And what can your new book contribute?
Coulter: The Bible, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Slander, Treason, and How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must).
Amazon.com: What's the closest parallel from American history to this year's race?
Coulter: 1864. Bush is Lincoln and Kerry is General McClellan--who, I note, was a great military leader.

I repeat: The survival of the Republic is threatened by the election of John Kerry. I'd say that's the big one.

Amazon.com: What is the most important lesson from President Bush's term so far?
Coulter: Peace through strength is an idea that never goes out of style. Also, some people can’t be negotiated with but have to be crushed; e.g., the Taliban, al Qaeda, possibly North Korea and Iran, Pat Leahy, Carl Levin, Richard Ben-Veniste...
Amazon.com: What would a Kerry administration mean?
Coulter: Quite possibly the destruction of the Republic.

2004-10-19T23:36:00.000-07:00

So I've spent a great deal of time thinking about my next post. Since then, I've done other things and have now forgotten my thoughts. As such, I've determined to post a lament.

Perhaps worse than anything else, Bush's presidency has created an even greater polarization in the nation. I spend a great deal of time chatting on another blog. I represent the moderately liberal voice in the discussion, yet my ideas regularly get attacked by the other side. Often I find myself attacking the opinions of those same members of the other side. It's sometimes painful to realize the extent to which we all get angry at each other over the politics of this nation. It's as if we can no longer think and may only express ourselves through emotion.

Many people suggest that this polarization was caused by Bush's policies. They say he acts like a president who won in a landslide, yet he technically lost the popular vote. While the supports to this argument stand, I think the overriding theory is based upon a mere correlation.

Polarity and a rush to judge based upon gut decisions doesn't come out of a president acting too strongly in one direction. When an entire nation operates under a theory directed decision process, they do so for myriad reasons. My personal theory lies in the direction of fear. The twin towers fell. For months we were afraid and acted as a team. We were the good guys, everyone else was the bad guy. Then things changed.

More aptly, things didn't change. The war in Afghanistan was winding down. The fear had a chance to recede. But it didn't. Why didn't it? Because we were still under heightened (color-coded) terror warnings. We began a war with Iraq. We failed to get Osama.

Remember how I called Bush a magician? Here is yet another example of his magic at work. He personally speaks of daisies and sunshine. The world is good! We are winning the war on terror! But he's gotten everyone else to sing a different tune. His people continue to issue warnings. They talk about the threat of Kerry being elected. They beef up security in NY for the RNC to three times that of the DNC in Boston. Threat of attack is imminent.

And the liberal side does much the same. Draft! Iraq will never end! The world hates us! For every terrorist Bush kills, three more pop up!

Is any of it true? Who knows? Who cares? The point isn't validity. The point is terror. America's terrorists aren't Islamic. They are the media. They are the government. They are the democratic and republican parties. Why are we afraid? Because they tell us to be. Why do they tell us to be? Because it strengthens their "base."

There are a good dozen studies that show we stop using a data-driven approach in decision making when mortality is salient. We don't look at all the facts. We look at the facts that confirm what we already believe.

Does that sound familiar?

2004-10-13T23:59:00.000-07:00

So I was watching the debate yesterday, when my friend Annie asked the question, "Why is 'liberal' a bad word?" It's an interesting question. Ultimately, it brings up the strange lack of parralel that seems to exist in America these days.

Being a liberal is bad. Being a conservative, while not always great, is not bad.

What the hell? Why is this? Did you know Bob Schiefer is a registered republican? I'm not sure if that's true, but I've heard it from two independent sources. Anyway, back to the questions. Why do Bush speeches vaguely sound like Hitler speeches from the mid 30s? How do blatantly conservative entities own a major cable news channel, the vast majority of talk radio, and what has been dubbed an "empire" of local stations?

Here's another one. Why does the current conservative movement seem less interested in being traditionally conservative and more interested in being the simple dominating group. "Just how "conservative" is it, after all, to run up record budget deficits? To make the nation bleed jobs? To invade another nation under false pretenses? To run roughshod over states' rights? To impose a radical unilateralist approach to foreign policy? To undermine privacy rights and the constitutional balance of power? ... To grotesquely mishandle the defense of our national borders?"

These are all somewhat interesting questions, at least to my mind. Perhaps the most important one to me is close to that of the original "liberal" question. Why has it been "unpatriotic" to challenge anything the current White House has said since Sept. 11, 2001? It seems the only people allowed to do so are Kerry and Edwards, and they are RUNNING against the white house. It is, according to a democracy, almost required that they challenge the white house.

The following article I've discovered (and borrowed from w/ the quote) posits one possible explanation. Feel free to accept or disregard the theory proposed. The important thing is reading the arguments that support the theory. It's startling how many of them seem vaguely familiar.

The Morphing of the Conservative Movement
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004_09_19_dneiwert_archive.html#109028353137888956

There you go.

2004-10-12T02:24:00.000-07:00

Alrighty, folks. I just spent about 1/2 hour trying to find any evidence that the following was faked, a forgery, or satire. As far as I can tell, it is 100% true. However, I'd suggest you do a search on it yourself, just to make sure.

As I understand it, this is an email written to friends by a journalist at the Wall Street Journal. If you pay any attention to general politics, you know that the WSJ is a traditionally conservative printing. Originally, this letter was not intended to reach anyone outside the set of friends (though, from the style and content of writing, I vaguely doubt this ascertation), but it appears to have been leaked. As such, here it is in its entirety.

Believe it or not, it's a pretty powerful letter. Here is where I found it...

Poynter

WSJ reporter Fassihi's e-mail to friends

9/29/2004 2:58:10 PM

From: [Wall Street Journal reporter] Farnaz Fassihi
Subject: From Baghdad

Being a foreign correspondent in Baghdad these days is like being under
virtual house arrest. Forget about the reasons that lured me to this job: a chance to see the world, explore the exotic, meet new people in far away lands, discover their ways and tell stories that could make a difference.

Little by little, day-by-day, being based in Iraq has defied all those reasons. I am house bound. I leave when I have a very good reason to and a scheduled interview. I avoid going to people's homes and never walk in the streets. I can't go grocery shopping any more, can't eat in restaurants, can't strike a conversation with strangers, can't look for stories, can't drive in any thing but a full armored car, can't go to scenes of breaking news stories, can't be stuck in traffic, can't speak English outside, can't take a road trip, can't say I'm an American, can't linger at checkpoints, can't be curious about what people are saying, doing, feeling. And can't and can't. There has been one too many close calls, including a car bomb so near our house that it blew out all the windows. So now my most pressing concern every day is not to write a kick-ass story but to stay alive and make sure our Iraqi employees stay alive. In Baghdad I am a security personnel first, a reporter second.

It's hard to pinpoint when the 'turning point' exactly began. Was it April
when the Fallujah fell out of the grasp of the Americans? Was it when Moqtada and Jish Mahdi declared war on the U.S. military? Was it when
Sadr City, home to ten percent of Iraq's population, became a nightly battlefield for the Americans? Or was it when the insurgency began
spreading from isolated pockets in the Sunni triangle to include most of Iraq? Despite President Bush's rosy assessments, Iraq remains a disaster. If under Saddam it was a 'potential' threat, under the Americans it has been transformed to 'imminent and active threat,' a
foreign policy failure bound to haunt the United States for decades to come.

Iraqis like to call this mess 'the situation.' When asked 'how are thing?' they reply: 'the situation is very bad."

What they mean by situation is this: the Iraqi government doesn't control most Iraqi cities, there are several car bombs going off each day around the country killing and injuring scores of innocent people, the
country's roads are becoming impassable and littered by hundreds of
landmines and explosive devices aimed to kill American soldiers, there are assassinations, kidnappings and beheadings. The situation, basically, means a raging barbaric guerilla war. In four days, 110 people died and over 300 got injured in Baghdad alone. The numbers are so shocking that the ministry of health -- which was attempting an exercise of public transparency by releasing the numbers -- has now stopped disclosing them.

Insurgents now attack Americans 87 times a day.

A friend drove thru the Shiite slum of Sadr City yesterday. He said young men were openly placing improvised explosive devices into the ground. They melt a shallow hole into the asphalt, dig the explosive, cover it with dirt and put an old tire or plastic can over it to signal to the locals this is booby-trapped. He said on the main roads of Sadr City, there
were a dozen landmines per every ten yards. His car snaked and swirled to avoid driving over them. Behind the walls sits an angry Iraqi ready to detonate them as soon as an American convoy gets near. This is in Shiite land, the population that was supposed to love America for liberating Iraq.

For journalists the significant turning point came with the wave of abduction and kidnappings. Only two weeks ago we felt safe around Baghdad because foreigners were being abducted on the roads and highways between towns. Then came a frantic phone call from a journalist female friend at 11 p.m. telling me two Italian women had been abducted from their homes in broad daylight. Then the two Americans, who got beheaded this week and the Brit, were abducted from their homes in a residential neighborhood. They were supplying the entire block with round the clock electricity from their generator to win friends. The abductors grabbed one of them at 6 a.m. when he came out to switch on the generator; his beheaded body was thrown back near the neighborhoods./CONTINUED BELOW

WSJ reporter Fassahi's e-mail to friends /2

9/29/2004 2:47:12 PM

The insurgency, we are told, is rampant with no signs of calming down. If any thing, it is growing stronger, organized and more sophisticated every day. The various elements within it-baathists, criminals, nationalists and Al Qaeda-are cooperating and coordinating.

I went to an emergency meeting for foreign correspondents with the military and embassy to discuss the kidnappings. We were somberly told our fate would largely depend on where we were in the kidnapping chain once it was determined we were missing. Here is how it goes: criminal gangs grab you and sell you up to Baathists in Fallujah, who will in turn sell you to Al Qaeda. In turn, cash and weapons flow the other way from Al Qaeda to the Baathisst to the criminals. My friend Georges, the French journalist snatched on the road to Najaf, has been missing for a month with no word on release or whether he is still alive.

America's last hope for a quick exit? The Iraqi police and National Guard
units we are spending billions of dollars to train. The cops are being
murdered by the dozens every day-over 700 to date -- and the insurgents are infiltrating their ranks. The problem is so serious that the U.S. military has allocated $6 million dollars to buy out 30,000 cops they just trained to get rid of them quietly.

As for reconstruction: firstly it's so unsafe for foreigners to operate that
almost all projects have come to a halt. After two years, of the $18
billion Congress appropriated for Iraq reconstruction only about $1 billion or so has been spent and a chuck has now been reallocated for improving security, a sign of just how bad things are going here.

Oil dreams? Insurgents disrupt oil flow routinely as a result of sabotage
and oil prices have hit record high of $49 a barrel. Who did this war exactly benefit? Was it worth it? Are we safer because Saddam is holed up and Al Qaeda is running around in Iraq?

Iraqis say that thanks to America they got freedom in exchange for
insecurity. Guess what? They say they'd take security over freedom any day, even if it means having a dictator ruler.

I heard an educated Iraqi say today that if Saddam Hussein were allowed to run for elections he would get the majority of the vote. This is truly sad.

Then I went to see an Iraqi scholar this week to talk to him about
elections here. He has been trying to educate the public on the importance of voting. He said, "President Bush wanted to turn Iraq into a democracy that would be an example for the Middle East. Forget about democracy, forget about being a model for the region, we have to salvage Iraq before all is lost."

One could argue that Iraq is already lost beyond salvation. For those of us on the ground it's hard to imagine what if any thing could salvage it from its violent downward spiral. The genie of terrorism, chaos and mayhem has been unleashed onto this country as a result of American mistakes and it can't be put back into a bottle.

The Iraqi government is talking about having elections in three months
while half of the country remains a 'no go zone'-out of the hands of the
government and the Americans and out of reach of journalists. In the other half, the disenchanted population is too terrified to show up at polling stations. The Sunnis have already said they'd boycott elections, leaving the stage open for polarized government of Kurds and Shiites that will not be deemed as legitimate and will most certainly lead to civil war.

I asked a 28-year-old engineer if he and his family would participate in
the Iraqi elections since it was the first time Iraqis could to some degree
elect a leadership. His response summed it all: "Go and vote and risk being blown into pieces or followed by the insurgents and murdered for cooperating with the Americans? For what? To practice democracy? Are you joking?"

-Farnaz

2004-10-08T23:24:00.000-07:00

Yeah, I don't have a lot to say concerning this debate. Who do I think won? It's debatable. Do I think that it's stupid that Bush would probably be given the win because he wasn't as terrible? Definitely. Oh well. Here's some stuff.

Actually, Mr. President, in 1997 we fixed Medicare, and I was one of the people involved in it. We not only fixed Medicare and took it way out into the future, we did something that you don't know how to do: We balanced the budget.

"I own a timber company? That's news to me. Need some wood?"

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=15687&item=3935038859&rd=1

2004-10-02T00:23:00.000-07:00

The American media has an amazing grasp of the Elaboration Likelihood Model. For those of you who took an introductory Psych course, this may mean something. If not, bear with me.

The United States of America is a representative democracy. This means select individuals of a state may pay close attention to the government so the rest of us don't have to. Who wants to spend an entire day discussing a labor bill concerning migrant workers in Alaska? No one. That's what we pay our representatives for.

Unfortunately, this puts the citizens of America and their representatives in a tight position. The reps are supposed to read all the information and make an informed decision about it. The thing is they can't in the modern world. Every decision made may be scrutinized and then presented by the oposition to the citizenry as evidence that the current rep has not acted in their best interests.

Which is problematic. Remember, the citizenry specifically elected reps so THE CITIZENS CAN PAY ATTENTION TO OTHER THINGS!! As such, when it comes to politics, the citizens simply aren't going to be motivated to pay attention, except as a form of entertainment and/or idleness. Ultimately, this means all political messages to the citizenry must be in a form that better fits the peripheral route, which means scary music, grainy colors, and angry actors can change votes. This also means the reasons behind a reps actions are ignored for what is called "the sound byte."

Not many people really understand this. I know about it. People who spend a great deal of time reading the news and paying attention to politics seem to know this. In years past, Americans didn't seem to get it.

Now let us return to my ascertation that the media (specifically television media) has a powerful grasp of the ELM. The 2000 presidential elections were decided on sighs, stiffness, "liar" soundbytes, and archetypes. In the present day this is all called spin. Spin, according to the ELM, is how you absolutely dominate the peripheral route. You use one-liners "I invented the internet." You repeat simple messages over and over, "The Vice-President sighed a lot." You pay little attention to real stories in favor of "The Governor seemed real folksy." That is the peripheral route.

American elections are based upon this route, by the manner in which the constitution was drafted. The drafters said, "Hey people, elect other people to do your central processing. Work in your law firms. Farm your fields. Operate your smithies. The professionals will take care of things." This is great, except every two, four, and six years, we are all forced to return from our real jobs to pay attention to matters that we simply haven't been concerning ourselves with. We don't want to deal with this political crap. We want to get back to our lives. Through conditioning and desire, we simply don't process centrally.

The news media knows this. But they don't know that we know they know. As such, pay attention to the spin. Notice who the media is calling "stiff." Listen for mentions of slouching and wrinkled suits. These are the tell-tale signs that let us know EXACTLY who the media wants to win.

In 2000 it was, without question, Bush. In 2004, it seems to be shifting back and forth. Two weeks ago, Kerry kept shifting stances. He was wishy-washy. Bush was steadfast. Does anyone know what the hell these words mean? I'm a graduate student, and I don't think I know. Suddenly, after the debate, Bush seemed uncomfortable and scowled a lot.

I'm a liberal guy, but it really pisses me off that Kerry might win because Bush "scowled a lot." I want Kerry to win because I think he is simply the better candidate with better ideas and a willingness concede faults. I don't want him to win because he seemed "relaxed."

Yet that is how presidential debates are won. The citizenry wants to do the right thing, but they don't want to spend a great deal of time doing it.

You know what I think? I don't think there is a liberal bias or a conservative bias in the media. In think there's an entertainment bias. I think there's a "keep the viewers glued" bias. People prefer to watch and read what they agree with. I'll bet not a single mention of relaxed vs. detached was made until AFTER the insta-polls were finished and the media knew which way to spin the results.

Cater to the public. Show the right peripherals. Screw the world.

2004-10-01T06:40:00.000-07:00

Alrighty, so I watched the debate and enjoyed it. I personally feel that neither guy landed a knock-out punch, but I do feel Kerry managed an important feat. He GOT THE POINT ACROSS IN LESS THAT 2 MINUTES!! It's amazing!

The only thing I'll mention is the one briliiant knock out punch performed by the DNC. I'm taking the following paragraph from another source...

"The thinking-ahead prize, however, goes to the Democratic National Committee, which ran a banner ad on the Washington Post's home page all night with the large words, "Debate Shows Kerry Strength, Bush Fails to Deliver Plan for Iraq."

Way to go, tricky advertising!!!

2004-09-29T00:17:00.000-07:00

I've determined to use this blog as one of those infamous "political" blogs I hear so much about, but never seem to read. This way, when I run for congress or senate in ten years, someone can drag up these words to haunt me. I'm very excited.

It is 1:20 in the morning at the moment. In less than twenty four hours one of the most momentous debates of the past twenty years will take place. It is the burden of every American to watch two men spar over issues that could define the world for the next twenty years.

Recent polling data exists that suggests the American public believes George Bush to be the better fighter of terrorism in the future. The only problem I see with this perception is that his track record is so poor up to this point. He hasn't dismantled Al Qaeda, the only islamic extremist organization to cause this terror, of which we all seem so frightened. In fact, if you think about the meaning of these words, you might even say that GW Bush has been the man most behind the terror most Americans feel. His color coded messages tell us EXACTLY how terrified we should be. His attacks in Iraq have created a bastion for extremists. His "us vs. them" attitude has colored the way we view the world west of California, south of Texas, and north and east of Maine.

At some point we seem to have entered, not the war against terror, but the war against people we don't like so much.

So why do people think Bush is such a good anti-terror candidate? I think it's because he's amazing at tossing out hand grenades and assuring us HE is the man who can now pick them up. He's like a magician. He never lets his left hand know what his right hand is doing. The only problem is the act he is performing is no act of cherity.

2004-06-24T22:35:00.000-07:00

Sierra Online

While this blog post will not be popular and will reveal me as the nerd I am, I figure I may as well write it.

Sierra Online recently died. Some say it died when Vivendi bought it out 5 years ago, which is - to an extent - correct, but today the body was buried. The doors of Sierra Entertainment were closed, workers were laid off, and the company that first brought us graphical computer games, King's Quest, Quest for Glory, Space Quest, Leisure Suit Larry, Gabriel Knight, Phantasmagoria, Goblins, and a host of other adventure games turned off.

When I got over the Nintendo games of Mario Bros. and Legend of Zelda, I turned to Sierra Online. They produced brilliant games with brilliant plots and hundreds of jokes that only made sense to the educated. Al Lowe, creator of Leisure Suit Larry, once said that adventure games had died with the invention of the idiot proof computer. I can't say how true that is. I can only say that the games that demand an education are gone, and we are left with Quake and Doom III, button mashers. There may still be a few games out there (Syberia) in the adventure genre and a few hybrids (Half-Life), but the wave has ended, and I am sad.

In other news, not much is up. The people I work with have intelligence, but it does not fit my definition. They can't spell, and they have poor grammar. I'm not sure that I'll ever be able to leave a university setting, because I doubt my ability to deal with the grammatically challenged.

On that note, I shall call it a night. Sleep well, all. I'm exhausted.

2004-06-19T00:35:00.000-07:00

One thought that leads to...

So this thing about moving away... Let me tell you something. There are things to be said for moving away, but one must realize the challenges inherent in such a move. The obvious examples of this are Kay and myself.

Both of us have had the experience. We've both moved so far away that we literally didn't know a single person before we got here. Such a move can be painful and difficult. It's possible that Kay still hasn't adjusted. I know I'm only partly there.

The thing is that moving provides one major opportunity. Whether you are willing to take it is the question. See, moving allows a person to explore themselves. You'll meet new people, and you'll have the chance to demonstrate facets of your personality that your friends don't know about.

Actually, you have that chance here, too. But allow me to continue.

Ultimately, and I think Kay will agree, you will find that you aren't very different from the personality you left back with your friends. You'll behave the same. You'll find similar friends. The only difference is you may find is a friend or two who seems to mesh with you better than anyone else ever has. Such a friend might push you to do things you might not have done, but always wanted to. This friend might give you some confidence in your ability to hang with people who just seemed too far above you. (note the strange direction this blog has suddenly taken)

In fact, I think I approve of moving. Learning to adapt is an amazing skill to pick up. Discovering the sometimes painful skill of learning how to meet people can be astonishing. Finding that the idea of social classes truly is a false division can open an entire world.

2004-06-01T23:39:00.000-07:00

//While reading another blog, the following set of thoughts came to me, which I used to reply. As I felt they did a great job personifying me, I decided to post them here. Any thoughts?

Sometimes when I read this blog, I'm left wondering, "Am I less holy than everyone else, or is everyone else more holy than I am." Then I wonder, "In fact, what exactly is 'being holy.' And, in order to be it, do we constantly have to blather on about God, how wonderful he is, and how we're trying constantly to become closer to him, or can we just act the way he'd like us to act and call it good?"

I guess I don't really know the answer to any of those questions, but I do know this. If I had to choose between being a man who constantly talked about how great god was and how much I want to strive toward being like him but then found a homeless man in a church and threw him out or being a man who never said a word about God but then gave the homeless guy a bit of food, I'd choose the latter.

I guess I think a particular vocabulary doesn't make a person better. And I suppose in a sense, I don't think constantly worrying about God makes a person better. Beyond that, I suppose betterment comes from actions and intentions.

On the matter of DTR, I shall paraphrase the words of a wise woman I once knew who shall remain nameless (though she has been known as the "Bosnian Babe"). She feels that defining the relationship simply isn't the way to deal with such matters. Instead, caution should be thrown to the wind. The first person to know you have a boyfriend should be the the first person to receive an introduction on that note.

In other words, at some point you should say, "Hey you remember (insert name here), my boyfriend."

It's a terrifying way to do it, but then, she was a pretty fearless girl.