do unto others
i'm kinda confused about the christian-on-trial-in-afghan story. i've read that the christian right-wingers here are enraged and that condi & w, themselves, have tried to explain to those wacky allies of ours that this could be a problem and that they need to understand that we expect them to follow international notions of democracy/freedom of religion. ok, so far, so good. but, what i don't understand, is this...
if they argue that members of our supreme court should never be expected to consider the standards or laws of other nations, where do they get off telling a foreign, constitoutionally sanctioned court how to enforce its laws? how 'bout we teach by example?
non-performance art
If I lived in a condo/co-op and my monthly fees/maintenance payment were being spent on some whim of the board of directors (say, to patrol the tennis courts which I never wanted to build in the first place) and NOT being spent on the basic services (like lighting the crumbling paths from the decaying garage) which, according to the contract, were 'included'... if such happened, I'd get other residents together and we would sue the board for dereliction of duty (or we'd try).
Why can't several scores of millions of American citizens join in a class action suit against the administration for failure to perform (or some such legal sounding claim)? My tax dollars are supposed to go towards the generally agreed upon services of a civilized society - educating children, decent roads, whatever. Why do I risk imprisonment if I refuse to pay taxes which are going to finance things which provide nothing for ANYONE (let alone for me)? Haven't they committed some kind of fraud?! Can't we sue the crooks? If not, why not?
the anti-Bonds (Barry, that is)
Is there really ANYone who doesn't believe that Barry Bonds has been juicing for the past half dozen years (ever since the Mark&Sammy Show)? Has that stopped most people from hoping that he'd hit one into McCovey Cove each and every time he comes to bat? Of course not, this is America where records and winning and being NUMBER ONE matter more than anything. Lost in the conversations about all those who took steriods (including all those who've denied it, against all reason), is mention of the greatest player of this generation of baseballers, a man who chose NOT to juice, despite the fact that this choice probably cost him a slew of records.
Ken Griffey, Jr., unquestionably the most talented player of them all, was well on his way to establishing himself as one of the greatest of all time, but a series of injuries have cost him several seasons worth of playing time. He could have juiced in the interest of speeding his recoveries (can't imagine he'd juice to increase speed or power - how much faster or more powerful could he be?!), but he didn't. And what did his decision NOT to break the law (if not the rules) cost him? Countless homeruns, doubles, stolen bases, RBIs and the goodwill of press and fans alike.
In the USA of the 21st Century, winning at all costs, whether in sports, politics or business, seems to be the only strategy worth rewarding, yet there are people in all of those fields who have chosen NOT to cheat in order to rack up the numbers that, one way or another, will enrich their pockets even as they diminish their souls. Ken Griffey, Jr., should be held up as a paragon of virtue and remembered as a truly great player as much for what he did NOT do as for the still-awesome stats he has managed to put together. I don't know how the Hall of Fame folks will treat Sosa and Bonds (Palmiero should just be forgotten as the most mediocre of all "great sluggers" who benefited from a hypodermic), but I sure hope that Griffey won't be penalized for not having quite the totals he would have, had he chosen to supplement his approved methods of rehabilitation with "juice" just to accelerate the process and, maybe, add a little something to his incredible arsenal of skills.
don't let the home fires burn out of control
NYTimes : Bush Policies Are Weakening National Guard, Governors Saywe are, apparently, now fighting them over there because we can't fight them over here, anymore.
...
it's not like he raped anyone
nothing makes me feel quite so superior as the realization of just how unextraordinary I am. Why, you wonder, should this make me feel superior? well, it's the certain knowledge of how rare an american i am that i KNOW how unimportant i am. Bode Miller seems to understand this, too. he seems perfectly comfortable with the fact that he took advantage of the american obssession with WINNING to ensure that he could totally enjoy the fun of the Olympics even without winning a single thing. Ya gotta love a guy who refuses to apologize for losing, who doesn't even regret losing. Even as he is lambasted by the corporate media (who were counting on him become a BRAND), he manages to personify all of the qualities i (and, i suspect, his parents) still hold to be the only american dream worth pursuing... happiness derived from a thoughtful ability to keep "success" in perspective. It may be unpatriotic but I meant it when I told my son that i'd love him just as much for striking out as hitting a home run back in Little League.
i don't mean to insult those atheletes who went out there to win and focused totally on that goal. but i do mean to say that the only athelete-parents with whom i can imagine having anything in common (y'know, people with whom i could share a joint or pitcher of margaritas) are the millers. i'm sure they're very happy when the kid wins, but they didn't spend their lives schlepping him to training sessions & lessons - he learned to ski down the mountain he lived on - and they didn't invest their lives in him (like the Turkish parents who gave up everything for their daughter's skating career), so he doesn't HAVE TO WIN to repay them. If he doesn't seem to feel a sense of indebtedness to his family, my guess is that he'd be damned before he'd feel guilty for having "disappointed" NBC (even if it's Tom Brokaw trying to get him to do so) or Wheaties or whoever.
Mettle over medals, everytime.
.....
new slogan for the democrats:
They broke it,
We'll fix it
W's alternate reality explains everything
(AP) Weeks before one of its companies sought U.S. approval for its ports deal, the United Arab Emirates contributed $100 million to help victims of Hurricane Katrina, officials confirmed Thursday.
and that contribution to Katrina victims has been spent transporting thousands of mobile homes from Hope, Arkansas to the Gulf Coast where they were so desperately needed. Thousands of families are grateful to the generous people of the UAE for their selfless philanthropy and eager to repay them. But how? Perhaps they can turn over management of some terminals in the ports of New Orleans, Galveston and Corpus Christie? Yeah! That's a great idea! And why don't we close that ports deal right away and get to the victim-helping some other time?
separated at the wrap party?
has everyone else already noted that ever since Ron Silver played Dershowitz (defending that - hmmmm - great dane, Klaus von Bulow), you can't really tell them apart?
Just give shieks a chance
The administration will give Congress more time in which to be convinced to support the UAE ports deal, but the decision will stand. I guess it's because there is no other terminal management company in the whole wide world, let alone the US, which can perform the job of handling the 21 (not the originally-reported six) terminals on the Atlantic & Gulf coasts.
Reminds me of when someone I know wrote an eloquent letter to INS in behalf of the lovely young Polish (or Thai?) woman who cleaned her house. She exaggerated a teeny bit and made it sound as if the young woman was the only person available who could prepare the special diet she required... since i know the "special diet" consisted, pretty much, of edibles in the category of "food," I'm guessing there might've been someone else equipped to prepare the meals, but she was a nice young woman and everyone liked her and she really wanted that green card. So no one thought anything of it, because otherwise she was going to have to leave the country.
W. thinks the united arab emirs are really nice guys (for brown guys) and that they're entitled to have the chance that running 21 US terminals will give 'em for their shot at the American Dream. I guess.
NRO has tips for network development folks
so i followed a link to the
National Review Online "corner" and browsed a bit until i got to this:
HEROES OF WAR AWOL [Warren Bell]
Scott Galupo in the Washington Times dissects the disturbing absence of Hollywood movies and TV shows depicting the heroism of American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Why, for instance, has the amazing and tragic story of Pat Tillman not merited, at least, a cable TV biopic?
Interesting question. Assuming, of course, that he means that we not only celebrate Tillman's unquestionable sense of honor in quitting his NFL job to join the fight against the Taliban, but also our government's attempt to misrepresent the circumstances of his death (by friendly fire) for public relations purposes AND to stonewall his parenets when they tried to get accurate information. That's a movie-of-the-week I'd tune in to watch!
So, Hillary supports the "defense of marriage act"
Hmmm. Is this one of those dictionary entries to exemplify the definition of the word "ironic"? Those Clintons really do have nerve... sometimes.
I just remembered when it was that Bill 'lost me' - I was wavering after the cowardice displayed over Lani Guinier's nomination for AG, but the real pisser was "don't ask, don't tell." Clinton had the chance to take the moral high ground and put Congress in the position of having to do their own dirty work (even forcing them to override a veto if it came to that), but, no... rather than let politics/government work its way through a process in front of the citizenry, he handled the accomodating all on his own.
Clintons seem to be cowards when it comes to fighting for the tough issues in which they sometimes profess beliefs. Or else, they don't actually have any beliefs beyond an amazingly high faith in their own abilities to decide (on behalf of those of us who've had no better choices than they when faced with any ballot on which their names appear) just when to give up a fight.
Sure, I'd love to vote for a woman to be president, but my primary criterion is not a candidate's sex.
As my elderly mother keeps reminding me, there's no way this country will ever nominate/elect a Jew as president. Nevertheless, unless someone else (Gore is the only real alternative) steps up as a comparable man of honor, is there really anyone other than Russ Feingold who deserves to represent those of us who still believe in the potentials of honour and decency in an American, democratic republic?
Something I just read wondered how committed people are to their political preferences - would people change cleaners or doctors. hire/not hire someone depending on political preferences. It reminded me that...
About fifteen years ago, back when I was still happily married, my husband and I gave up trying to conceive a second child and began the process of adopting. Eventually, a young woman selected us as potential parents for her baby, and we met with her AND the father (still her high school boyfriend). They were adorable, promising youngsters who, though quite unsophisticated, had ambitions which included college and careers; she, especially, was clearly determined to enjoy the adventure of her life despite their carelessness, once she had made sure that she had found a good home for her unborn child. She questioned us quite alot but it was difficult to get a sense of what answers she was looking for to fulfill her fantasy of the "good parents" in that "good home."
And then she asked us, if we had a son who, in his teens, told us that he thought he was a homosexual, would we be able to accept it? My husband and I looked at each other and, knowing that I would have an answer already forming, my husband nodded his agreement that I should just answer for us both. So, unsure of what these two kids thought about a subject less frequently discussed then than now, but determined to have my say (even at the risk of losing the child), I explained that I would have no difficulty accepting such at all. That there was NO social "stigma" with which I could imagine having an acceptance issue... unless, of course, my child ever announced he was a Republican.
So... if I were willing to abandon my child for being a Republican, you can bet I'd ditch the cleaners!
For the record... the kids laughed and immediately told us they thought we'd make great parents, the kids' parents' coerced them into getting married and keeping the baby, my marriage broke up and, most importantly, my young adult son is a very liberal democrat!