Supremes at work

The Supreme Court will hear a case about lethal injections of death-row prisoners.

I’m against the death penalty for four reasons. First, I think it’s wrong for the state to kill in order to show it’s wrong to kill. Second, I don’t think the application of the death penalty is evenly applied to all prisoners. Also, I know it’s expensive to keep giving almost unlimited appeals, and that it would be cheaper just to keep people in prison indefinitely, and finally, I just can’t be convinced that there’s any deterrence to be had from it.

But this particular case mystifies me because it refuses to deal with the heart of the matter while getting very involved in the minutiae of the process. The case centers on the 8th Amendment rights of the prisoners to not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment.

On the one hand, does it really matter if the prisoner suffers excruciating pain before dying? Doesn't that serve the revenge-sense that the application of the death penalty feeds? Thinking in revenge-mode for a moment, did the prisoner worry about the excruciating pain the victim would be in? And if he had actually worried about that, or took time to comfort the dying victim, would his sentence have been lessened any? I don’t think so.

How is being killed by any method, as applied to the prisoner or his victim, not cruel and unusual? I see this case as just so much mental game-playing.

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080107/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_lethal_injection

Talkin' shop

The mall sucks. It brings out the very worst in people. There is no getting around this. The mall is all that's wrong with humanity. Opening it to that humanity on Thanksgiving Day is itself inhumane. Greed as motivation is a craptastic way to be. Do you hear me, retailers? Craptastic!

I am responsible for the Hanukkah part of my children's upbringing. In my world, that means 8 gifts for each child. Don't feel sad for them; they get a Christmas part, too. December is like halcyon for my children. I refer to it as the holi-daze. I am proud to tell you that I was able to score all Hanukkah presents for my children without subjecting myself to the mall. Mall-free and loving it! Almost all presents will come to my office. In a week or so, I will turn one lunch hour into a giant Wrap Fest, and I will be done. Done.

And I did not have to wake up at 4 am yesterday, or go to Wal-Mart, or reduce myself in any way to ensure this. The retailers would have you believe that you can have either convenience or conscience, but not both. This is more craptastic thinking. You can do whatever you want, and it won't cost a fortune and you can stay out of the mall and use less gas and keep your sanity and focus on the real messages of the season, which as it turns out have nothing to do with Wal-Mart.

Happy shopping.

Fall Back

Today involved a walk through the woods. What I was thinking about during that walk is that very little has changed since the Leni-Lenape occupied that land 400 years ago. On this first day of Standard Time, I've also been thinking about ways of marking time, first as darkness and light, eventually changes in the moon, seasons, years. What did the Leni-Lenape think about as they wandered the places I did today, when they weren't addressing immediate survival? Was a colorful leaf something to celebrate? Was it a gift of the gods? It's these small ideas that connect us, because almost all of our life is so different from that era. But nature lets us go back, lets us remember. That need to connect to the past is about more than just a fear of repeating it. It's primal, and we're better for having it.

Boo

Doubtless I will get scorned for this admission: I don't like Halloween. I don't like having to put costumes together for my kids. I can remember that either my mother went to Woolworth's and bought us costumes in a box or we made them ourselves. The drive to Woolworth's and back was the zenith of parental involvement, so far as I can recall. I simply didn't understand mothers who sewed their children's costumes. I still don't. It seems like so much work for just a few hours--wildly inefficient. I know a woman who sewed her daughter's wedding dress, and that was clearly a labor of love. This, on the other hand, would just be labor. I'd be resenting it inside of three minutes, I know it. So I bought costumes for my kids. And I'm hosting a pizza party for them and their friends and the parents of some of the friends before we all go out. After the whole thing is over, I plan to make myself a big margarita--now that will be a labor of love.

Speaking of labor, it will be as light as it can be on October 31, due in part to the intense effort of...the candy lobby. The extension of DST by three weeks began this past spring as a way to cheaply save some energy, without having to make much sacrifice. Whether it actually saves anything is another matter. (Cynics know it's really for the benefit of retailers, and when you drive to the mall more than you otherwise would because it won't be dark when you get out, there's no energy being saved.)

The candy lobby (I can't write that term without giggling) apparently had much to do with the 2005 Energy Act, but my question is: does another hour of sunlight mean more candy will get purchased? Does anyone, when they're contemplating how much candy to buy, standing there in line getting angry at how ripped off they're about to be, think: Hey, better get more. That extra hour and all. I don't think so. I've looked outside. It's already dark by 6:30, so it's not like anyone is staying out way later than before. Note to candy lobby: You're boneheads. No matter when DST ends, trick or treating ends by about 8 pm.

So bank on my sipping that 'rita by about 8:03.

Source:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7779869

Dyslexics, untie!

I've been checking into dyslexia, as that might explain some of the issues regarding one of the Trog children. Certainly I believe that dyslexia presents some challenges to people who have it and while I wouldn't want to offend anyone, this is nevertheless funny.

If you go to http://www.dyslexia.com/qasymptoms.htm#d981102, and scroll down the lefthand side of the page, you will see questions and their answers. This particular one has said Trog child and her mother absolutely howling:

Q. Will my child dyslexia from me?

'Nuff said.

Fire

Remember in the article just below this I said that when I run the world people who opt out of insurance won't get to use FEMA services? I need to amend the Trogvision Worldview. People who don't leave areas when they're being ordered to evacuate also need sanctions. I think the municipality should get to sue them later, but I also think there ought to be immediate sanctions. Right now this is about fire, but just as often it's about flooding, hurricanes or whatever other event Mother Nature can vomit up. In my world, the immediate sanction is: You don't get rescued.

It sounds colder than it is. It's very similar to the logic applied to the deli line. If you're Number 84, and you walk away when it's nearing your turn, woe unto you. You have to wait, until there's a break in the action, or until everyone else's orders have been taken care of, or until everyone else is dead. Either way, it's a long wait. And what's more, you knew this going in. Don't leave your secure, Number 84 place in line. Leaving=bad.

One of the fire chiefs in L.A. County estimated his needs at 1,200 firefighters. He only got 600. Part of the problem is that they're chronically understaffed. Staffing at the rate of need is a duty that is owed the people of California. It's one thing in a pinch, but rescue personnel can't constantly be pulled from various areas as standard operating procedure. What this ill-fated decision to underfund and understaff means is that it's particularly important in this emergency to evacuate when ordered to do so.

I'm reminded of the Simpsons episode in which Bart and Lisa are removed from the Simpson home due to perceived parental negligence. Marge and Homer have to take a parenting class and the instructor tells the class to "put your garbage in a garbage can, people. I can't stress that enough."

It seems simple: Get. Out. Hey, wait, it actually is that simple. Get out, and if you're too stupid to get out, don't make anyone exert one iota of energy on the thing you were too stupid to do, because the other, smarter people need the rescue people more than you do.

Yes, there are people who aren't able to get out for one reason or another. Presumably they have working radios and TVs and cellphones and can call ahead to alert the rescue personnel that they are in harm's way and need help. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about people who willfully decide that, having been graced with survival of a fire previously, they will risk it again, dump the gallons of water they're holding on to the fire that's now threatening their homes, watch the action from their roofs, etc. If the fire departments, ie people trained to handle this very activity, are having a hard time deciding which spot is next because the winds are so treacherous, how is it not the height of arrogance for Joe Citizen to think he knows better?

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071022/ap_on_re_us/california_wildfires
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/weather/july-dec07/fires_10-22.html

Katrina Reflux

So. It's come to this. Insurance companies (the ones who were supposed to have enough of a clue about things impacting their industry to know not only that a big-ass hurricane would do in Louisiana and parts of Mississippi but that it would cost the industry a bundle) have decided, after their initial attempt of "managing risk" (insurance-speak for "ways to not have our asses handed to us") by refusing to pay out homeowner policies for those catastrophically devastated by Katrina, to take another tack. They've opted to discontinue policies of people who live in much less risky places, like Rhode Island.

Now, now, settle down. It's not as bad as it was. At first, the insurers let their clients know that one reason they were getting canned was that they lacked tie-in insurance. But it turns out it's not legal to force clients to use your company for all of their insurance needs. So the insurers took that line out. Now don't you feel better?

Look. Insurance is a risky business. Insuring historically risky places needn't cost everyone. Charge people who want to live on cliffs, or next to forests, or on coastlines, or in places where mudslides are regular events, more money for their policies. (When I rule the world, these same homeowners will not be allowed to apply for FEMA services if they opt out of insurance. But they'll still be able to get blankets from the Red Cross, b/c I'm soft that way.)

Risk is profitable, always has been. Wildcatters know it, and so do hedge-fund players. But the risk for insurers is more manageable than other industries b/c it's largely not an unknown. There will be hurricanes, and fires, and bridges will fall apart while people are on them. If the companies were so greedy that they didn't budget for the lean years, the years in which they'd be paying out historic amounts of cash, is that anyone else's mess to clean up? One could argue that the government who didn't serve its constituents is at least partly to blame. But the little guy who's done nothing but pay on his policy is blameless.

One view is that a market economy breeds competition, and so the little guy can go elsewhere. But what happens when the whole industry does it? Where does Joe Sixpack go then?

Consumer advocates, product liability lawyers, and state board of insurance, it's your time to shine.

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/16/nyregion/16insurance.html

Bad Penny

Coulter outs herself as an anti-Semite and this is surprising why?


Source:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301216,00.html

Po-Po No-No

Andrew Meyer is a student in Florida. Yesterday, he was at a campus forum featuring Senator John Kerry, and apparently went over his allotted time to ask questions. He was removed by the police officers of his school, although the Senator said he would answer the student's questions. As the scene escalated minimally, in that Meyer resisted being led away, the campus police apparently thought it appropriate to use a Taser; that is, the police used a stun gun on the student. A stun gun.

"Meyer was arrested on charges of resisting an officer and disturbing the peace, according to Alachua County jail records, but the State Attorney's Office had yet to make the formal charging decision. Police recommended charges of resisting arrest with violence, a felony, and disturbing the peace and interfering with school administrative functions, a misdemeanor."

OK. The police use a stun gun because four of them are having a hard time controlling a student at a campus forum, and now they recommend he be charged with a felony offense.

I was just having a conversation with someone this very day about the need for checks and balances on police power because of the possibility of abuse inherent in that power. This is exactly the kind of situation I was thinking about, the kind where the person in question is not a threat, not breaking the law, but is treated as a violent offender anyway. Leaving out entirely that it doesn't help the image of the police (or the many security personnel at campuses all over who have a very difficult and thankless task), it's a waste of police and court resources (read: your tax dollars) to prosecute this "criminal."

*Edited to say that having seen the video, the only comment I can add to what I've already written here is that Kerry, who drones on and on while this whole thing goes down, once again is left looking totally ineffective.

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070918/ap_on_re_us/student_arrested_kerry

A Boy Named Hsu

Norman Hsu. Sigh. Making my side look bad. But here at Trogvision we struggle for parity (cough), so he's gotta get talked about. Who is he? A convicted fugitive who gives big bucks to Democrats. Yes, it's true there are plenty of money-giving crooks out there. (See the deceased Kenneth Lay, for example.) What makes this case different?

In the wake of such scandals, er, misguided decisions, fundraisers have had to figure out how to deal. It's embarrassing to take money from bad guys. It could make the nonprofit look like it approves of said bad guy's actions. And might keep other donors from giving.

Sometimes the fundraisers feel the need to give the money back. Sometimes the donor wants the fundraiser to give the money back. (See the deceased Kenneth Lay v. Mizzoo.) But sometimes, as here, the fundraiser doesn't want to give the money back but really should. The others to whom Hsu had given money had gotten rid of it. Governor Rendell, who I generally believe does a great job, was the lone holdout. This was a bad move. But today he decided to get rid of his Hsu moo.

Hsu pleaded no contest in 1991 to a felony count of grand theft, having defrauded investors of $1 million after falsely claiming to have contracts to purchase and sell latex gloves. He remained a fugitive for 15 years until last week when he turned himself in to California authorities. Apparently this went unknown until some time last month, when receivers of Hsu's largesse began giving it back or giving it to charity. Last night Hsu, who had skipped town on $2 million bail for a grand theft conviction on Wednesday, was arrested in Grand Junction, Colo. (Grand Junction is a mere two hours from Aspen, which is where Kenny Boy went for a vacation and never came back.)

Sources:
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_stories/9636722.html
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1197912,00.html

Incoming Mindset

Every year, Benoit College puts together a list to show the mindset of incoming freshmen. It's useful. I remember once when I was in grad school, I had to take an undergraduate course and the professor made a comment about Yul Gibbons. Yul Gibbons, as you might recall, was a naturalist who ate things like pinecones, and hawked natural cereals. I might be simplifying things a bit, but the point here is that none of the students in the class (except for me because I was a little bit older) knew who he was, so whatever reference the professor was making was lost on the class. Hence the value of such a list.

This year's list has some of the kinds of things you'd expect: the Class of 2011 has always had bottled water, for example. The one that struck me is this: Nelson Mandela has always been free and a force in South Africa.

Mandela: author, Nobel-prize winner, first democratically elected president of South Africa, activist. Jailed from 1962 to 1990. Most people think of Mandela as a promoter of peace, but in frustration, it was his view that the African National Congress should have a military wing, because it "would be wrong and unrealistic for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the government met our peaceful demands with force." He became an enduring symbol when he refused to compromise his position to gain a quicker freedom. Since being freed, he has continued as a tour de force for peace. Did I mention he was trained as a lawyer?

I remember the day Mandela was released in February of 1990. I had been boycotting all products of manufacturers that had a presence in South Africa for a long time, and continued to do so until everyone in that country, no matter their color, got the right to vote. I remember reading all the accounts of his leaving jail in all the newspapers, and I can clearly remember feeling very hopeful and happy, sure that we were on the brink of something big. Something right. Something just.

In a way I'm sorry for the incoming freshmen, that they missed such a joyful moment, the amen of a prayer for humanity. More broadly, I wonder if those who haven't known a particular struggle can ensure that it doesn't happen again. Santayana said that those who can't remember the past are condemned to repeat it. He didn't elaborate on whether they had to understand it.



Sources:
http://www.beloit.edu/~pubaff/mindset/2011.php
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1993/mandela-bio.html
http://www.anc.org.za/people/mandela.html

One Bitch to Another

I remember that when Leona Helmsley was in some deep poo in the 1980s, Newsweek had a picture of her on its cover with the phrase "Rhymes With Rich." This was before she was hauled off to the big house for a while.

Today I learned that Helmsley, who died about 10 days ago, instructed in her will that her dog Trouble will receive $12 million. The media are making a big deal that the dog gets money and some grandkids don't. Big deal: the testator has the right to do anything she wants, including not including particular descendants. So the grandkids have no leg to stand on, unless they can prove she was mentally incompetent when she signed the will, and that's long and messy. They'd be better off attending to other business, especially because Grandma did leave money to some other grandkids, who presumably would rather believe Helmsley was coherent when she signed her will.

Let's remember, as some professor told me in law school: Money+family=litigation.

My questions here are: What could possibly cost a dog $12 million over its life? How the hell much does kibble cost? Does this dog take vacations? Cruises? Does it regularly bathe in 14-karat gold? Does it live better than most American families?

Other than that, Helmsley planned and executed a thoughtful will, unlike, say, Anna Nicole Smith. But I wonder who the remaindermen are (those who stand to take if there's anything left after all claims and gifts are made), and whether they're plotting the unfortunate demise of Trouble right this moment.

The Gonzales Exit

Blogging: It's a timely sport. Meaning if you've spaced your password, you can't be all timely on the Gonzales thing. But some things are better on the second day. Pizza. Kugel. Who the next attorney general will be.

First of all, better late than never. President Bush, who takes loyalty to a high art form (even when it's totally unwarranted) got to put it all out there b/c the Gonzales Goodbye didn't come from his direction. Cough.

Secondly, Paul Clement, who is the current Solicitor General, will be the interim AG. He's a conservative. He's bright as hell. He clerked for Scalia. He's argued cases in lower courts on the Administration's approach to terrorism(1).

Third, from the peanut gallery, the speculation is delicious. Michael Chertoff, the head of Homeland Security? That will be held against him (see Katrina)(2) but actually Chertoff has a credible legal background, and served as United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals(3).

Theodore Olson was the Solicitor General for a while(4), and his wife Barbara was killed on the Pentagon plane on 9/11, which automatically imbues him with a no-shit approach regarding terrorists. He's also legally credible, and every case I ever read involving him was sound. (In a bit of unrelated weirdness, 9/11 is also his birthday. However, I'm glad to report he's now happily remarried, to his fourth wife.)

The other choices are less noteworthy to me, but the interesting choice I saw bandied about yesterday (though not today) was Senator Orrin Hatch (R) of Utah. Extremely conservative guy but also, almost inexplicably, good friends with across-the-aisle Ted Kennedy(5). I can't recall Senator Hatch ever seeming like the Great Bridge of the Diametrically Opposed, and I don't imagine he would be in this role either. I further don't imagine any serious Democrat would take Senator Hatch's candidacy as some kind of appeasement.

I am personally very glad to see Gonzales gone, not because of his bungling of the judges being fired, but because of his involvement in 2002, while working in the Department of Justice, in narrowing the definition of torture(6). I believed and still do believe that anyone so bogged down in technically defining the extent to which pain needs to be present in the life of a detainee before the detainee is allowed to so much as visit with his own human rights has probably long since lost the forest for the trees and thus, he wasn't a suitable candidate to be upholding justice.


Sources, I got your sources right here:
1. http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/aboutosg/paul_d_clementbio.htm
2. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294911,00.html
3. http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/chertoff-bio.html
4. http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/aboutosg/t_olson_bio.htm
5. http://www.infoplease.com/biography/var/edwardmkennedy.html
6. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48446-2005Jan4.html

A word on the miners

There is something about the plight of miners that touches me. It's hard to believe there are still people who do abnormally dangerous work in substantially similar circumstance as was done in the early 1900s. And it's also hard to believe that in that span of over one hundred years, there are not better, safer methods in place for the quick return of people trapped in the mines. The mine at issue here has apparently had more than 300 violations since 2004. As recently as last month, it was cited for inadequate escape passages.

In the law when someone engages in abnormally dangerous activity that harms the interests of others, we don't use negligence or recklessness as the tort theory. We use strict liability, meaning it's of no issue whatsoever how many precautions the wrongdoer tried to take.

I have no illusions that any of the miners are alive, and I feel terribly for their families. As I say, miner incidents just seem particularly tragic to me. But this incident leaves me with some questions:
1. How the hell many violations does a mining company get to have before it gets shut down? Why bother with a sanction mechanism if its enforcement is a joke?
2. If a company routinely blows off citations, and doesn't make a mine as safe as it can be under the circumstances, is it held to a strict liability standard, responsible for absolutely everything that flows from the actions of its business? And if not, why not?
3. Who's paying for all this? Who are the people lowering microphones and drilling and rethinking how to throw more light for the camera? Are they donating their time? Is Murray paying for all of it?
4. Would it have been so hard to get a couple of translators in place for the families of several of the miners, whose first language is not English?


Sources:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/social_issues/july-dec07/miners_08-08.html

Oh where have you been my blue eyed son

The Bar exam: she do take a bite. The Trog has had no time to post. The Trog has had no time to fix herself a Boca burger and has not seen the Trogettes in weeks. The state of the Trog's house is contemptible.

But the Trog nevertheless notes with joy that there is some karmic justice in this world.

It's a bad idea on principle to tell someone you work with to go f*ck himself. Graceless to then say afterwards how much better it made you feel. Delicious when that someone then legally calls for your head a couple years later.

When does the Executive branch admit they're not village idiots and truly do understand that Executive Privilege is reserved for exactly one person who is not named Harriet Miers?

It's a hard rain's a-gonna fall. Yep. Delicious.

Administrative State

So the Bush Administration has had six gaffes in a row, in a short period of time. Barrie Dunsmore authored this article (Source 1 below) and seems to believe that somehow this will turn the tide, once we realize Dick Cheney is the Great Satan.

First of all, I can knock that 6 down to 4 in no time: 9 servicepeople being killed in Iraq is no longer novel enough to register in the conscience of America and dead Iraqis, Shiite or otherwise, never registered in the first place.

Second, the idea that there is anywhere lower to sink is the fundamental flaw here. No one expects greatness from this Administration. No one demands accountability. We've been taught that both ideas are futile. The only thing that can happen now is that further crap ideas might not get implemented. No one is getting impeached. No one from the Administration, Chuck Schumer's idea to the contrary (see Source 2), is getting canned. No one is coming home en masse from Iraq.

All this to say: who cares how much bad news occurred? It won't help. Myriad violations of civil rights that have occurred during the last six years will take decades to remedy. The social programs that have been getting robbed ever since faith-based initiatives took over aren't ever getting it back. All by itself, our approach in Guantanamo has ensured generations of terrorists who hate us. The schools that don't have enough money so that we can put a war on (but not outfit our soldiers correctly) will stay forever poor. We stand for this every day. We've come to accept it as the norm. We're trogs, slogging back into the cave.

Someone tell me what 4 newsworthy items does for you when your country is already at the bottom of the piddle puddle.

Sources:
1.http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/03/11/bush-administration-takes-six-blows-in-a-row/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rutlandherald.com%2Fapps%2Fpbcs.dll%2Farticle%3FAID%3D%2F20070311%2FFEATURES15%2F703110301%2F-1%2FHSSPORTS&frame=true
2.http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/16885353.htm

Glass Houses

Today's NYT contains an article about Condi & Co's assessment of human rights in the world. The State Department has come to the conclusion that freedoms are "eroding" in its annual survey of human rights practices. (TrogDigression: Has no one in the State Department taken a grammar class? Freedoms are not active doers, thus must take a passive stance. Freedoms have been eroded.)

Apparently in the report, lots of countries were examined. 193, to be exact. But guess which country's human rights practices weren't examined? Can you guess? Us! Can you believe that? You'd think we'd be right up there, as a model. Maybe not. Maybe Condi et al also had a hard time justifying our practice while simultaneously dunning everybody else.

Source #3 tells some stories that might make you sick. If you read them, you should feel very proud that you aren't being represented by those other, terrible, 193 countries with human rights violations. Yessirree.


Sources:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-US-Human-Rights.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.citypaper.net/articles/2007/03/01/truth-in-prints

Ann Coulter

annoys the living hell out of me. Why can't John Kerry make a valid point about the quality of military personnel without it being blown back in his face in under 4 seconds, but Ann Coulter can use derogatory, defamatory language and it's all good?

The fact that she posits herself a Deadhead is sheer lunacy. She's just. not. kind. I can't believe she and I were ever at a show together, but apparently we were: Sandstone Amphitheater in Lawrence, Kansas on July 4th, 1990. It was over 100 degrees that day and the Dead opened with Cold Rain & Snow. Ice was a commodity more precious than gold that day. Strangers brought each other drinks because there was no other choice. That's how hot it was, and the seats were plastic to boot and had been heated up good by the sun, so sitting wasn't an option.

But Coulter, in her description of the show, never mentions the weather. This leads me to conclude she either didn't go or sat in an air-conditioned car in the parking lot the whole time. Nor can she tell when her first show was or her last. These are details no Head forgets.

I think she's a poser and I'm done paying attention to her.

Here's what Elizabeth Edwards had to say about Coulter calling her husband a faggot:

Hate words and you
Elizabeth Edwards
3/03/2007 at 1:32 PM EST


When Miss Coulter spoke about John at the conservative convention in Washington yesterday, she used a word that she intended as a nasty and derogatory suggestion. John and I have long ago shrugged off the vile words of this person. When she made a joke about the exact moment of death of Charlie Dean (Howard's brother and a schoolmate of mine), and when she attacked the courageous 9-11 widows, she told you all you need to know about what she is made of: her compassion -- or lack thereof. Now we need to find out about you.

Although her words did not hurt us, they may have hurt some in the gay community. We are all sick and tired of anyone supporting or applauding or introducing hate words into the national dialogue, tired of people thinking that words that cause others pain are fair game. And we are sick and tired of people like Miss Coulter thinking that her use of loaded words about the homosexual community in this country is remotely humorous or appropriate.

John gave a graduation speech at NC State several years ago, and in it he said that none of us can stand by when words of bigotry and division are used. It is only when the rest of us stand up and say that this is not acceptable that we drum out the hate-mongers from amongst us.

The first reaction in the room at the conservative convention yesterday was a gasp -- a horrified gasp, even -- but it did not last. In a few seconds, those who were not horrified started clapping and drowned out the gasps.

Now it is our turn to drown out the hate. Find a way -- whether it is contribution here that sends a message to Miss Coulter and those who applauded her (which, of course, I prefer) or whether it is a statement on this blog or others or all of the above -- but please find a way not to sit silent in acceptance.

It doesn't change until we say we will not be silent when this happens.

Sources:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070302/cm_thenation/45171092
http://www.jambands.com/Features/content_2006_06_23.06.phtml

Afrikaners

In today's NYT is a very interesting article about the future direction of Afrikaners, the Dutch-descended people of South Africa who brought apartheid with them and profited from it for decades. On surface the story is about a song and the feelings it produced. Under that is a more important story about Afrikaners trying to find their place in a new South Africa.

What's interesting is that they're asking this question so soon after the end of apartheid. Nelson Mandela was freed in 1990, so even using that early date as an end of sorts, it's been 17 years. (Apartheid ended in 1994.) By contrast, Germany has been asking questions of itself and trying to make sense of its history for the last 60-odd years.

What does this mean? Does it mean Afrikaners were more willing more quickly to come to terms with their past? Is it an indication of how speeded-up the world is today? It's true that questions in Germany were not raised for quite some time after the end of WWII but even considering that time lag, it's still a long time to come to terms. Is it a different outcome when there are many different ethnicities living in the country? My white wealthy South African friends seemed to think it was all much ado about nothing, in the late 1980s, and that has me wondering whether this quick understanding has to do with a lacking sense of the depth of the damage created, something German people who struggle with the issue have no trouble understanding.

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/world/africa/27safrica.html?hp

Intelligence

Why is it newsworthy that this woman shaved off her hair?

I get my hair cut all the time. No cameras ever flash in my face as a result. She's not the only shaver. Plenty of women just like it, and there is also a large group who can't take clumps of hair falling out due to chemotherapy and feel like they're exerting control over their suddenly chaotic lives by shaving it off. No one follows them around taking pictures.

All this leads me to believe that the argument on the appropriate spot of the political spectrum for American media completely misses the point. The question is not whether media are liberal or regressive. It's that American media are largely so unintelligent. Given whether Brittany Spears cut her hair off or whether we're going to war with Iran real soon and why, I choose the latter. I need the latter. So if it's really just a response to customer demand, I say: give us a real choice, and see what we choose.

To wit: bars in Philly were quite concerned that they'd lose money when smoking was banned. It's been a little while now and people are realizing it's nice to come home from a night out and not reek of smoke. Now when I have a choice b/w bars that don't have smoke and bars in the county right next door, where smoking is still allowed, I'm not likely to go to the smoker bars.

Hey, here's a thought: how about if we just stop assuming everyone is a complete cretin and start treating consumers as if they're intelligent people?