Nicky's birthday
Today is my little brother's birthday. He's 40. It's weird that you can be that old, and still not feel like you're as old as all your friends who are 40. My mother was 40 when she had me (Dad was 30). I'm 42, and I still feel like I did when I was 30. Not too old, but definately not young any more. When I teach "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" I always ask the students to tell me how old Prufock is. I used to laugh when they'd tell me he's 35 or 40. Now I wince, thinking that this must be middle age, to think you're younger than you really are.
I guess all of us, Mary too (she's 38 now), feel the same way. I don't see us growing older, just growing up and accepting more responsibilities. It wasn't just yesterday when we were young, and I wouldn't go back to that time, knowing what I know now. Imagine that, to have the knowledge of a 40-year-old and only be 18. That's more of a nightmare than going through adolescence the first time. I know many people who believe that their best days were in high school or college, and I really feel sad for them. They peaked so early, and they must recognize that everything has been downhill since then. What gets them out of bed in the morning? I mean, how could you face the day, knowing that it'll never be as good as something in your memory? I tell my students that if your best day isn't tomorrow, you should just shoot yourself today and spare yourself the disapointment that you life will inevitably be.
Sometimes I think about the future, about having a kid now, about being 60 when that kid is 18 (and those numbers don't even work any more -- I'll be older). And then I consider my employment situation, and wonder how long this part-timing will go on. Amanda and I are discussing rolling over my retirement package from EKU, and it's weird to think that in 18 years I'll be 60. How long will I work? How long will I be under-employed? What about kids? How will Amanda change? What other changes will those years hold?
3.25.2003
Total meltdown
I've just spent the whole day trying to recover this computer, with the help of Wendell, the computer god. Now it looks like I've got it licked. When I booted up this morning, there was nothing but a black screen. I tried a few moves, and found that I could only run programs from the task manager, but I couldn't perform any Windows functions. It was a nightmare. I could see that my data was still there, but everything else was dead.
Almost three hours into what I hoped would be a five-minute call to Wendell, he figured that the registry melted down at such a level that the kernel couldn't even recognize itself. So I had to do a reinstall of Win2k, which means I've had to reinstall all programs, too. Fortunately, as Foghorn Leghorn says, I keep my feathers numbered for just such emergencies. I'm hitting the web and downloading updates, checking through my downloaded files to see what's essential, and pulling out the cds when I have to.
Fortunately, I wasn't completely pulling my hair out, because I knew that all our important data was burned to a cd a bit back. Man, I'm not a big one for backups, but this peace of mind was essential today.
Once again, Wendell proves his worth, talking me through all this. Once again, I see just how little I know about this machine. I may be a power user, especially when compared to most academics, but I'm a long way from the IT guy I used to be.
I've just spent the whole day trying to recover this computer, with the help of Wendell, the computer god. Now it looks like I've got it licked. When I booted up this morning, there was nothing but a black screen. I tried a few moves, and found that I could only run programs from the task manager, but I couldn't perform any Windows functions. It was a nightmare. I could see that my data was still there, but everything else was dead.
Almost three hours into what I hoped would be a five-minute call to Wendell, he figured that the registry melted down at such a level that the kernel couldn't even recognize itself. So I had to do a reinstall of Win2k, which means I've had to reinstall all programs, too. Fortunately, as Foghorn Leghorn says, I keep my feathers numbered for just such emergencies. I'm hitting the web and downloading updates, checking through my downloaded files to see what's essential, and pulling out the cds when I have to.
Fortunately, I wasn't completely pulling my hair out, because I knew that all our important data was burned to a cd a bit back. Man, I'm not a big one for backups, but this peace of mind was essential today.
Once again, Wendell proves his worth, talking me through all this. Once again, I see just how little I know about this machine. I may be a power user, especially when compared to most academics, but I'm a long way from the IT guy I used to be.
3.22.2003
Real fighting
Today the real fighting begins. "Stern" resistance. "Heavy" resistance. "Republican Guard with resolve." All of that means real casualties, real American men and women dying to promote an imperialist agenda. I saw one bereaved father last night ask George Bush to take a good look at a picture of his son. The NY Times gave it short shrift, because it doesn't jive with their jingoism: "Friends and neighbors of Staff Sgt. Kendall Damon Watersbey, 29, who has a 10-year-old son, sobbed in the streets of his northeast Baltimore neighborhood, according to WBAL-TV. 'I want President Bush to get a good look at this, really good look here,' his father, Michael, said, holding up a picture of the dead marine. 'This is the only son I had, only son.'"
Only one member of both houses of congress has a son or daughter in the military. No one on Bush's senior staff has a child in the services. Instead, they're pulling a sleight of hand about their involvement with Enron, Halliburton, and other corporate evil-doers, and killing other people's kids to do it. Pay no attention to the criminals behind the curtain; watch us blow things up instead. And if some poor person has to die to draw your interest elsewhere, well, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
So far, budget analysts estimate, a little over 24 hours of war has cost the US 1.1 trillion dollars. But I hope people start paying attention to the human cost of this war, what it will do to us as a nation. We have squandered our morality for something that will benefit only the rich. And the children of the poor will provide this opportunity for them.
This site, by cyberjornalist.net, seems to be the best collection of links to the real war news. The NY Times' rolling over on this sickens me. You used to be able to count on them for decent coverage, but now they're no better than Fox News. The truth is out there; we just won't get it from the US media.
Today the real fighting begins. "Stern" resistance. "Heavy" resistance. "Republican Guard with resolve." All of that means real casualties, real American men and women dying to promote an imperialist agenda. I saw one bereaved father last night ask George Bush to take a good look at a picture of his son. The NY Times gave it short shrift, because it doesn't jive with their jingoism: "Friends and neighbors of Staff Sgt. Kendall Damon Watersbey, 29, who has a 10-year-old son, sobbed in the streets of his northeast Baltimore neighborhood, according to WBAL-TV. 'I want President Bush to get a good look at this, really good look here,' his father, Michael, said, holding up a picture of the dead marine. 'This is the only son I had, only son.'"
Only one member of both houses of congress has a son or daughter in the military. No one on Bush's senior staff has a child in the services. Instead, they're pulling a sleight of hand about their involvement with Enron, Halliburton, and other corporate evil-doers, and killing other people's kids to do it. Pay no attention to the criminals behind the curtain; watch us blow things up instead. And if some poor person has to die to draw your interest elsewhere, well, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
So far, budget analysts estimate, a little over 24 hours of war has cost the US 1.1 trillion dollars. But I hope people start paying attention to the human cost of this war, what it will do to us as a nation. We have squandered our morality for something that will benefit only the rich. And the children of the poor will provide this opportunity for them.
This site, by cyberjornalist.net, seems to be the best collection of links to the real war news. The NY Times' rolling over on this sickens me. You used to be able to count on them for decent coverage, but now they're no better than Fox News. The truth is out there; we just won't get it from the US media.
3.21.2003
All war, all the time
I can turn on CNN at any time and get a live update on the war. I can hit their web site and get a rolling body count, interactive maps, military analysis, video feeds (if I'm willing to subscribe), live pictures from Baghdad, and administration talkin gheads justifying their existence. What I can't get is our admission that we will, if we deem it necessary, use chemical weapons against the Iraqis.
This is, of course, the ultimate in hypocrisy. But it proves my point about the shift in American foreign policy under Rove, I mean Bush. Might makes right. That's all there is to it. We couch it in different terms, but when push comes to shove, we support a double standard (there's the rest of the world, then there's us) because we have the strength to do so. Rove/Bush knows that the American military is a 500-pound gorilla, and the only 500-pound gorilla. So we can do what we want. There is no more rule of law, as Scalia admitted last week, when he claimed that he's in favor of curtailing the rights of American citizens during wartime. He was receiving a Free Speech Award in Cleveland, but he barred the broadcast media from attending the event (Is he smart enough to see the irony in this? I'm not sure.). When questioned by members of approved media outlets, he said that Americans enjoy far more rights than are constitutionally guaranteed them, and that he would be willing to cut back to a constitutional minimum for security reasons.
At least there are decent people out there. But who will hear such a scathing condemnation? He'll just be accused of anti-Americanism, which will, of course, be ironic. But American has a tin ear for hearing such things right now.
I can turn on CNN at any time and get a live update on the war. I can hit their web site and get a rolling body count, interactive maps, military analysis, video feeds (if I'm willing to subscribe), live pictures from Baghdad, and administration talkin gheads justifying their existence. What I can't get is our admission that we will, if we deem it necessary, use chemical weapons against the Iraqis.
This is, of course, the ultimate in hypocrisy. But it proves my point about the shift in American foreign policy under Rove, I mean Bush. Might makes right. That's all there is to it. We couch it in different terms, but when push comes to shove, we support a double standard (there's the rest of the world, then there's us) because we have the strength to do so. Rove/Bush knows that the American military is a 500-pound gorilla, and the only 500-pound gorilla. So we can do what we want. There is no more rule of law, as Scalia admitted last week, when he claimed that he's in favor of curtailing the rights of American citizens during wartime. He was receiving a Free Speech Award in Cleveland, but he barred the broadcast media from attending the event (Is he smart enough to see the irony in this? I'm not sure.). When questioned by members of approved media outlets, he said that Americans enjoy far more rights than are constitutionally guaranteed them, and that he would be willing to cut back to a constitutional minimum for security reasons.
At least there are decent people out there. But who will hear such a scathing condemnation? He'll just be accused of anti-Americanism, which will, of course, be ironic. But American has a tin ear for hearing such things right now.
3.20.2003
Hijacking the conversation
There was just some furor at my old school about anti-war and pro-troops protestors clashing. To be fair, I should say it's anti-war versus pro-war protestors, because that's really what it boils down to. What caught my eye was a picture of a girl pointing to her engagement ring, given to her by her affianced man in Kuwait, confronting a group of anti-war protestors. She equated being against this war with being against her husband-to-be. There was also an instance of one anti-anti-war man rushing through the anti-war protestors, ripping up their signs. Of course, the Public Safety office saw no need to control him at all.
Now, how many of you didn't like that move I made up there, to equate pro-troop with pro-war? Yes, it's a bad argumentative strategy, and, if you grant me that premise, I've effectively hijacked the conversation through this switch. This move, however, is exactly what the media and talk radio and other sources have done. It's unpatriotic to be against the necessary collateral damage in such an attack. It's anti-American to support the collective wisdom of the United Nations. It's treason to protest against this illegal action.
Why do we let them get away with it? I think it's because we fall prey to their fallacies. We're bedazzled by their rhetoric, or cowed by their volume, and just give in. We may take the moral high ground in expressing our doubts about the goodness of Hussein, and when we do, we're lost. If we admit to doubt, if we admit to not having all the answers, but knowing that this one can't be the right one, we've lost the argument, and we've lost the media. When I think of what winning this fight would cost me, morally, I don't feel so bad. But when I see these idiots getting face time and espousing idiocy I wish I had fewer qualms about using their tactics against them.
There was just some furor at my old school about anti-war and pro-troops protestors clashing. To be fair, I should say it's anti-war versus pro-war protestors, because that's really what it boils down to. What caught my eye was a picture of a girl pointing to her engagement ring, given to her by her affianced man in Kuwait, confronting a group of anti-war protestors. She equated being against this war with being against her husband-to-be. There was also an instance of one anti-anti-war man rushing through the anti-war protestors, ripping up their signs. Of course, the Public Safety office saw no need to control him at all.
Now, how many of you didn't like that move I made up there, to equate pro-troop with pro-war? Yes, it's a bad argumentative strategy, and, if you grant me that premise, I've effectively hijacked the conversation through this switch. This move, however, is exactly what the media and talk radio and other sources have done. It's unpatriotic to be against the necessary collateral damage in such an attack. It's anti-American to support the collective wisdom of the United Nations. It's treason to protest against this illegal action.
Why do we let them get away with it? I think it's because we fall prey to their fallacies. We're bedazzled by their rhetoric, or cowed by their volume, and just give in. We may take the moral high ground in expressing our doubts about the goodness of Hussein, and when we do, we're lost. If we admit to doubt, if we admit to not having all the answers, but knowing that this one can't be the right one, we've lost the argument, and we've lost the media. When I think of what winning this fight would cost me, morally, I don't feel so bad. But when I see these idiots getting face time and espousing idiocy I wish I had fewer qualms about using their tactics against them.
3.17.2003
The dogs of
Well, we'll probably start the invasion, and eventual military occupation of Iraq sometime very soon. Bush will speak tonight, and I won't listen (I'll be teaching). But the rest of the world will be listening, and watching us do this alone (or maybe with Tony Blair in a cheerleader's uniform). And the fact that we'll do this alone, without those pesky other nations who are united against us, just means that we won't have to make any concessions to power-sharing when the military government we set in place in Baghdad takes over.
When you boil it all down, I really can't believe that killing people, especially to remove one leader, is a viable alternative. Never was, never will be. Too much money and material expended on too focused a target. But it's obvious that this was has other motives behind it. Our eventual attack upon Iran is obvious. Bush's sleight-of-hand about the economy is also obvious. When the Saudis kick us out, will we go after them for possessing WMD, or will we still send them aid, even though they are the most repressive regime in the area? Hey, they're our buddies, right? They can't be bad, because we like them. Just like we liked Pinochet. Just like we liked Strosser.
But the polls keep on saying that Americans support this. For me, this is the ultimate in bread and circuses. It's the biggest circus possible, full of bells ands whistles. Big media will play the Bush game, and show us just what he wants us to see: American technology killing people far away, people whose leader threatens our way of life. So we'll keep the world safe for democracy by killing women and children, by killing even combatants that we have no quarrel with (Bush has claimed that we have no quarrel with the sovreignity of Iraq, only with its leader). So instead of assassination as a tool of statecraft, we offer the destruction of a culture as such a tool.
To question the need for this war is, according to the national tenor, unpatriotic. Isn't that what Reagan claimed when he union-busted PATCO? And isn't that what Jefferson was being when he questioned the crown?
Well, we'll probably start the invasion, and eventual military occupation of Iraq sometime very soon. Bush will speak tonight, and I won't listen (I'll be teaching). But the rest of the world will be listening, and watching us do this alone (or maybe with Tony Blair in a cheerleader's uniform). And the fact that we'll do this alone, without those pesky other nations who are united against us, just means that we won't have to make any concessions to power-sharing when the military government we set in place in Baghdad takes over.
When you boil it all down, I really can't believe that killing people, especially to remove one leader, is a viable alternative. Never was, never will be. Too much money and material expended on too focused a target. But it's obvious that this was has other motives behind it. Our eventual attack upon Iran is obvious. Bush's sleight-of-hand about the economy is also obvious. When the Saudis kick us out, will we go after them for possessing WMD, or will we still send them aid, even though they are the most repressive regime in the area? Hey, they're our buddies, right? They can't be bad, because we like them. Just like we liked Pinochet. Just like we liked Strosser.
But the polls keep on saying that Americans support this. For me, this is the ultimate in bread and circuses. It's the biggest circus possible, full of bells ands whistles. Big media will play the Bush game, and show us just what he wants us to see: American technology killing people far away, people whose leader threatens our way of life. So we'll keep the world safe for democracy by killing women and children, by killing even combatants that we have no quarrel with (Bush has claimed that we have no quarrel with the sovreignity of Iraq, only with its leader). So instead of assassination as a tool of statecraft, we offer the destruction of a culture as such a tool.
To question the need for this war is, according to the national tenor, unpatriotic. Isn't that what Reagan claimed when he union-busted PATCO? And isn't that what Jefferson was being when he questioned the crown?
3.14.2003
Annual evaluations
USCS is in the process of annual evaluations. That's when faculty produce fat reports about what they've been up to for the year. It's a mass of paper for the chair and any committee that reads them all. But is it worth it?
I used to joke that I would spend more time documenting what I did than actually doing anything worth documenting. While that's a stretch, I know that my best-laid plans to keep track of all service, scholarship, and teaching activities usually spun out of control about midway through the first semester, so I spent a frantic week before evals were due every year, trying to reconstruct what I had been doing. I'm sure that I missed a lot of stuff I did, gave others short shrift, and probably left a lot of activities undocumented. Such is life: you're either busy with it, or busy taking notes on it. As an adjunct, I'm spared the report-writing, but I'm also spared any activity worth documenting in detail.
As I expected, I heard tales of excess about what people presented for their annual reviews: copies of emails, thank-you notes, stuff like that. The chair spoke of someone who wheeled in a full four-drawer filing cabinet for his or her tenure application. That's just uncalled for. Have some respect for the Promotion and Tenure Committee members who have to sort through all this stuff, write a report, and then defend their decision at the college and university levels.
But the real problem here is the fact that anyone, and I do mean anyone, can make himself or herself look good on paper. This is especially true of English profs, who teach the ability to argue effectively. Since we know what everything will say, and how every faculty member paints himself or herself as indispensible to the institution, let's just agree that this is our starting point, and move on from there. For annual evaluation, let's offer up a bulleted list, with no explanations, no narrative, no excess wind. If explanations are necessary, they should be done in a meeting with the committee, and it is only there that supporting documentation should be produced. I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of people will get by, and get approved, on the strength of just their bulleted lists. They've saved themselves gobs of time, saved the committee a ton of work, and allowed us all to get on with our core business, educating people.
USCS is in the process of annual evaluations. That's when faculty produce fat reports about what they've been up to for the year. It's a mass of paper for the chair and any committee that reads them all. But is it worth it?
I used to joke that I would spend more time documenting what I did than actually doing anything worth documenting. While that's a stretch, I know that my best-laid plans to keep track of all service, scholarship, and teaching activities usually spun out of control about midway through the first semester, so I spent a frantic week before evals were due every year, trying to reconstruct what I had been doing. I'm sure that I missed a lot of stuff I did, gave others short shrift, and probably left a lot of activities undocumented. Such is life: you're either busy with it, or busy taking notes on it. As an adjunct, I'm spared the report-writing, but I'm also spared any activity worth documenting in detail.
As I expected, I heard tales of excess about what people presented for their annual reviews: copies of emails, thank-you notes, stuff like that. The chair spoke of someone who wheeled in a full four-drawer filing cabinet for his or her tenure application. That's just uncalled for. Have some respect for the Promotion and Tenure Committee members who have to sort through all this stuff, write a report, and then defend their decision at the college and university levels.
But the real problem here is the fact that anyone, and I do mean anyone, can make himself or herself look good on paper. This is especially true of English profs, who teach the ability to argue effectively. Since we know what everything will say, and how every faculty member paints himself or herself as indispensible to the institution, let's just agree that this is our starting point, and move on from there. For annual evaluation, let's offer up a bulleted list, with no explanations, no narrative, no excess wind. If explanations are necessary, they should be done in a meeting with the committee, and it is only there that supporting documentation should be produced. I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of people will get by, and get approved, on the strength of just their bulleted lists. They've saved themselves gobs of time, saved the committee a ton of work, and allowed us all to get on with our core business, educating people.
3.13.2003
Free and good
I admit it; I download mp3s all the time. I have recording music people telling me it's a crime. I have artists telling me I'm stealing money from them. But then I read that the average band, after they've sold 250,000 records, ends up owing its record company over a million dollars. So don't tell me that I'm taking food from anyone's table. I'm not letting a billionaire get any more richer. When they get a decent pricing structure for cds, something without a 1000% markup, then I'll think about buying pop cds again.
But I don't do the same for software. There are some great free programs out there, and I use them. They're usually smaller, with less bloat, and more stable that something from, say, Microsoft.
Many of the programs below are strange because they pack so much value into something that's free. It's something the music industry could learn. Here's an example of what I mean: Two weeks ago I was stopped by a cop in a small town in South Carolina, on my daily commute to and from work. He told me that I was doing 58 in a 40 zone. I know I was speeding, but it wasn't that by that much. He asked me if I traveled this route often, and I told him I was on this road twice a day. He asked me, nicely, to remember the next time to just keep it down, and he let me go. Now, every time I drive through that town, no matter how late I am, I do the speed limit, because this guy was so nice. If he had ticketed me, I'd be pissed every time I drove through there, and would keep on speeding. Now, however, I do 40, and think kindly of being let off by the nice guy who did me a kind turn.
Here's some good stuff:
Notetab Light
This is a great editor for html, or for ripping text from the web and cleaning it up before you put it into a full-featured word processor. It's fast-loading, with a great interface, the ability to open many files at once, and good menus and insert lists. I originally got it as a replacement for the windows notepad, but now I use it for a lot more.
Irfanview
Here's a great free pic viewer, with lots of options. Again, it's fast, small, and reliable. I use it as the system default for viewing pix. I used to use ACDSee, but now they're charging and nagging. None of that from Irfanview.
Gimp
I was a bit intimidated by this one at first. I have grown up with Photoshop as my big pic editor, so switching was odd. Unlike many other products, it doesn't try to look like Photoshop. But it does pretty much the same stuff. The learning curve is steep, and some functions are deep into menus, but anything that does this much takes a while to come to grips with.
Trillian
This all-in-one chat client is pretty hot. It compiles all your chat clients into one interface. I've got MSN, IRC, AIM, Yahoo, and ICQ access. Now I run them all under trillian. Small footprint, clean interface, pretty sweet.
Mozilla and Opera
Two good browsers. Opera is fast, very fast. But you give up some real estate on the screen for a banner ad (not too intrusive; it's in the toolbar). Mozilla is pretty sweet, and totally free. With all the holes in IE, I use these as much as I can.
TinyApps and Freeware Home
These are the places I hit the most often looking for new apps. Tinyapps specializes in just what its name says: small, very small applications, most of them free. Freeware Home runs a nice site, updated every weekday, with vigilance about things like browser hijacking and adware.
I admit it; I download mp3s all the time. I have recording music people telling me it's a crime. I have artists telling me I'm stealing money from them. But then I read that the average band, after they've sold 250,000 records, ends up owing its record company over a million dollars. So don't tell me that I'm taking food from anyone's table. I'm not letting a billionaire get any more richer. When they get a decent pricing structure for cds, something without a 1000% markup, then I'll think about buying pop cds again.
But I don't do the same for software. There are some great free programs out there, and I use them. They're usually smaller, with less bloat, and more stable that something from, say, Microsoft.
Many of the programs below are strange because they pack so much value into something that's free. It's something the music industry could learn. Here's an example of what I mean: Two weeks ago I was stopped by a cop in a small town in South Carolina, on my daily commute to and from work. He told me that I was doing 58 in a 40 zone. I know I was speeding, but it wasn't that by that much. He asked me if I traveled this route often, and I told him I was on this road twice a day. He asked me, nicely, to remember the next time to just keep it down, and he let me go. Now, every time I drive through that town, no matter how late I am, I do the speed limit, because this guy was so nice. If he had ticketed me, I'd be pissed every time I drove through there, and would keep on speeding. Now, however, I do 40, and think kindly of being let off by the nice guy who did me a kind turn.
Here's some good stuff:
Notetab Light
This is a great editor for html, or for ripping text from the web and cleaning it up before you put it into a full-featured word processor. It's fast-loading, with a great interface, the ability to open many files at once, and good menus and insert lists. I originally got it as a replacement for the windows notepad, but now I use it for a lot more.
Irfanview
Here's a great free pic viewer, with lots of options. Again, it's fast, small, and reliable. I use it as the system default for viewing pix. I used to use ACDSee, but now they're charging and nagging. None of that from Irfanview.
Gimp
I was a bit intimidated by this one at first. I have grown up with Photoshop as my big pic editor, so switching was odd. Unlike many other products, it doesn't try to look like Photoshop. But it does pretty much the same stuff. The learning curve is steep, and some functions are deep into menus, but anything that does this much takes a while to come to grips with.
Trillian
This all-in-one chat client is pretty hot. It compiles all your chat clients into one interface. I've got MSN, IRC, AIM, Yahoo, and ICQ access. Now I run them all under trillian. Small footprint, clean interface, pretty sweet.
Mozilla and Opera
Two good browsers. Opera is fast, very fast. But you give up some real estate on the screen for a banner ad (not too intrusive; it's in the toolbar). Mozilla is pretty sweet, and totally free. With all the holes in IE, I use these as much as I can.
TinyApps and Freeware Home
These are the places I hit the most often looking for new apps. Tinyapps specializes in just what its name says: small, very small applications, most of them free. Freeware Home runs a nice site, updated every weekday, with vigilance about things like browser hijacking and adware.
3.12.2003
The war frenzy
Is war a foregone conclusion? It certainly seems so, given the rhetoric I'm hearing not just from Washington, but from many media outlets. I guess I expect such sabre-rattling from W, as a way to keep our attention focused on anything but the absolute mess he's made of the economy, or the fact that our trade deficit, and the federal deficit, will grow ever-larger under his regime. But I don't expect it from radio personalities or talking heads on TV. And in the end, I think they're the ones who do the most harm, by waving this red flag under the public's noses.
How much does Washington affect my day-to-day life? In all honesty, not much. I mean, gas prices are higher, I can't get gainful full-time employment, and my retirement is worth less than a third of what it was worth three years ago. But all those things would probably have happened no matter whose finger was on the button. Dems, GOPs, it really makes little difference. And I think the same is true for most U.S. citizens. But I had to listen today to some open letter that Charlie Daniels sent to the "Hollywood people," read by some radio personality who wouldn't know an original thought if it actually strcuk one of the three brain cells he had in his head. And then he opens up the phone lines, so everyone can call in and jump on his pro-war bandwagon. All because Charlie Daniels, that intellectual giant, that man who has done more research than all other washed-up celebrities, wrote a whiney letter to cop some fame. Of course, he knows the score. Hussein is bad because he says so, because our leaders say so. And therefore we must go over there and get him. The leap of logic that gets from the first sentence back there to the next one just blows my mind.
By that same token, Sharon is bad, because our leaders say so. But we don't go get him. In fact, no one mentions him at all. We just keep on sliding him $3,000,000,000 (that's three billion dollars) a year, and cluck unapprovingly when the next batch of kids are killed. And Fidel Castro must be bad, because our leaders say so. But we don't get him. In fact, we lease land from him, and use his island as a convenient place, off our soil and away from our press, to conduct covert "interrogations" of people we don't like. We call it Guantanamo Bay. And hell, half the dictators in South and Central America must be bad, because our leaders say so. They say they don't like torture, but they use it. They say they don't like drugs, but they prop up regimes that support the drug trade. In short, we want to get Hussein because we can. Because our troops will soon be kicked out of Saudi Arabia. (Yeah, we look the other way at the way women are treated there, at the way political dissidents are tortured there, at the way the Faisal family has systematically plundered that country and its people for lo these many years. Why? Because we like them. We can put troops there, and fly through their air space, and give them aid.) And when they're kicked out of SA, they'll need some place to go, some place that's conveniently next to Iran, our next target.
Soon, after this exercise that will leave thousands dead, that will kill babies and non-combatants, that will be uncovered by the media, so fearful are they that they'll lose sources in the government, that will foment many atrocities and war crimes, after all this, we'll just up and transfer our rhetoric against Iraq to Iran. Iran harbors terrorists. They're building weapons of mass destruction. They kill their own people. And worse of all, they just don't like us.
Yes, I'll be expecting another letter from Charlie Daniels then, after he puts his teeth back in and slurps down another brew. It will be read again, by some chimp with a flair for showing his ass in public, doing what is necessary for ratings, and thought be damned. And it will affect the quality of my life far more than W has, because he'll ruin another morning drive, piss me off with his idiocy and inflamatory, knee-jerk speechifying, and make me realize it's not the smartest people we listen to, just the loudest.
Is war a foregone conclusion? It certainly seems so, given the rhetoric I'm hearing not just from Washington, but from many media outlets. I guess I expect such sabre-rattling from W, as a way to keep our attention focused on anything but the absolute mess he's made of the economy, or the fact that our trade deficit, and the federal deficit, will grow ever-larger under his regime. But I don't expect it from radio personalities or talking heads on TV. And in the end, I think they're the ones who do the most harm, by waving this red flag under the public's noses.
How much does Washington affect my day-to-day life? In all honesty, not much. I mean, gas prices are higher, I can't get gainful full-time employment, and my retirement is worth less than a third of what it was worth three years ago. But all those things would probably have happened no matter whose finger was on the button. Dems, GOPs, it really makes little difference. And I think the same is true for most U.S. citizens. But I had to listen today to some open letter that Charlie Daniels sent to the "Hollywood people," read by some radio personality who wouldn't know an original thought if it actually strcuk one of the three brain cells he had in his head. And then he opens up the phone lines, so everyone can call in and jump on his pro-war bandwagon. All because Charlie Daniels, that intellectual giant, that man who has done more research than all other washed-up celebrities, wrote a whiney letter to cop some fame. Of course, he knows the score. Hussein is bad because he says so, because our leaders say so. And therefore we must go over there and get him. The leap of logic that gets from the first sentence back there to the next one just blows my mind.
By that same token, Sharon is bad, because our leaders say so. But we don't go get him. In fact, no one mentions him at all. We just keep on sliding him $3,000,000,000 (that's three billion dollars) a year, and cluck unapprovingly when the next batch of kids are killed. And Fidel Castro must be bad, because our leaders say so. But we don't get him. In fact, we lease land from him, and use his island as a convenient place, off our soil and away from our press, to conduct covert "interrogations" of people we don't like. We call it Guantanamo Bay. And hell, half the dictators in South and Central America must be bad, because our leaders say so. They say they don't like torture, but they use it. They say they don't like drugs, but they prop up regimes that support the drug trade. In short, we want to get Hussein because we can. Because our troops will soon be kicked out of Saudi Arabia. (Yeah, we look the other way at the way women are treated there, at the way political dissidents are tortured there, at the way the Faisal family has systematically plundered that country and its people for lo these many years. Why? Because we like them. We can put troops there, and fly through their air space, and give them aid.) And when they're kicked out of SA, they'll need some place to go, some place that's conveniently next to Iran, our next target.
Soon, after this exercise that will leave thousands dead, that will kill babies and non-combatants, that will be uncovered by the media, so fearful are they that they'll lose sources in the government, that will foment many atrocities and war crimes, after all this, we'll just up and transfer our rhetoric against Iraq to Iran. Iran harbors terrorists. They're building weapons of mass destruction. They kill their own people. And worse of all, they just don't like us.
Yes, I'll be expecting another letter from Charlie Daniels then, after he puts his teeth back in and slurps down another brew. It will be read again, by some chimp with a flair for showing his ass in public, doing what is necessary for ratings, and thought be damned. And it will affect the quality of my life far more than W has, because he'll ruin another morning drive, piss me off with his idiocy and inflamatory, knee-jerk speechifying, and make me realize it's not the smartest people we listen to, just the loudest.
3.11.2003
Boys will be
If everyone in college athletics cheats, does that make it right? When America's self-proclaimed ethicist at the New York Times says it's OK to steal an umbrella if someone has stolen yours, then I guess it's OK to cheat if everyone is doing it.
Jerry Tarkanian, looking like he had a tooth pulled by an 18th-century dentist, appeared on SportsCenter last week to defend himself and Fresno State. He pleaded ignorance. Fresno State should get the death penalty just for hiring him, as should the next school to hire Harrick, soon to be late of Georgia. Punish the alumni who insist on winning at the cost of a school's integrity.
That's why I like what St. Bonaventure has done, starting at the top and cleaning house. Coaches get away with what they can, because they can get over on Athletic Directors. And ADs let it happen because they are, overtly or implicitly, allowed to by the administration of the school. So ditch the president, who was asleep at the wheel if not deliberately cheating. And this one had the gall to say that fudging this poor kid's transcript was "the Franciscan thing to do." Some real Franny should clock him with a sandal. The school made a good move, and I hope they save the AD, who protested this whole welding certificate thing, but was overruled by the OFM-impaired president.
What does it say about college sports when Bob Knight, Hitler in a sweater, makes the classiest move of the week by refusing his salary for this year? What a sad state for the game.
If everyone in college athletics cheats, does that make it right? When America's self-proclaimed ethicist at the New York Times says it's OK to steal an umbrella if someone has stolen yours, then I guess it's OK to cheat if everyone is doing it.
Jerry Tarkanian, looking like he had a tooth pulled by an 18th-century dentist, appeared on SportsCenter last week to defend himself and Fresno State. He pleaded ignorance. Fresno State should get the death penalty just for hiring him, as should the next school to hire Harrick, soon to be late of Georgia. Punish the alumni who insist on winning at the cost of a school's integrity.
That's why I like what St. Bonaventure has done, starting at the top and cleaning house. Coaches get away with what they can, because they can get over on Athletic Directors. And ADs let it happen because they are, overtly or implicitly, allowed to by the administration of the school. So ditch the president, who was asleep at the wheel if not deliberately cheating. And this one had the gall to say that fudging this poor kid's transcript was "the Franciscan thing to do." Some real Franny should clock him with a sandal. The school made a good move, and I hope they save the AD, who protested this whole welding certificate thing, but was overruled by the OFM-impaired president.
What does it say about college sports when Bob Knight, Hitler in a sweater, makes the classiest move of the week by refusing his salary for this year? What a sad state for the game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
