I am not going to be updating this theme on a regular basis because it would never end. But this one, from an article I read at Little Green Footballs, just jumped off the page at me. It was contained in this Yahoo news article about Rep. Lantos who was very critical about the failure of the Egyptian government to shut down the tunnels the Palestinians are using to smuggle weapons in. Here was the bit that got my blood pressure moving:

[Lantos] added: "I am strongly and irrevocably opposed to arming terrorists," referring to Palestinian militant groups.

Holy shit. We now need an explanation of what a terrorist is? A terrorist is not a militant. We don't need the reporter to translate this. It was clear to us all. Or it would have been before this reporter and his colleagues watered down the meaning of the word until no one knows what anyone is talking about any more.

Pardon me, I have go throw up now.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 09:31 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.

I get a decent amount of junk mail at the office. Often, solicitations from publishers who want me to buy expensive treatises. Today's solicitation was, all appearances to the contrary, not a joke. I was offered the opportunity to buy:

Digest of Commercial Laws of the World

NOW WITH NEW COVERAGE OF NORTH KOREA AND IRAN!

They have laws? For international commercial transactions? Really? If I was doing a transaction there, I would be specifying ICC arbitration in Geneva or Paris with a choice of law clause that was somewhere other than Iran or North Korea.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 12:32 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.

[Warning: The following was composed primarily between the hours of 2 and 2:30 this morning and I have decided to publish it before I have any coffee.]

No, debasement is tradtionally something you do to currency. In Roman times, if I recall my Roman Law class from law school correctly, to debase currency meant melting a pure metal coin down, adding lead to the melted bit and reminting it in order to make more coins. Lead was a base metal. It had the effect of devaluing the entire currency and causing people to lose confidence in the monetary system. Under Roman Law, I seem to recall it was punishable by death.

Debasement is also something that the clever alchemists at Reuters and the A.P. and other "news agencies" (dig the scare quotes) are doing to the English language. How so? Let's take some examples, one at a time.

Instead of saying terrorist, we hear: rebel; militant; militia; or, my personal favorite, activist.

Terrorist means or meant (all definitions adapted from Dictionary.com): a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities.

Rebel means or meant: To refuse allegiance to and oppose by force an established government or ruling authority. To resist or defy an authority or a generally accepted convention.

Militant means or meant: A fighting, warring, or aggressive person or party.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin mlitns, mlitant- present participle of mlitre, to serve as a soldier. See militate.]

Militia means or meant:An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

Activist means or meant: advocating or engaged in activism, n : a militant reformer.

These words, all perfectly good words with their own distinct meanings, are being debased, being melted down in a large Reuters kettle and, weighted down with lead, being reminted and contorted into the shape of the word terrorist. Soon, if not already, they will be read to be mere synonyms of the word, terrorist. And then our language will be rendered poorer and the readers will, if they have not already, begin to lose confidence in the whole system of reporting "news" (sorry about the scare quotes again, I can't help it). Why? Well, if activist is a word you might normally associate with someone trying to unionize apple pickers and then you start seeing it turn up in connection with a fellow who's activities include, say, firing an AK-47 at a school bus full of children, your view of that activity is warped by your perception of what an activist really does, or did before Reuters got ahold of the word. See it enough times and your brain, which is more sensible, will start to substitute the word terrorist for activist or, maybe, you will start to lose the meaning of the word activist which you had fixed in your brain. Everything just sort of melts down. And eventually, you distrust the messenger just as much as the message and you are not sure what anything means any more in any context.

I won't advocate a death sentence for these terribly earnest editors who, in their haste to avoid making some kind of value judgment about the activities of our hypothetical "activist", as the Romans might have, but I am open to suggestions for an appropriate punishment for those who continue to debase and contort this beautiful language and deprive it of all absolute meaning until everything is relative and not one word means anything until they tell you what they want it to mean.

One final thought, maybe we should just call the terrorists, freedom fighters, since by and large, they are fighting freedom all over the globe.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 07:21 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 634 words, total size 4 kb.

1 these are not the things i think about at 2 am i find it very interesting however, that you do.

Posted by: kbear at August 17, 2004 08:42 AM (IAJcf)

2 I wholeheartedly agree with you, RP. I share your linguistic as well as journalistic/political concerns. On the linguistic front, I have had similar thoughts regarding, for instance, substituting host for hostess (the whole gender-neutral thing is depriving us of an entire category of words!) and impact (as a verb) for affect. Really, I could rant ad nauseum on this topic! Thanks for sharing.

Posted by: GrammarQueen at August 17, 2004 08:49 AM (gDEwS)

3 You're doted with an uncanny power of analysis at two o'clock in the morning. I have a hard time thinking of anything other than the mortgage and car payments, while I toss and turn. Perhaps, in lieu of the death penalty (and as if it were actually up to us!), we could strip the culprits of their press credentials and give them a sound hand-slapping on network TV. That should keep them in line! ;-)

Posted by: Mick at August 17, 2004 09:08 AM (zY+L9)

4 Yup. I find myself writing blogs in my head at 2 am, if I am up. I'm not sure if that makes us dedicated, or very sad

Posted by: Helen at August 17, 2004 10:00 AM (mjc0R)

5 It's very sad. You should wait until 4:00 AM like me. ;-)

Posted by: Jim at August 17, 2004 01:48 PM (IOwam)

6 Well, Helen, Jim, that may explain why we get along so well. GrammarQueen, feel free to spill it out. I'd be curious to read your thoughts on that topic. Kbear and Mick, I just couldn't help myself. I lay there in bed and this post just sort of wrote itself while I couldn't sleep. I think I need a new pillow.

Posted by: RP at August 17, 2004 05:21 PM (LlPKh)

7 What was once called a lie is now called spin.

Posted by: stolypin at August 17, 2004 11:20 PM (RxOy+)

8 Ivan, you should also add the use of the words elections and democracy as applied to places like North Korea.

Posted by: RP at August 18, 2004 08:53 AM (LlPKh)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Thanks to Emma, who found it at Ace, for this link to MoveOnPlease.org, an excellent satirical send up of the neo-stalinist, MoveOn, by the bright young things at National Lampoon.

And there was much laughter.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 07:50 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.

1 The best part (for me)? The disclaimer. "(Calm down, it's not real.)" Love it, love it, love it! Thanks for the linkage, too.

Posted by: Emma at August 15, 2004 05:28 PM (NOZuy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I came across the following job posting today:

UNITED STATES SENATE EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION ATTORNEY
The Office of the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment (SCCE) is seeking two Employment Law litigators to defend the offices of United States Senators and officers in Title VII, ADEA, ADA and other employment cases. The SCCE is an in-house defense team of lawyers. Unique opportunity to combine employment law and constitutional law and to develop the jurisprudence with respect to the Congressional Accountability Act. Responsibilities also include advising Senate offices of their employment law obligations. Must have experience defending employers against employment discrimination claims, knowledge of Title VII, ADEA, ADA and FMLA. Excellent research and writing skills required. Strong academic credentials required; main law review membership preferred. Fax resume and law school transcript to: 202/228-3603. No telephone inquiries. Equal opportunity employer. Position open until filled.

Can you imagine how hard it would be to defend some of these Senators when they've been accused of, say, sexual harassment?

Posted by: Random Penseur at 05:15 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.

Regular visitors will have noticed that I am fascinated by Zimbabwe. It is sort of like watching a train wreck in slow motion. You just can't look away. That same elusive creature, the regular reader, might also have noticed that I am also very concerned about the impact of AIDS in the developing nations of the world. Well, today, the NY Times brought both of these topics together in an article about AIDS in Zimbabwe. As is my habit, I extract for you here those bits from the article which caught my attention. But first, a quick review of the thrust of the article.

The article is a snap shot of the effects of bad governance on AIDS. Briefly, people in Zimbabwe are suffering from AIDS at an enormously high rate but international organizations are reluctant to assist Zimbabwe because one, the present government will likely divert or steal the aid money and two, manipulate the aid for political ends. No one trusts the government, no one wants to throw money into that pit of despair.

Here are some of the statistics that stood out:

*In Zimbabwe, where 1.8 million people are H.I.V. positive and 360,000 need life prolonging antiretroviral drugs, virtually the only ones who get them are the 5,000 who can afford them. Relief workers here estimate that fewer than 1,000 Zimbabweans receive antiretroviral drugs free through government or charitable programs, with little hope of expanding that number.

*Zimbabwe, where roughly one in four adults is infected with H.I.V. and more than 2,500 people a week die of AIDS.

*The plight of this nation of more than 11 million people is evident at Harare Central Hospital, where workers say just 23 patients are receiving antiretroviral treatment and no more can be started until next year because of lack on money. It is obvious at the Parirenyatwa city hospital, where, local news reports say, the morgue reeks of bodies of AIDS victims whose relatives cannot afford to bury them. And it can be seen at one seven-year-old cemetery south of Harare, where more than 14,000 people have already been buried just 18 inches apart, and workers say they dig about 25 graves each day.

It is a hell of a situation. The only question left to ask is: when do you think that entire society will disintegrate?

Posted by: Random Penseur at 09:02 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 394 words, total size 2 kb.

The right to vote is a central incident of citizenship, that and the right to serve on a jury. There is a movement afoot to grant the right to vote in local elections, but you know it won't stop there, to non-citizens. I could not be more opposed.

The NY Times covered this issue this morning, in a typical NY Times friendly way.

The arguments advanced in support of this position in the article fall into three groups: one, they pay taxes; two, history permitted it; and three, diversity requires it. These arguments are all garbage.

Argument One:

"It will happen,'' said Tamrat Medhin, a civic activist from Ethiopia who lives here. "Don't you believe that if people are working in the community and paying taxes, don't you agree that they deserve the opportunity to vote?''

Calling for "democracy for all," immigrants are increasingly pressing for the right to vote in municipal elections. In Washington, the proposed bill, introduced in July, would allow permanent residents to vote for the mayor and members of the school board and City Council.

Actually, no, I don't believe that. Simply put, I believe that voting is a right best restricted to: those who have agreed to be bound by our shared system of beliefs and interests; to those who have foresworn allegiance to a foreign monarch or state; those who are committed enough to this society that they choose freely to take an oath to defend it and support it and sustain it; and, finally, those who intend to stay here and live out there lives here as fellow citizens. I don't want and don't believe it is in the best interests of our society to have people vote on important issues who might just pack it in and go back to their native Ethiopia, for instance, when it comes to retirement. Are these people who may have no intention of residing here long term going to be able to be counted on to make hard decisions about local bonds and borrowing? Are they going to say, don't matter to me none, I'm not going to be here in 20 years when that bond comes due?

You want a voice, take the oath. Simple as that.

Argument Two:

They also note that the United States has a long history of allowing noncitizens to vote. Twenty-two states and federal territories at various times allowed noncitizens to vote - even as blacks and women were barred from the ballot box - in the 1800's and 1900's.

Concerns about the radicalism of immigrants arriving from southern and Eastern Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries led states to restrict such voting rights. By 1928, voting at every level had been restricted to United States citizens. Today, some argue, those rights should be restored to noncitizens.

"They're paying taxes, they're working, they're contributing to our prosperity,'' said Jim Graham, the councilman who introduced the bill here. "And yet they're not able to exercise the franchise. "This is part of our history. A lot of people don't know what the history of this nation is in terms of immigrant voting; they don't understand even that localities can determine this issue. It's a very healthy discussion.''

Jimbo, you ain't reaching far enough back in terms of history to understand the importance of the decision of restricting the franchise to those who vote. Let's reach back a little farther and consider the public debates held during the period when the Constitution was adopted, from 1774 and on.

The debate, as best as I can recall it, centered on the issue of property ownership. One side wanted to restrict the right to vote to those citizens who held a certain amount of property. It was felt that these citizens would likely be less inclined to approve flighty measures and more inclined to support the long term good of society because of their stake in it. The other side disagreed. The other side, obviously, won. However, it took years and at no time was it thought that the right to vote should be extended to those who have no formal stake in society. I will have to go back and re-read some of the debates, it's been 20 years since I looked at this, but they were fascinating.

If you go back far enough, it was clear that the right to vote was meant to be given only to citizens.

Moreover, let's consider, at least anecdotally, the change in character of immigrants. Immigrants who came to this country in the period Jimbo is talking about came to stay, to make new lives in a better place. They were not going back. First, travel was difficult and expensive. Second, the places they left were not very free or nice. All that has changed. My impression, and I don't have the time to do any research to back this up, is that the character of immigration has changed from those looking to make a life long change to those looking to stay for several years and then return, richer, to their countries of origin to retire, aided by greater ease of travel, among other things. So, why would it be desirable to give these economic, short-term immigrants the right to vote? I could see how a long time immigrant might have the stake in society we would want to see, but a short termer who may lack the long term horizon and point of view? This is not your grandfather's immigrant.

In my view, history does not provide the justification they are looking for.

Argument Three:

"A lot of communities are not represented by representatives who reflect the diversity in their communities and are responsive to their needs,'' said Ron Hayduk, a professor of political science at the Borough of Manhattan Community College and an advocate for immigrant voting rights. "It raises basic fundamental questions about democracy.''

Ron, you are wrong on so many levels. First, diversity is not a constitutionally enshrined right. It is not a requirement that a representative "reflect the diversity" of his or her constituents. It is asinine to suggest that it is a requirement. You want a voice in the selection of your representative? Take the oath. Otherwise, assume that your representative will represent your community's concerns as a whole. If not, form a lobbying group or a neighborhood association and go to the representative. Tocqueville stresses this as one of the great strengths of American democracy. Second, Ron, we have a republic and not a direct democracy. The difference is that in a republic we are one step removed from the legislative process by way of legislators who we elect as opposed to all citizens directly voting on every law. Third, basic and fundamental are kind of the same thing. Just cause you say it twice, doesn't make it so.

The right to vote is a precious thing. It is a bright-line test, too. Are you a citizen? Were you born a citizen or did you take the oath? If not, no vote. Can you imagine the administrative nightmare it will be to figure out who among the non-citizens should be permitted to register to vote? I shudder at the thought. No, this whole proposal is misguided.

You want to vote? Join me in my citizenship, there's plenty of room.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 09:58 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 1231 words, total size 7 kb.

1 Hmmmm...I think we disagree here, dearie. When I lived in Sweden, as a tax-paying resident, I was allowed to vote. Not in their massive national elections, but in the usual community type things. Raise taxes to pay for a bridge? Pay a toll? Vote for the Euro? And the thing is, I wasn't a Swedish citizen, but as a Swedish resident, with a home and a job and a vested interest, I voted for what I felt was best for Sweden. I wasn't trying to sabotage the government or trash the culture, and I imagine most who would vote aren't interested in it-they have a vested interest, too. Getting citizenship and taking an oath-in any country-isn't easy. It requires years of residence. Proof of income. Proof of being a "normal citizen" (pay your utilities. Speak the language. I voted in Swedish for Swedish issues. Nothing wrong with that). I think it's the same for the U.S. People live in an area, pay their taxes, maybe want to be a citizen but can't and yet they have a voice. By allowing people to vote, you are showing that you respect their opinion and are aware that they too want what's best for the country. It takes a lot to vote-even for the citizens!-so someone that WANTS to vote clearly has interest, likely has read up, and wants to support their new country. Exclude them from the presidential election, if need be, but by all means, local elections affect them too. Let their voice be heard. I did, when I voted to support the best for Sweden and the Swedes. Let's trust others.

Posted by: Helen at August 09, 2004 10:13 AM (R4iEo)

2 Well, that's ok if we disagree. That's healthy and I never started this blog to only attract people to agree with me. But, the thing is, it isn't about trusting others. It's about a privilege that others have died for, both to obtain and to defend. It's about the "other", as you put it, taking an affirmative step in our direction to join our community. To become part of us. As I said, there's plenty of room, but not for transients. Finally, I don't know how relevant your Swedish experience is. Sweden is part of the EU which has been moving Europe generally in the direction of making national voting less relevant as, one, more of the important decisions are taken in Brussels or Strasbourg, and two, the freedom of movement of people allows for transnational voting of some kind or another. We don't have that to the same extent. There are so many differences that it becomes harder to compare the two systems. As always, I appreciate your thoughtful comments, Helen, even where we disagree.

Posted by: RP at August 09, 2004 10:31 AM (LlPKh)

3 Ah, but you can't define a transient, can you? I never planned on being one-I planned on living there indefinitely, on being a citizen, on remaining there ad infinitum. It was only that life threw a monkey wrench in my works, so I couldn't get that chance. I can agree that national elections should be sacred, and for the citizens. But I still maintain that local elections should serve the people that the constituency is comprised of, for the good of the community. I too respect that people died for the right to vote in my country-but it was over 250 years ago, and oddly all of my family came along to the U.S. a long time after that. You know I love ya' anyway. You're my big blog brother, after all. I have to

Posted by: Helen at August 09, 2004 11:07 AM (R4iEo)

4 Actually, when I was talking about people dying I was not thinking of 250 years ago. I was thinking of the most powerful oral argument I ever heard. It was about 10 years ago, in the Second Circuit appellate court from a pro se litigant on an appeal from a voter registration requirement from the State of Connecticut. The litigant argued the case himself. He told the panel, by way of introduction, that when he was in the US Army, he came off the line after fighting in the Battle of the Bulge to discover that his absentee ballot was lost and he would not be able to vote in that election. He said that he stood there, cold and tired, and he vowed that he would never let anyone abridge his right to vote again. You could have heard a pin drop in the courtroom. That is what I'm talking about by people defending my right as a citizen to vote. As for local elections, I'm still opposed. There are issues of critical importance, sometimes even national implications, that are decided. It has been said that all politics are local in the US. And you know I love you.

Posted by: RP at August 09, 2004 11:18 AM (LlPKh)

5 It's an interesting argument, I must admit. I can see both sides of the coin. I knew several mexicans in California who crossed the border to the US every year, worked for six months and then returned to Mexico to collect unemployment. They milked the system for all its worth. But I've also known many hard working individuals who contribute vastly to the well being of their communities, and they can't seem to get approved for citizenship. Their only mistake is not having been born here. I would have to give such a measure some serious thought before choosing sides.

Posted by: Mick at August 09, 2004 12:45 PM (VhRca)

6 Actually, Mexicans present an interesting challenge. As you may know, their government has permitted them, recently, to retain their Mexican citizenship if they become US citizens and is encouraging them to take dual nationality. I think that the aim is clear -- to be able to influence US domestic politics. And I can't blame them in the slightest, no matter how much I might resent the intrustion into our system.

Posted by: rp at August 09, 2004 01:41 PM (LlPKh)

7 I fundamentally agree with you, RP, but I also feel that Helen's point about permanent residents' being able to vote in local/community elections is reasonable and fair. The problem it creates, of course, is a slippery slope: where do you draw the line between local and national elections? Should one really not "do the right thing" because of possible slippery-slope'iness?

Posted by: GrammarQueen at August 09, 2004 04:35 PM (gDEwS)

8 I have to agree with Mick and Helen. Though the decision is not be taken lightly, it is one the merits serious consideration. How many citizens have taken an oath to defend, support and sustain the U.S.? While it's true there are those immigrants that work for a few months and then leave, there are many, many more who come to the U.S. to stay. They come to work, have children and stay to live out their lives working and living in the U.S. And really, how many of the citizens that can vote don't? Why not let those who have a vested interest and the will to vote, vote? Sure, you don't want non-citizens voting on who a Senator or President should be, but I strongly believe they have a right to be able to say who is going to protect or lead or plan out their future livelihood. I also think that the fastest growing group in the military are the children of immigrants, many of whom are still trying to become legal residents.

Posted by: Jester at August 09, 2004 10:45 PM (yS8Mo)

9 As much as I see your point, I have to delurk to say I agree with Mick and Helen. I'm thinking specifically of school elections. Parents who pay school taxes ought to have a voice in school budget and school board elections. The children, who may be citizens, after all, should have their interests represented.

Posted by: Terri at August 10, 2004 04:54 AM (SIz+V)

10 First off... you keep saying "take the oath" but I don't think it's that simple. I have the idea that it is fairly difficult to get American citizenship as well as the fact that some people don't want to give up their original nationality. For example, I'm not allowed to vote in any elections here, local or national. But I do follow the politics to a certain point, because I'm sort of active in student rights and such. To be able to vote, I'd have to give up my American passport and get a Dutch one... I have to find a way to get a dual nationality! Anyway... you make such a cut and clear case of this - I think there are more issues than you've named, like the one that I named above. On the other hand, I agree with you that residents shouldn't vote, only citizens. It makes sense...

Posted by: Hannah at August 12, 2004 01:58 AM (MMJNM)

11 It's a difficult issue, I agree.

Posted by: RP at August 13, 2004 04:46 PM (LlPKh)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I think about AIDS a lot. I have no personal connection to this disease. I know no one who has it or has died from it, to the best of my knowledge. So, that's not why I care. No, generally, I am concerned about the impact AIDS has on developing societies. I am fascinated by how this modern day plague is devastating the African Continent, how social norms appear to be in the process of being rewritten as a result, how prevention and treatment are advanced and thwarted, how Asia is responding in general and China in particular, and how this might effect the world beyond the borders of those countries and continents most particularly affected. Whole generations are being more than decimated and the impact of such a reordering of population norms may not be felt for years.

However, I never really thought much about the impact on US society in the same way, since it seems like the US has AIDS under much better control. I guess I was wrong, at least with respect to the black community here. And, if it concerns such an important segment of our society as a whole, it ought to concern everyone.

The NY Times today had an article on the spread of AIDS in the black community in small, Southern cities: Links Between Prison and AIDS Affecting Blacks Inside and Out. Again, as is my wont, I'll extract some of the statistics that caused my mouth to drop open on the train today:

*Blacks now account for more than half of all new H.I.V. infections, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Black women account for 72 percent of all new cases among women. During the decades that the AIDS epidemic has spread, the number of people incarcerated has also soared, to nearly 2.1 million, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Of that total, more than 40 percent are black.

*In North Carolina, African-Americans make up more than 70 percent of all existing H.I.V. and AIDS cases, and about 60 percent of the state's roughly 35,000 prisoners.

*The prevalence of confirmed AIDS cases in prisons is three times as high as it is in the general population, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. H.I.V. cases are harder to count, because only 19 states conduct mandatory H.I.V. testing of inmates. But many researchers believe the number of prisoners with H.I.V. to be far higher than the 1.9 percent most recently documented by the justice agency.

I'll put the rest of my observations below in the extended entry section. more...

Posted by: Random Penseur at 09:36 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 1166 words, total size 7 kb.

I've posted before about the impact of the AIDS virus in Africa. About how 2-3 people have to be hired to perform the same job in middle management in South African companies because chances are statistically very good that only one of them will be around to get the job done. Or maybe I haven't posted about this. I have certainly harangued my wife about it. (By the way, the poor dear deserves your sympathy entirely because before I discovered blogging, she was the sole "beneficiary" of my rants.)

There was an article in the NY Times this morning about AIDS in South Africa. Its lead in was about how graves have to be recycled in Durban because of the high number of deaths and the small amount of cemetery space. It included some shocking statistics and I want to bring them out here so that all my readers, all eleven of you (and you know who you are), can share my concern:

*51 of the 53 municipal cemeteries are officially filled to capacity

*"Five years ago, we used to have about 120 funerals a weekend, but this number has now jumped to 600," Thembinkosi Ngcobo, who heads the municipal department of parks and cemeteries, said in an interview this week. "In order to cope with the current rate of mortality - we hope it is not going to increase - we will need to have 12.1 hectares every year of new gravesites." That is nearly 30 acres.

*Roughly one in eight South Africans is H.I.V.-positive

*in Durban, South Africa's third-largest city with about 3.5 million people, a survey two years ago of women at pregnancy clinics found about 35 percent were infected with H.I.V.

This is tragic. I just never contemplated the effects of the deaths vis a vis funerals and cemetery use. I'm glad that the NY Times brought these facts out.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 08:58 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 322 words, total size 2 kb.

Until today, if someone said that to me, I'd assume that they were talking about Bush/Gore, dismiss them as either a lunatic or a sore loser and I'd try to back slowly out of the room, keeping my hands and feet inside the vehicle at all times. Until today, I thought that this was the first time such an accusation had been levied at the presidential level and such a series of events had taken place in US history. Well, shame on me for being ignorant.

Let's jump into the history way back machine for a sec and revisit, in the extended section: The Hayes-Tilden Presidential Election of 1876. more...

Posted by: Random Penseur at 09:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 410 words, total size 3 kb.

The heat's getting turned up here in July. People are growing increasingly shrill and bitter. We once discussed the existance of the "moderate" on this blog (by the way, I still can't quite get over the fact that I have a blog, that people come read it, and that people seem to enjoy it, it's just astonishing to me). I think us "moderates" are few and far between these days. This presidential campaign is so ugly already with people so polarized that I begin to despair. I get emails from friends on the right questioning every last thing about John Kerry and emails from friends on the left accusing George Bush of having committed every kind of crime known to man, all to further line someone's pockets. Basta! Enough already! Turn down the rhetorical heat, please, before most of us are driven from the political kitchen!

Here's the thing. I am a registered Republican simply because I have felt for a long time that there is no place for me and my views in the Democratic Party. That said, no candidate has ever been able to count on my vote simply because of his or her party affiliation. I tend to vote issues and positions, not (r) or (d). I suspect I'm going to vote for Bush come November, but I want the chance to reflect on it and chat about it. I want some civilized discourse. I want some adult conversation and reflection. I sound like a chick, don't I? I want romance, seduction, etc. No, what I want is for everybody to stop yelling and stop spinning.

At the end of the day, I suspect it will not matter who I vote for or who gets elected president. I expect strong disagreement on this point, but I'll take my chances. I am a believer in the theory that presidents will rise to the occasion. I believe that if there is a national emergency, our president will handle it, no matter which party he's from. I also believe that our country is internally strong enough to resist the effects of four years of bad rule. So, if the candidate I don't like gets in, I think it will probably be ok in the end.

That said, I think that there are significant problems facing us as a country and we might be better off with the Bush approach than the Kerry approach. But I'm going to wait and see a little bit and try my hardest to separate the substance from the spin. I just hope tempers cool a bit by November.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 12:13 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 437 words, total size 2 kb.

I am highly amused by the spectacle of Mrs. Kerry telling a reporter to "shove it", shortly after delivering a speech exhorting her fellow citizens to return civility to politics. Whatever you may think of the relative merits of Mrs. Kerry v. Mrs. Bush, Mrs. Kerry appears to be more entertaining. Watch the fun as the Kerry campaign deals with this little issue.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 10:22 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.

Hold the presses: The NY Times has admitted that its coverage is liberal and unbalanced. At least, up to a point, they admit it. They note that they are a walking advertisement for gay marriage and never present the dissenting point of view about it. They note that they present too much by way of diversity issues on the sports page. I am shocked they admit it and shocked that they didn't push it as far as they could have. For instance, the "public editor" who wrote this column wants to leave the political issues of the campaign out of this column and wait until the fall until he can tell for sure. Please. Most of us don't feel the need to wait.

The really interesting thing I take away from this is that the complaints about how one sided the Times' coverage is must be forcing some response. Finally. Stay tuned to see if it ever changes, not that I really expect it to.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 01:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 173 words, total size 1 kb.

Thanks to One Ordinary York Student (who does not have any contact info on his/her site so I can't email him/her) for giving me:

The terrorism-is-not-okay award (for my post on "root causes").

Posted by: Random Penseur at 11:03 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

I happened across an extraordinary article this morning in the Spectator, an English weekly magazine, entitled: The triumph of the East (registration may be required). It is extraordinary to me because I don't often see articles like this in mainstream publications. The premise of the article is that we in the West are deluding ourselves about Islam's expansionist and imperialist aims. Reassuring ourselves with our bland pablum of multi-culturalism, our fevered insistence that we are all the same with the same interests and the same needs and motivations, we are blind to the fact that the conquest of the West is a central topic urged on the main Islamic media sources. It is a central topic of discussion in the most prominent mosques and it is ignored in the West.

The most popular tactic is immigration. I must admit that this sentence jumped off the page at me: "In Brussels, Mohammed has been the most popular name for boy babies for the last four years." I don't know if it's true, mind you, but it startled me.

Contrast this with the upbeat article that the NY Times ran today on how woman are agitating, albeit with no organization, for more rights to pray in the mosque. This is a "feel good about Islam" article that the Times likes to run from time to time. However, someone gave us an interesting juxtaposition by running this article right under the picture in this article of six kidnaped civilians in danger of having their heads chopped off by the three hooded terrorists, whoops, I mean "insurgents", in front of them (scroll down to see the picture). Like I said, interesting juxtaposition.

At some point we are going to have to confront the fact that not all people want the same thing in the West, that even those who immigrate here don't necessarily share our values or even respect them, and that we are in a conflict of cultures. I hope we do it soon. I for one do not want my daughter to wear a veil except on her wedding day.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 10:38 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 354 words, total size 2 kb.

I beat the NY Times up all the time, but sometimes they get it right. There has been an interesting series on the sale and marketing of inappropriate financial products, including but not limited to life insurance and mutual funds, to soldiers. Apparently, for as little as $1500, you too can buy congressional intercession on behalf of your sleazy business practices. The first article is here and the second one, run today, is here. Go read the second one to understand my comment about how cheap it is to buy access.

This practice, by the way, stands in sharp contrast to the actions of the most prominent Americans during the Civil War. I have been reading, at night, the McCullough biography of Theodore Roosevelt, called, "Mornings on Horseback: The Story of an Extraordinary Family, a Vanished Way of Life and the Unique Child Who Became Theodore Roosevelt". The President's father, during the Civil War, was instrumental in creating the Allotment Commission. I find nothing of any consequence about it after a Google search, but let me explain.

The men went off to fight in the Civil War and left their familes and women behind, often made destitute by the lack of income after the men left their civilian jobs. Roosevelt, and others, conceived of the Allotment Commission. They presented it to Lincoln and secured his agreement. What was it? Simple. It was a mechanism by which Union soldiers could allot some portion of their pay to be subtracted from their pay check and transmitted directly back home. No one else had ever thought of this. Roosevelt traveled to practically every encampment and preached to the men the value of this service. Many signed up and many millions of dollars were sent home. This was a selfless act on Rooselvelt's part.

We dishonor the memory of the men who toiled on behalf of the common soldier, without recompense, by permitting these scum to prey upon our soldiers. It is just shameful.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 11:25 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 334 words, total size 2 kb.

A little more on the "root causes" post of yesterday. I closed by asking whether we could unite this country and face, together, the threats and powers arrayed against us. Thanks to Frederik Norman, a Norwegian who founded the "Norwegian Friends of America" group in Norway, I have discovered the Committee on the Present Danger. This is a bi-partisan group who, well, let's let them tell it in their own words:

In times of great challenge to the security of the United States, Republicans, Democrats and Independents have traditionally joined to make an assertive defense of American interests.

Twice before in American history, The Committee on the Present Danger has risen to this challenge. It emerged in 1950 as a bipartisan education and advocacy organization dedicated to building a national consensus for a strong defense against Soviet expansionism. In 1976, the Committee on the Present Danger reemerged, with leadership from the labor movement, bipartisan representatives of the foreign policy community and academia, all of whom were concerned about strategic drift in U.S. security policy.

In both previous periods, the CommitteeÂ’s mission was clear: raise awareness to the threat to American safety; communicate the risk inherent in appeasing totalitarianism; and build support for an assertive policy to promote the security of the United States and its allies and friends.

With victory in the Cold War, the mission of the Committee on the Present Danger was considered complete and consequently was deactivated..

Today, radical Islamists threaten the safety of the American people and millions of others who prize liberty. The threat is global. They operate from cells in a number of countries. Rogue regimes seek power by making common cause with terrorist groups. The prospect that this deadly collusion may include weapons of mass murder is at hand.

Like the Cold War, securing our freedom against organized terrorism is a long-term struggle. The road to victory begins with clear identification of the shifting threat and vigorous pursuit of policies to contain and defeat it.

It is led by Senators Kyl and Lieberman and chaired by the Hon. James Woolsey. It is, to me, a reason to hope just a little bit more.

I still deeply regret Joe Lieberman's withdrawal from the Democratic primary. He was the only one in that Party who I could have voted for.

UPDATE: Go you and check out the many articles these guys have published. This is very cool.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 10:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 410 words, total size 3 kb.

This one may take me awhile, so if you plan on reading the whole thing, grab a pew, missy (as I tell my daughter when I want her to sit down and as she delights in repeating back to me). If you don't plan on reading this one, that's ok, I bet someone else is writing about this in a better way than I am.

The Root Causes. Everyone seems to think that we need to understand the root causes of terrorism, the root causes of ceaseless anti-American hatred, the root causes of anti-Semitism, the root causes of _______ (fill in the blank, how about obesity?). The world faults us for failing to understand the root causes. They want us to ask: why do they hate us? What did we do wrong? The media drumbeat on this point, in our own newspapers and from our allies, is as relentless as it is nonsensical and downright contemptuous.
more...

Posted by: Random Penseur at 11:57 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 985 words, total size 6 kb.

1 wow, that was helladope. I don't see all of the same root causes as you, but I do believe that there are quite a few things that america needs to put in a box somewhere and bury. I'm going to be in the backyard diggind a deep hole if anyone needs me.

Posted by: shank at July 20, 2004 12:16 PM (+4mO/)

2 That's fine. I don't expect people to agree with me. That's what makes a horse race. That said, I think I'm right.

Posted by: RP at July 20, 2004 12:23 PM (LlPKh)

3 Very nicely done. Eloquent. (This is not just sucking up, either. I have thought these very same thoughts; although I must say you said them sooo much better than I could have.) Finding the "root cause" is a gigantic waste of time. We won't understand the answer should we ever get one. My deepest sympathies for the loss of your cousin. Love, Em

Posted by: Emma at July 20, 2004 01:58 PM (NOZuy)

4 Hmmm... It's an interesting piece. I've always believed that such a passionate emotion as hatred was akin to love, though complete opposites. When you love people you try to make their lives better; when you hate them, you try to destroy their lives. Both require the same devotion. But indifference only comes into the equation when you're of little to no consequence. People need to blame somebody for their misfortune, or their once majestic country's fall from grace. It is America's lot in life to suffer the burden of being the hated, at least in this day and age. I'm not naive enough to believe that US supremacy will last forever. More dominant empires in human history have faded away. Pursuing the reason for their hatred is futile. To stop them from hating us we would have to cease being who we are: free, happy and successful. Only in our total failure would the world's malcontents stop wasting their arrows on us. They would have to find another target.

Posted by: Mick at July 20, 2004 03:49 PM (VhRca)

5 Em, thank you very much, both for your sympathy and your kind comment. Mick, you raise an interesting point. I think that you would really enjoy the Revel book I recommended. I just finished tonight on the train going home and I intend to quote from it a little bit tomorrow. As for your love/hate dichotomy, the problem I have is that I think that these guys are all burnt out of love and ain't got nothing left but hate. And that's an ugly place to be.

Posted by: Random Penseur at July 20, 2004 09:37 PM (X3Lfs)

6 Mick, Yes, excellent observation. Though I think there might be a little bit of shame entwined with the jealousy. Remember the I Love Lucy episodes where they were travelling through "old" Europe? Lucy trying to learn how to smash grapes for the wine? Yep, Europe was smashing grapes with their bare feet even post-Marshall Plan. Maybe that was just DesiLu Hollywood romanticism. But maybe it was an allagory of what Europeans see as the failure of their own cultures. They were the most technologically advanced continent until America upstaged them, and maybe they just, neuroticly, want to pretend that that isn't true anymore by shouting out about how old they are. Bah! It's so simple. They see themselves as the creators of "military prowess" and just hate hate hate not being that anymore. Nowadays they pretend to hate power, but, please, like any good modern socialist, they crave it. Blind anti-Americanism may well bring about a resergence of BolviShit inclinations, but, hopefully history can finally teach these backward retards that -- in a free country anyways -- the word "responsibility" has a meaning beyond the word entitlement. Idealistic fucktards... (sorry, I've been feelin' a bit ranty lately.....

Posted by: Tuning Spork at July 20, 2004 10:10 PM (dI0HC)

7 Yes, on both counts. I don't refute your points. However, and be it perhaps noblesse oblige, as the dominating force on this earth we are subject to microscopic observation of our efforts, and the judgemental eye of mankind upon us. On nobody else will it be so harsh. We cannot combat their hatred, we must learn to live with it. That's what I'm saying. There is no solution to be found by kissing their arses, and trying to figure out why they dislike us. We have to protect ourselves from their bad intent, because no matter what we do they will continue to hate us. They hate us for being us, and that's not something we should be willing to change to apease them. Is it???

Posted by: Mick at July 20, 2004 11:57 PM (/q0Tq)

8 Just wow. I wish I had a better understanding of the world around me. I wish that I could powerful opinions on things such as you do. I love reading your blog, amber's, mick's, and tink's because you guys have great stories to tell, intelligence to share and lots of passion to do it.

Posted by: Holly at July 21, 2004 09:00 AM (Wkg+N)

9 I did particularly enjoy the scarequotes, RP. Rob wrote about this a while back from the British perspective on the USA.

Posted by: Jim at July 21, 2004 09:08 AM (IOwam)

10 Thanks, y'all, for your interesting and thoughtful comments. I lack the time today to treat them in the depth they deserve, but, in the words of the Governator, "I'll be back" to this topic.

Posted by: RP at July 21, 2004 11:59 AM (LlPKh)

11 I spent a whole summer a few years ago reading up on serial killers. A child not far from us had been abducted and murdered that summer and it turned out the guy had done it many times before. I was burning with the need to know *why* do some people do things like that? Why molest children? Why kill innocents? Why do some people lash out in that way while others with a similar history do not? What is the reasoning, or, the "root cause"? I never came to a nice, pat conclusion. I never came to an understanding either. Sure, I read horrific stories of those who had horrible childhoods and grew up to become abusers themselves. Read of twisted psyches and sick desires. But there was no definitive answer for me. Because many people suffer horrendous childhoods and terrible events and never choose to kill or harm others over it. They pull themselves up out of the muck and insanity and move on. Sometimes under the worst conditions imaginable. We all have root causes. We all have reasons for what we do. But it's not an excuse. It's not even an illumination. It means....nothing, really, except that, when you do something wrong to an innocent human being because something wrong was done to you, then you've failed at what it means to be human.

Posted by: Amber at July 21, 2004 01:56 PM (zQE5D)

12 How totally perfect, Amber. Thank you for putting the exclamation point on my post.

Posted by: rp at July 21, 2004 02:03 PM (LlPKh)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I read the paper at the table this morning and it pissed me off for the whole morning. One of these days, I'm going to check my pressure before breakfast, not have any coffee (as a control), and check it again after reading the Times.

Roger Cohen is a _____ (supply your own appropriate word here, my choices don't make the cut since, while they are all heartfelt, they probably make me look less and less like an adult). His article/editorial (hard to know which since it wasn't on the op/ed piece but it certainly wasn't reporting), was an unmitigated horror of moral relativism which places a lower value on the lives of Jewish children killed by suicide bombers than it does on the consequences to the Palestinians because of the wall. I will explain.

The article starts with some facts which one senses Mr. Cohen disapproves of. "If Israelis are going to the beach and to clubs again, and if bombings have become rare, it is thanks in large part, they insist, to these ditches and guard towers and coils of barbed wire and miles of wire fencing that separate two peoples, demarcating the gulf between them." Meaning, the wall has allowed Israelis to lead normal lives with less fear of someone strapping on a belt of explosives with a package of nails dipped in rat poison in their pockets, and blowing up a bus or a nightclub. Cohen seems to me to minimize the importance of everyday normalcy by choosing the most frivolous possible examples to illustrate the larger point that the wall is taking away the fear. The ever present, grinding you down, fear. By putting it in this way, Cohen trivializes it and makes it seem ridiculous.

But let's continue, shall we? Cohen notes that while there is no one single explanation for the sharp decline in the number of suicide bombings, everyone agrees that the wall plays an important role. Cohen then contrasts the high tech nature of the wall monitoring center with the Palestinian condition on the other side of the wall and writes:

"What often seems to be missing from these Israeli musings is any grasp of the life of the Palestinians on the other side of the barrier. On those war-room screens the most common sight is a Palestinian in a donkey cart trundling along a dirt track. The contrast between the high-tech Israeli cameras that deliver these images and the abject existence of the Palestinians photographed provides an apt summation of the divergence of the societies: a first-world Israel forging ahead as best it can, a third-world Palestinian society going backward."

Neat juxtaposition, no? By choosing to put these concepts next to each other in his arti-torial, Cohen leaves you with the impression that the reason for the plight of the blameless Palestinian is the wall. What else could be to blame for their society going back to the Third World standard? He goes on to outline the effects of the wall on the Palestinians compared to life for the Israelis -- dirt tracks v. highways, donkeys v. cars. The impact is clear for Mr. Cohen. The wall is a disaster for the Palestinians.

Here, I ask myself, so? I don't believe that the wall is to blame for Palestinian economic disintegration. Their economy imploded when they turned to violence from negotiation. The Intafada killed it, not Israel. The most basic human right that any society needs to provide to its citizens is freedom from death from outsiders. Israel is doing so now with a non-lethal barrier. Israel has no real choice -- build a barrier and separate or watch its buses blow up all over the country. This is not an option. Palestinians have to stop trying to kill Israelis and have to stop teaching their children to hate. Or else, they should not be permitted access to the First World on the other side of the wall.

I started by saying Cohen's arti-torial was an exercise in moral relativism and I'm not sure I made my point. My fault, of course. Let me be clear, by comparing the inconvenience of the Palestinian farmer and his donkey who have to wait for the Israeli soldier to let him through to his orchards with the freedom of the Israeli to lead a life free from the fear of an explosive device, he has elevated the one concept of the Palestinian right to convenience to the level of the moral right of the Israeli to live at all. It elevates the one while diminishing the other. Even if it is the freedom to go to the beach, that is still the freedom to live without fear. If that inconveniences someone else, well, so be it. To put these two concepts on the same level, is the basest kind of relativism.

Mr. Cohen, you should be ashamed of yourself for adding your pen to this cause at this time.

I really hate the Times.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 02:57 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 845 words, total size 5 kb.

I am not a fan of Mr. Moore. Frankly, when it comes to describing him and his destructive influence on the nation's political debate, words fail me.

Fortunately, words don't fail the author of this site: Centigrade 9/11: Alternative Views of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11". This site is a collection of the factual errors and corrective essays concerning Moore's fatuous film.

Hat tip to Powerage for the link.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 01:58 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.