“In many ways this is Rwanda in slow motion. The gods of history are looking down on us and, seeing our failure in 1994, decided to give us another chance – and we’re failing just as badly.”
- Eric Reeves
Pay attention, class – this is one course we don’t want to repeat (again).
My seventh grade history teacher was Mr. Baltich. His motto was “A word to the wise is sufficient.” He often used it to conclude tales from historic episodes in which things could have gone much more smoothly had one or more of the parties learned from existing wisdom. This existing wisdom might have come from a scorned adviser or from the simple observation of past events.
Mr. Baltich also used this motto as part of his warning to a classroom full of parochial school students (as in “Heed this understated verbal warning, or else…”). At the naive age of 12, most of us didn’t grasp the seriousness of any warning that didn’t include wild gestures or raised voices, so we’d often get to find out what fate befell those to whom words were insufficient. Eventually we started to wise up.
Mr. B’s trademark saying is based on the notion – and I wasn’t sure of its accuracy until the past few years – that it takes true wisdom to heed the advice of those who’ve experienced more than you. I already knew there were countless examples of young, cocky types who, for whatever reason, feel the need to remake all of the mistakes their elders warn them about. I’ve always chalked it up to a sense of hubris that seems almost inherent to youth. My recent viewing of the documentary No End in Sight helped illustrate to me how pervasive this foolish attribute is in biologically mature men, like those who engineered the invasion of Iraq. [Read more →]
One of the people in this video has finally figured out a foolproof formula for telling who’s really responsible for the upheaval in Iraq.
And the makers of the above video also seem to have figured out one way to increase their chances of finding stupid Americans to bungle current events questions: film in a Wal-Mart parking lot.
(Stumbled upon via News Hounds)
Judge Rufus Peckham has one detail on the Libby verdict most news sources seem to be missing.
The Rascal King has asked Philly area bloggers to voice responses on the President’s most recent State of the Union Address. The responses being sought are not for broad policy or ideological critiques, but rather for reactions to specific points of the address. My response has been percolating ever since about two minutes into the speech (though I didn’t get to hear it live, so my response time is a bit slow).
Upon hearing Mr. Bush’s plan to bridge the healthcare gap, I initially thought, “That’s great! You mean he’s going to give me a tax exemption for having health coverage?”
Not so fast. [Read more →]
A snippet from a Philadelphia Inquirer column by Stephen Miller correlating the rancor in Congressinal debate with the lack of civil debate in American culture as a whole:
Alas, in America today many people enjoy being impolite. They think it is a sign of integrity to express oneself vehemently. Moreover, angry authors, angry columnists, and angry talk-show hosts usually do well in the marketplace. The climate for conversation is not good, so good conversationalists – people who listen attentively and disagree politely – may become an endangered species.
I know people who rightly point out that civility in a principled debate is not a virtue unto itself, but the lack thereof can get in the way of discovering when someone else might actually have a worthwhile point.
Click here for the full text of Stephen Miller’s column.
For those unfamiliar (or simply not obsessed with my annual election tradition), I like to start election day recap posts with my voter number. My number from yesterday was 984. I guess it was good turnout. And, at least on the national level, the results weren’t so bad either.
I don’t vote straight ticket as a rule, but this year I came kind of close. Not because I uniformly agree with the Democratic philosophy; I don’t. But because I adamantly disagree with the philosophy of single-party rule we’ve had for most of the past half-dozen years. It just seems to bolster the mindless political dogma that drives the two-party system in the first place.
Our government’s been missing its recommended allowance of checks and balances for a while anyway. It’s gotten sickly and pathetic in that time (- well, more than it usually is). A sickness grown even more virulent in the hands of those who bemoan lack of congressional review over judicial review.
I recall a TV soundbite debate in which a Republican spin doctor, apparently disappointed with control of only two branches of government, railed on about “activist judges” and ways they might be reigned in by Congress. Yeah, how do we get rid of that pesky judicial body that doesn’t let the rest of the government run rampant based the political leanings of half the country (and often less than that)?
That at least one house of our bicameral legislature is no longer as likely to rubber stamp the executive agenda has me breathing a sigh of relief. I’m glad I don’t have to contemplate that again, for at least two more years.
Hail the return of a legislature with the potential to actually check executive power. Now we can enjoy an occasional dose of good old-fashioned gridlock. Wait, did I just rejoice over the return of gridlock? Absolutely. I look at it this way: when you’re heading toward a cliff, anything that slows you down just might be your salvation.
Been cringing at TV ads for various candidates, as well as trying to hide from the incessant mail campaigns. But to no avail.
It should go without saying that if you are a partisan who believes it’s only the ads for the other side that do this, then the guy in the above cartoon has got you pegged.
This week, in honor of Halloween, a scary story about life at the bottom end of the payscale. It comes via Seven Days at Minimum Wage, a project focused on bringing the experiences of full-time minimum wage workers to light. Below is day one:
Matt recalls his disgust with some tactics employed by (um, do I have to call him my Congressman?) Mike Fitzpatrick.
Fitzpatrick has seen fit to plug in one of the most disturbing tactics of the past few years: the slimy use of innuendo against a U.S. soldier’s service record. I just wish it would stop. Mr. Bush’s failure to do the right thing (when people slinging mud on his behalf took similar measures against John Kerry) is a large part of the reason I lost respect for the President (the man, not the office).
Now Mike Fitzpatrick, a congressman whose office has been about as responsive as a ‘69 VW bus on a highway entrance ramp, has put his name on that same list of people I consider unelectable. I was already leaning toward supporting Patrick Murphy in this year’s contest, but now my position is pretty much solidified. I’ve had enough of chicken hawks who feel emboldened to slander war veterans for political gain. And maybe one upside to this decision will be the addition of one more Congressperson who actually has a real-world understanding of how the military works. Golly, wouldn’t that be neat?
In short, if my Congressman won’t act like a responsible adult, I’m obliged to elect someone I believe will. That’s why I’m supporting Patrick Murphy for Congress.
UPDATE (11/1/06): In a stunning twist (at least to me, a lifelong Bucks Countian), the hometown paper, The Bucks County Courier Times endorsed Patrick Murphy the other day. For people in Bucks County, this is the only news endorsement that should matter, because it comes from the only editorial staff with any substantive concern or foundation in Bucks County’s general interest.
Which is more than I can say for a couple groups based outside of Bucks County that have backed Mike Fitzpatrick in this race:
And anyone who’s ever dealt with Fitzy’s office on questions requiring more than a form letter with an automated feel knows how frustrating his responses tend to be. That he’s so in-step with the Bush Administration on issues affecting constitutional tenets and home economics almost seems ancillary to the simple fact that his office has clearly been more interested in politicking than serving the constituency.
Thank God I have blogs like Jane’s to read that really help me catch the things I’d otherwise miss about Bucks County political happenings. Oh, and there’s also Fact-esque and the next direction for Bucks-based political blogging.
“Today’s decision threatens to create a new class of workers under federal labor law: workers who have neither the genuine prerogatives of management, nor the statutory rights of ordinary employees.”
- from dissenting opinion in the “Kentucky River” decisions
I’ve been meaning to say I’m less than thrilled by this news. It’s as if someone went overboard when they realized they couldn’t convince workers unions were bad. Running out of convincing arguments, they had to just remove the option entirely.
Lest the naive among us misunderstand the context, this is about much more than being able to join a union. Do not be fooled into believing that the National Labor Relations Act only benefits union members. It also gives a whole slew of rights to non-union workers, most of which will go right out the window for people whose job titles can now be twisted into “supervisor.”
I’m curious; have there been any major rulings in recent years that haven’t curtailed workers’ collective bargaining rights? Yeah, I didn’t think so.
But I guess we do have to protect our frail corporations from those big bad workers.
Fact-esque is the latest Featured Blog over at Philly Future. I mention this as a point of hyperlocal pride, in that Fact-esque is powered by a fellow Bucks Countian who goes by the online moniker eRobin. It’s always good to see someone from my actual neck of the woods get a little positive attention.
A progressive activist in every sense, eRobin can be counted on for highlights of local and national stories of interest, as well as great tips, like how to register to vote in PA via cell phone (which I recommend everyone in PA do, whether by cell phone or other means, prior to the October 10 deadline).
If you’re unfamiliar, but it sounds like a site that might interest you, click here to check out Fact-esque.
“How loudly we plead our innocence
long after we’ve made our contribution”
-Bill Mallonee
Someday we’ll see the connections. We’ll grasp the enormity of these constitutional missteps we make in the name of security. Someday we may even be able to discuss them without a tinge of partisanship, because we’ll understand that once you embrace an opposite set of values to accomplish even the most justifiable ideals, you’ll have already lost the ends for which you employed those means in the first place. [Read more →]
The Herald pretty much nails it with this editorial:
At one level this battle between the White House and a rebellious handful of Senate Republicans is a war of words – a fight over legalese, interpretations, meanings.
At another level this is about core American values, about the rule of law and maintaining this nation’s reputation for taking the moral high ground.
And this time George W. Bush has picked the wrong fight at the wrong time with the wrong people.
No one – not Colin Powell, not Sen. John McCain, not Sen. John Warner nor members of the military’s own Judge Advocate corps – wants to see the United States give ground to terrorists who would destroy us in a heartbeat if they thought they could. … (full text)
