Categories
Political

Dick Cheney and the F Word

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

All this use of the euphonism, the F-Word, and references to potty mouth since the newest Dick Cheney fooflah.

It’s ‘fuck’ people. F-U-C-K. And if you’re worried about being filtered at libraries and in grade schools, ask yourself: do you want to write something that’s equivalent to a G rating from Disney? Say the word, accept the filter, be proud of your raunch–it has history (but it’s not an acronym). If you can’t say it for yourself, say it for your country.

Anyway, I was over reading Ralph’s own colorful discussion on Cheney, and I had to drop him a comment that I just can’t get all that fired up over this issue. To be honest, I think “Fuck yourself” is about the most honest thing Cheney has said in three years.

I mean, compare it to the following:

“I had other priorities in the 60’s than military service”

” Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. “

“Iraq could decide on any given day to provide biological or chemical weapons to a terrorist group or to individual terrorists,…The war on terror will not be won until Iraq is completely and verifiably deprived of weapons of mass destruction.”

“The plan was criticized by some retired military officers embedded in TV studios. But with every advance by our coalition forces, the wisdom of that plan becomes more apparent. “

“We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. ”

I’d much rather have Cheney on the floor of the Senate telling Senators to go fuck themselves, then using the Middle East to demonstrate exactly how it’s done.

Categories
Political

America 101

I was in the midst of writing something on how to backup a database, export out of WordPress, and even how to do a direct database to database transform, but I wasn’t sure how to engineer a disaster first–to make my help seem like a miracle, and me a saint. What’s the fun of writing something helpful if all it does is, well, help people. After all, I am an American and this is a true American way of doing things.

I got to thinking, though, that perhaps those of you in other countries don’t know how all this works, and sit there in befuddlement and perhaps even a little outrage at all the daft things we do and say. In particular, it must seem at times as if we rush around breaking things and then, when we fix them later, call ourselves heros. So I thought a little cultural America 101 might be in order.

First of all, you need to be aware of our really fine use of semantics: whenever we make mistakes we never call them ‘a mistake’. In America, never call an apple an apple if by doing so you have to acknowledge that you picked the apple without permission. How can we forget that all important lesson: love means never having to say you’re sorry?

As an example at a very micro level, you don’t describe deliberately shutting down a server something like, “I’m deliberately shutting down the server where your material resides”. You call it an outage as in:

We now have a transition plan for the corner-turn, and have implemented most of it. The plan exceeds the commitment I made, by quite a bit; and will be implemented much sooner than promised. I’m writing the heads-up statement right now. The outage should be, Murphy-willing, completely cleared by the end of the weekend.

I had no idea that Boston was suffering a blackout. Or is it that a tree fell on someone’s head? Regardless, notice the small steps to redefine this event, until it morphs from a deliberate action into an act of accident or God? I am filled with admiration. Truly.

But this is small potatoes compared to others’ masterful use of semantics. Witness the invasion of Iraq: what started out as a move to ‘protect this country from weapons of mass destruction’ has now become a move to ’save the people of Iraq from a ruthless dictator and bring true freedom to the Middle East’.

This is truly brilliant. After all, no one can deny that Saddam Hussein wasn’t ruthless and violent to his own people; so how can anyone deny the rightness of our actions when someone like him is displaced? And if people continue to try to question our actions, the answer is ready made: you must want the people of Iraq to suffer.

I don’t care what anyone says: Japanese marketing might be more novel, European marketing more clever, and South American sexier, but no one knows how to position the opposition into a rhetorical corner better than we Americans.

Of course, if people still question specific actions, then you bring in the bigger guns: what do you know, and what does it have to do with you?

Returning to our micro example, the ‘what does it have to do with you’ is wonderfully illustrated with the following:

I’ve found the same thing most of the time—those seemingly the most offended by something like an outage were those who it didn’t effect. People are strange that way.

True we haven’t heard much negative commentary from those whose files haven’t quite been restored yet. I imagine they’re still overwhelmed by how grateful they are for the free hosting they’ve had, and the four years of writing they’ve created during this time.

Of course, the same could be said–who are we to talk when the natives are so content– about the situation in Iraq. After all, we see pictures of smiling, happy Iraqi standing next to a Marine carrying a big gun all the time. And then there’s all the polls in Iraq saying how grateful they are for being liberated. Now would the Americans please, pretty please, leave now?

See, they’re polite ladies and gentlemen, too.

As for the use of “what you don’t know”, insider versus outsider knowledge is one of the most powerful weapons ever used in this country–much more powerful than any atom bomb. It has a long history, but I believe it had its most proud moment when Senator McCarthy waved around a sheet of paper that he claimed had the names of communists serving in the government. Didn’t matter that he was waving about a shopping list–all that mattered is that he knew. If people asked to see the list, they were told they couldn’t “…in the interests of national security…”

People are being held in prisons here and abroad without due regard to either national or international law and we’re told it’s in the ‘interests of national security’. After all, if these people are allowed access to the outside, they can warn their compatriots of…what? That the US knows about plans that are now two years old?

And how often have you responded to an overt act with a negative reaction, only to be told, “You don’t have all the facts.” The end result of statements such as these is to make you slink away, being made to feel as if you’re tromping on the kittens or stealing candy from babies. A more legitimate response would be to say, “Well then, give us the facts.” But then, of course, you’re invading the other’s privacy with callous disregard to their troubles.

This whole approach is effective, not because we in this country are particularly sensitive to harming others, as much as none of us cares to look bad–to look like we’re tromping on kittens and stealing candy from babies et al.

Personally I’ve long felt that if a person’s actions impact only on themselves or a small circle around them, they have a right to privacy. But when they impact on others, they either have to take responsibility for the act, or expect to be questioned. But you know, I’m not all that good at America 101–raised too close to the Canadian border, I ’spect.

Of course, if these approaches don’t work, we then pull out the final weapon in our American arsenal – we bring out our metaphorical checkbooks.

We make amends with toys and shoes and TV equipment, or perhaps we generate a call out to others to help and they come forward with things like frisbees and server space, or even their own personal time, and the issue then becomes…complicated.

You see, Americans are also a very generous people, and we genuinely want to, and like to, help others–but that help can sometimes form a camouflage around the event that generated the need for help in the first place. If this is called into question, the response may be the same, but isn’t necessarily rhetorical: does it matter what caused the problem, as long as we fix it? And isn’t it better to focus on the positive than the negative.

How does one respond to this? This is not an issue that can be painted black & white, with clearly defined good guys, and bad.

If I break a vase in a store and pay for it, does it matter the reasons I broke it? As long as I make the results ‘all better’, does it matter why I did an act? I may have broke it by accidentally brushing up against it; I may have broke it because I was offended by its looks, and ‘accidentally’ dropped it. Does it matter, though, if I pay for it? Why would a store owner keep questioning my act, once I made good on my damage? Wouldn’t it be better to just focus on the positive outcome?

If in the end, a desired outcome is achieved, what matters the means to achieve it? And if our generosity has a price tag attached, whether it be a name on a building, or a flag around a box, or even an expectation of gratitude, what does it matter if good results?

(I am reminded of a story I heard once about an old man who always dropped gold coins into the church collection bag every Sunday. When questioned about using such an odd form of currency, he replied with, “I’ve lived a long life, and I’ve not always been above sinnin’ now an a’gin. If I’m gonna donate money every week to save my soul, I damn well want to make sure God can hear the coins when I drop them in the bag!”)

As I was writing this, a solution appeared to the little micro-example I used in ths writing, and alls well that ends well. Others have even commented about how useful this all is from a bitter herb get o’r yerselves’ metaphysical point of view; re-awakening the issue that it doesn’t matter if our writing disappears, none of us owns what we write anyway.

I’m trying to find the logic in this, and all I can find is: Writing is an action; none of us owns our actions; therefore, none of us owns our writing. The logic seems valid, but the arguments give me heartburn, and cause me to stumble in confusion–I feel as if I’m listening to the hollow echos of a language, and a culture, that has past me by.

So much to do over nothing. Why don’t you all tell me to stop thinking about these things so much, and to stop making such a to do over nothing? Oh, you have? Well, perhaps I’ll start listening to you more in the future. But it’s an addiction you know–thinking.

To return to the here and now, and the quandary that began this writing: how can I write a helpful essay without first generating a disaster to make it truly worthwhile?

I don’t suppose some of you would be willing to just blow away your weblogs, would you?

Categories
Political

We don’t need more heroes

I didn’t know that today was going to be a national day or mourning for Ronald Reagan until I took some books back to the library last night and saw the sign saying it would be closed today. I was surprised because it’s not as if Reagan was King or still president, and do we do this with all presidents? It’s been so long since a President died; I can’t remember.

My reaction to Reagan’s death this week was indifference. I was no more ‘mad’ about his tenure than I was going to jump on the wagon hailing him as our nation’s greatest leader. I don’t remember him as a particularly good leader, or a particularly bad leader. I do remember that many of us were uncomfortable with the the rumors going around towards the end of his presidency that his cabinet and his wife were providing more of the leadership of this country then we would like.

I hadn’t even planned on writing anything about Reagan’s death until I read a Christian Science Monitor article on Reagan’s passing. The article talks about the deep divides in this country, and how his death is providing a temporary respite from the acrimonious disputes:

While the bitter divisions in American politics circa 2004 do not reach Lincoln-era levels, they are much more pronounced than in Reagan’s day. Florida’s long ballot count, disputes over gay marriage and abortion, and widening gaps over the Iraq war have split the nation at every level, from the courts to the makeup of Congress. More than half of Americans now believe the country is on the wrong track.

Frankly, I think the divisions in this country are as strong as they were in Lincoln’s time; the primary difference is they lack the cohesiveness of that time because there is no single issue to rally around. No, not even the war on terror or Iraq is enough to cleanly divide the people and provide an impetus to act–other than vote this Fall. Frustrating, isn’t it? Having to wait to November.

I voted for Reagan his first election, but not his second. He was a good speaker, and did bring a sense of confidence into the White House. More importantly, being brought up to fear the great Communist conspiracy, I never felt ’safe’ with Carter. Happily, that election was the last time I let the boogie man control my vote.

Some are saying now that Reagan was one of the greatest presidents of our history, but I think these same people are forgetting all the controversy and anger and mistakes made during his tenure. I think they’re looking for a hero. And even people who don’t care much for Reagan are looking for something to ‘heal the rifts’, as if this is the most important thing we can do now.

Personally, I think we should face the issues polarizing us and acknowledge that on some issues, there is little or no middle ground. Though it does no good to get into a slapping fight, polite chit-chat in the interests of communal good makes me feel faintly ill. Does this sound confrontational? Confrontation is arguing with people you know you’ll never convince, just to hear your own lips flapping. Or getting frustrated because some people just don’t recognize the facts you find to be so glaring. People will see what they will see. Some people you can convince, some you can’t. Resolution does not equate to a national group hug, with kissing and making up afterwards.

But this is about Ronald Reagan and him dying this week. Folks are saying that Bush is going to benefit somehow from Reagan’s death. They say that Bush will tie himself to Reagan’s leadership style and hope to ride this uber-mourning to a victory in November. However, as I read in one opinion piece–it’s a long five months to the election.

I liked what Roger Benningfield had to say:

He was also charismatic, and was capable of coherent –sometimes even compelling– public speech. As we’ve learned over the last four years, those are two absolutely vital characteristics in a president. For all his faults, he spoke to the rest of the planet in a way that made even the nuttiest policies seem at least tolerable, while our current Executive Employee couldn’t give a dyslexic reading of the phone book without setting off riots in four different countries.

…when you distrust all politicians as much as I do, “he could have been worse” is a flash-flood of praise.

I am both sorry and happy for Ronald Reagan’s family, because his death must in a way be a relief. If his legacy is to help increase stem cell research, then there is good attached to his passing. Other than that, he was from a different era. That was then, this is now. And we don’t need more heros.

Categories
Political

Divided we stand

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

From the discussions surrounding the Spirit of America effort, I sense that much of the enthusiasm for this group is coming from people interested in healing the growing rifts between people here in the US, and elsewhere. Most of us have commented about the increasing polarization between people of differing views; and too many of us have felt the deep and exhausting anger that seems to accompany these divides.

Some of the blame for the polarization has been placed on terrorism and the war in Iraq, some on the economy, but many blame George Bush. I’ve read more than one person refer to George W. Bush as the most divisive president of all. A friend used that term today and I responded back immediately that, no, George Bush was not our most divisive president–that honor goes to Abraham Lincoln.

Just before Lincoln’s election, the US had established an uneasy truce between abolitionists and slave owners by maintaining a careful balance of free versus slave states. Though Lincoln was against slavery, he wasn’t a strict abolitionist and was ambivalent about freeing all slaves; but the mood of the country was such, that when Lincoln was elected, several Southern states immediately seceded from the Union.

The states believed they had this right to break away from the Union. Lincoln, though, believed that the Union was morally right and just, and refused to allow the country to break apart based on the issue of slavery. He ordered the militia to intervene, and thus began one of the most violent and bloody events of our history – the Civil War. For his role in this effort, Lincoln has the dubious distinction of being the ‘most devisive president of our history’.

However, even if Lincoln had not won the election the Civil War would not have been prevented. The issue of slavery, compounded by the growing confusion over the extent of state’s rights, polarized this country, and there was no moderate ground on which the two sides could meet. All Lincoln needed to do was be elected for the split to widen until it almost broke the nation in two.

Bloody years later, the South was defeated and the slow task of healing began, except now, there were no slave states and free states, and all people were free – though it would take about a hundred years to really begin the true fight for freedom, and its a fight that never completely ends.

If Lincoln could be seen as divisive, we could say that this divisiveness was necessary for the time. Though we paid a heavy price during the Civil War, the nation emerged stronger than before – with a surer sense of its own identity. The issue of which state would be slave versus which state free was finally resolved, once and for all. We could pick up the pieces and move on, and move on we did, right into the industrial era and into a time of increased prosperity and expansion.

Fast forward to today and though the issues may differ, we are again faced with a strongly polarized nation. However, this time the issues aren’t as clear cut and the lines of division not so neatly laid out geographically.

Some would say that is this country is polarized around the issue of Iraq; however, if you look back, before Iraq, before the Twin Towers, even before the election of GW Bush, you’ll see that our country had been deeply divided for some time and the only thing holding us together was the prosperity we enjoyed in the 1990’s.

Though Bush did not win the popular vote in 2000, he did win almost 50% of the vote and it was the closeness of this election that reflected the growing divide in the US. On the one hand was Gore–liberal, relatively socialistic in regards to economic programs, and a strong advocate of separation of church and state. On the other side is Bush–conservative, almost libertarian in his economic viewpoint, and I don’t think there’s any doubt about the nature of his religious beliefs and the government.

When Bush won, what should have happened is that equilibrium between the sides would have been upset by his actions. Once upset, forces from both sides of the issues would have become galvanized, and we would then be spending the next four years working these issues.

Is there true separation of church and state, or is God to become a prominent fixture of our government? How far can the states go in declaring their rights – to the point of discrimination against gays, or abolishment of abortion?

Does society have a responsibility to its citizens – to see that they have food, and adequate health care and good education? Or is a better to decrease the amount each citizen is taxed and allow local government and charity to fill in whatever gaps open when the federal government is reduced. In addition, how far does the government go to ensure its citizens have jobs and that trade with other countries is balanced? Again, is it healthier to keep our borders closed, or our companies competitive?

These are issue we’ve been pushing back and forth for decades without resolution until the election of 2000. This election was a reflection of the time as much as a call to action, and though the resulting wars would be fought with ink and paper instead of musket and cannon, they would be as fierce. However, when the dust finally clears, though the battles be painful, hopefully the country would emerge stronger, and with a clearer understanding of its direction.

This was the path our country was destined to take…until fate stepped in and we all watched as two planes flew into two towers and all hell broke loose in our lives. Somebody had come in and knocked both sides down, and when we got up again, we forgot where we were standing. Beyond the shared pain at the suffering of those killed and those left behind, this event shattered lines of membership, but did not do so cleanly.

Using the Civil War era as analogy, the Twin Tower bombings would be equivalent to a large, organized and armed group in Canada deciding to invade the US because of old angers on behalf of Britain, and choosing to do so by burning down Washington DC–just as Lincoln was elected and the South was ready to secede.

This event would have united our country to defeat a new common foe, while still leaving the old equilibrium issues to be fought at a later time; this is a state that is, at best, neutral; at worst, highly uncomfortable and strained–adding to the pressure of the unresolved issues would then be the additional conflict introduced when one is forced to take sides with another who was, just the day before, the enemy.

Bush’s election upset the equilibrium held together by spit and coin in the decades past; but when we could have used these last four years to fully face and even resolve the issues of Church and State, a society’s economic responsibility to its citizens, and the citizen’s rights to live life without interference, we have instead been given a new and unexpected challenge; a challenge that has forced apart groups once solidly united, and made partners out of those who can barely tolerate each other.

You might think that this could be a good thing: after all, if Canada had invaded the US and caused the South and North to join together to keep those crazy Canucks from stomping all over our fair land with their furry shoes and strange spellings, we wouldn’t have had a Civil War.

Okay, so the analogy is weak, and the best I can come up with during the too early hours on too little sleep. But I stand behind the premise: the issue of slavery versus free, and state’s rights would not have gone away just because we were united against a common foe; instead, the war would only be postponed, as the populace grows ever angrier because of the confusion of conflicting memberships.

Such is what we have today.

Four years ago we had those who supported separation of church and state and those who believed in bringing Christianity into the government, and the lines were distinct and each side knew the other. Now both sides may or may not share the same table at dinner because one member or the other has been forced to change sides because of their stand on Iraq or on the Patriot Act or the war on terror. How many liberals do we know that now talk of voting for Bush because of his fight against terrorism? How many Republicans shake their head when they hear Bush’s vehement stance against gay marriage? But not all is love among new compatriots – those unresolved issues still haunt us in addition to these new fears. If each side didn’t have those pushing from the outside, they would soon fall to fighting among themselves.

I don’t think true polarization could cause the anger we all seem to be experiencing now. If we were truly polarized, I think we would feel a sense of peace in knowing that our beliefs are shared by those standing side by side with us. Now, it’s all messed up. Is the anger caused by the polarization? Or by having to jump into bed with despised bedfellows?

Unfortunately, to make matters worse, our anger has grown beyond our border. If it had been contained within the US, other nations might look on in interest, but not feel engaged. But we moved the fight outside of our lands and we took it to the Middle East, and in doing so, we pulled in those from all corners of the world, and we’ve now, innocently or not, become the beast that’s upset the apple cart. Our war on terror became everyone’s war on terror; people are pulled in, but not cleanly and with this war comes the same sense of conflict, that galvanization across issues until, frankly, we’re all fucked up. And tired.

Tired of being angry and angry at being tired.

When something like the Spirit of America comes along, it’s with a shout of relief that ‘both sides’ declare truce in order to do a good thing. But the relief is short lived, because when some of us would question the premise behind this organization, we’re met with almost overwhelming anger; usually by the same people who four years ago, we would have stood shoulder to shoulder with.

The old saying in our country goes, “united we stand, divided we fall”. But sometimes there’s more peace in being cleanly divided.

Categories
Government

Too many storms this last week

This week and last have been difficult weeks, starting with the storms and then the situation with the IRS.

Thanks to the Taxpayer Advocate’s office, we have established that a) I have done nothing wrong, and b) the revenue officer has gone way beyond standard operating procedure in her behavior. All forms that need filed, have been filed. As for the taxes I’m making payments on, I have fulfilled all my obligations to the IRS on this, as was confirmed by both the Advocate’s office and another member of the IRS yesterday. Both of whom, I want to add, were reassuring and helpful, as well as friendly.

Yet today I received a nasty letter that left me shaking by the time I was finished with it, especially after making sure everything was resolved yesterday. The Advocate says that I need to now file a complaint with the area supervisor, as these actions are inappropriate to take considering that the only problem was that they couldn’t find a copy of one of my forms.

When I talked with the Advocate, I told her that the letters and conversations have been both confusing and very intimidating. I liked what she had to say: The IRS is a servant of the people; I have done nothing wrong; I have a right to be free from intimidation; the IRS officer forgot this right.

But this has exhausted me, in addition to cutting into my work time, which is putting me badly behind schedule. What I need, desperately need, is a couple of quiet days in a cabin somewhere–to catch my breath as well as get caught up in my work. Unfortunately, I don’t know of anyone with a nice waterside place nearby; even if I did, it would probably be under water with the current flooding.

But once I recover from today’s IRS incident–a walk, and Ted Drewes frozen custard comes to mind–I have to focus completely on work. If I have energy, I’ll post another LAMP essay later— just for you folks who say you don’t “do” code. Once it’s online, it will be the last post for me for a time.


Not me

I thought about following Feministe’s approach of having ‘guest bloggers’ while I’m earning money to give to the IRS. After all, I liked what she had to say about the latest “where are the good women bloggers” fooflah:

Whether or not certain female bloggers are good is up to the reader and the reader’s worldview. You certainly don’t have to think that I’m good, but I’m here, I’m writing, and I will continue to do so whether you think I suck or not.

If you want to know where the women who blog about politics are, well, here we are. You don’t have to like us, read us, or respect us, but don’t deny our existence altogether.

I am writing, and will continue to do so whether you think I suck or not. We should all tattoo this on our fingers.

Anyway, I thought that I could invite Jeneane to pretend to be me, and have a lot of fun twisting your minds; but you might like her too much, and not want me back. My ego can’t deal with the risk.

Instead what I’m going to do is pull up some old, favorite posts from past glory days. I thought that it’s almost like having a guest blogger, because my writing has changed between then and now.

But then, so have all of you.

TTFN


Busted!