Little progress (Day 85/365)

I forced myself to get started orchestrating the four big pieces. I had been dreading it because, as I’ve whined before, my nearly-four-year-old-laptop doesn’t have the power to handle even a small orchestra in Finale using Garritan Personal Orchestra.

I was right to dread it. For some reason, it couldn’t even burp out two horns, a cello, and a double bass plucking two notes. After getting not even four measures of Milky Way done, I gave up.

Which is not to say that I didn’t accomplish anything today. I redesigned a couple more pages of my website, which didn’t take any time of course. The pages that will take time are the ones that use formatting not already covered by my templated css stylesheet. I now have to actually tweak the css myself.

And a new feature of this column: I’ve decided to take paragraphs from Times articles about other places and substitute U.S. names and places in them. Where there are numbers, I’ll do like Juan Cole has done and extrapolate them to U.S. dimensions.

Today’s example, from “Bush, Facing Dissent on Iraq, Jettisons ‘Stay the Course'”:

Mr. Rumsfeld said Monday that the benchmarks under discussion included projections on when the U.S. might be able to take control of more of the country’s 50 states. Only five states are under full U.S. security administration, though officials say they hope the number will rise to sixteen or seventeen by the end of the year.

And they say the media doesn’t report the good news.

An incredulous rant (Day 71/365)

No time to do anything creative myself today, although I did create a very cool bulletin board at school today: a background made up of hundreds of titles of books, with a central poster that says, “Are you ready for a challenge?”, followed by the mysterious 100 Book Club logo.

Anyway, we’re off to see The Light in the Piazza at the Fox, so I don’t have time to orchestrate anything.

I leave with you instead a small rant.

The Republicans’ latest battle cry is “What did Nancy Pelosi know and when did she know it?”

Excuse me?

Continue reading “An incredulous rant (Day 71/365)”

Nothing (Day 64/365)

Once again, I was prepared to tackle “Sun & Moon Circus,” but a late supper and other business kept me away from the computer.

I do want to say, though, that the Republican leadership’s outrage over the politicization of Rep. Mark Foley’s boy-sex scandal is raising my eyebrows and pursing my lips. How many tax dollars did these same guys spend on the Monica Lewinsky scandal? “It’s vile. It’s more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction.” Said Mark Foley at the time.

And someone, don’t have the reference, sorry, today made the claim that one reason the Republican leadership tippytoed around the problem of a sexual predator in their midst was that they knew he was gay and they were afraid of being politically incorrect. Ah, yes, the right wing of our Congress is readily recognized by their sensitivity towards our gay citizens.

Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge both blame the boys: “sexual beasts,” which sounds to me as if they’ve given a little too much thought about this kind of thing. Dennis Hastert wonders why no one’s investigating the 16-year-olds.

James Dobson blames the internet and our permissive society, which is quite Christian of him, for him. I’m sure he’d do the same for Rep. Barney Frank.

Rep. Tom Reynolds, chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee (to elect more people like this), rented a daycare facility, children and all, to hold a press conference today. When a reporter asked if they could get the little kids out of there so they could have an adult discussion of the Foley scandal, including what Reynolds knew and when he knew it, Reynolds declined. “I’m not going to ask any of my supporters to leave.” Who were these children? “…some of our thirty-somethings, I’ve watched these children being born…” Only not, of course.

All in all, a queasily satisfying display of conservative meltdown. I do hope it lasts.

A rant (Day 62/365)

Perhaps someone with more legal savvy than I can let me know for sure, but I’m thinking I’m right on my perceptions here.

As far as I can tell, the McCain Torture Act, which was passed last week by both the House and Senate with no substantial opposition, has given permission to George W. Bush to

  • arrest me without a warrant, as long as he considers me to be an enemy combatant or even a material supporter of one
  • throw me in a prison of his choosing, without the opportunity to call for legal counsel
  • prevent me (or anyone) from knowing why I have been arrested (the 900-year-old right of habeas corpus, for those who are keeping track)
  • use hearsay evidence or evidence extracted by “alternative examination techniques” against me, to present evidence seized without a warrant (even evidence gotten within the U.S.) and to prevent me or my lawyers (if I’m given one) from examining that evidence
  • acquire evidence from me by “alternative examination techniques” that are not overseen by the Geneva Convention and are at bottom determined by George W. Bush
  • keep me in prison without trial as long as he thinks is necessary without communication or representation
  • prevent me from appealing to any court for relief, or any court from intervening

Please understand what I’m saying: the McCain Torture Act does not specify that these abrogations of U.S. and international law are to be applied only to suspected foreign terrorists, George W. Bush is free to arrest me. And you. And any other citizen of this nation. He has permission from Congress to do so.

And before I hear that whiny conservative rebuttal that nice people don’t have anything to fear, let me point out what they have missed: the McCain Torture Act empowers the President of the U.S. not to have to care about any of that. All he has to do is say you’re an enemy combatant or a supporter of one, and the rest of the machine falls into place. Even if you were innocent, you would never escape the machine: the guarantees of our Constitution no longer apply to you.

If someone can point out where in the McCain Torture Act that these acts are prohibited, I’d be glad to publish that here.

Last week, when I was invited to go meet a visiting Chinese delegation, I used the phrase habeas corpus in discussing current events, and my dinner partner asked if I were a lawyer, because I had used a legal term. The idea that an average citizen might know this term and what it meant did not occur to this citizen of the world’s largest authoritarian society.

Less than 24 hours later, the term ceased to have any real meaning in this society either. After all, as our President said about a year ago, the Constitution is “just a goddamned piece of paper.”

Fear and loathing: a rant (Day 45/365)

Yes, Mr. Bush, I am still afraid.

Your recent drumbeat of fear, cynically designed to portray you as the manly protector of our nation, has raised fears in me, to be sure, but not the ones you were hoping for.

Terrorists? Yes, they’re out there, yes, they want to hurt me, no, I am not afraid of them. I’ll tell you what I’m afraid of.

Continue reading “Fear and loathing: a rant (Day 45/365)”

Wag the dog: a rant

Sorry, dear conservative readers, but I probably am going to be ranting much of the rest of today.

You who know me know that I oppose(d) the war in Iraq as needless. We were lied to about its necessity and its rationale, and now we have an unholy mess on our hands in every imaginable way. Incredibly, we are still being lied to, which does not surprise me, of course. I am not easily shocked, if you will recall.

However, here’s a familiar photo that shocked me just now:

Don’t recognize it? Sure you do. You saw it over and over and over three years ago.

Continue reading “Wag the dog: a rant”

Brief rants

Before I head off to work on my transition to the recapitulation of “Milky Way,” I have a couple of rants. I’ve been clipping stuff from the paper, thinking I might comment on it, for a couple of weeks now, but today had two quotes that have moved me to the keyboard.

The first is from a story, “Park Service To Emphasize Conservation In New Rules.” Well, first of all, that’s a shocker in itself, because even as recently as one year ago, the Administration Currently In Office was once again allowing industry interests to write public policy, and the snowmobile folk were making sure that the National Park Service’s actually taking care of our public wilderness took a back seat to the next few seasons of recreational profit.

As the paper says, “In this respect, as in many others, including the emphasis on conservation, the final policy echoes the one in effect at the end of the Clinton administration.”

Continue reading “Brief rants”

A full confession

Wow. I didn’t think anyone would figure us out, but Chris Mathews nailed it.

So I might as well confess that we liberals are in league with Osama bin Laden, just as Chris Mathews (and now many other Rovian mouthpieces) claim. How else do you think he is still free four years after the Bush administration swore to get him dead or alive? That was me.

It’s also because of me that we attacked Iraq. It’s my fault we have killed over 2,000 American troops and so many Iraqis that even I’ve lost count. But it was Michael who suggested sending not enough troups to actually secure the country, guaranteeing destructive chaos and a rapidly rising insurgency.

I’m the one who set up the insurgent training camps in Iraq where there were none before, and my good friend Jobie ramped up the “ongoing war within our lifetime” meme.

Jill, on the other hand, managed the weakening of the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments, and I think it was Peter who first suggested wasting $20 billion on “reconstruction efforts” and then abandoning the effort. I know it was Peter who first realized the implications of a $300+ billion war effort in terms of domestic programs such as FEMA and that drug program thing. (I don’t know much about our domestic terrorism efforts; that’s a different cell under the direction of a woman they call Counselor Kay.)

Of course, I never heard any of us, not even Peter, suggest that establishing a universal Caliphate was a good idea, nor that attacking civilians in cold blood was a moral action, but perhaps I missed a meeting. Chris Mathews and Pat Buchanan seem convinced that we liberals are equivalent to Osama bin Laden, and who are any of us to disagree?

Because if we’re not responsible for everything I’ve mentioned, then who is?

Ho ho ho

Here’s my take on the Christmas/Holidays issue: Bah, humbug.

And it is humbug, an artificial, entitled aggrievement of the right, a dangerous division put about by people who want to take what should be a gentle wish of good cheer and turn it into a partisan battering ram.

I make it my personal business not to be offended by other people’s religious beliefs. If someone were to wish me Happy Hannukah or Blessed Kwanzaa or even Super Solstice, that’s great. The more good wishes coming my way, the better, I say.

However, Mr. Bill O’Reilly (the one they call the big, fat liar) has decided to bolster his sagging ratings by inventing some kind of bogus liberal war on Christmas. Rally the troops, he cries, and boycott any business that doesn’t acknowledge this nation’s Christian founding by wishing you a Merry Christmas, damn it.

And there you have it. Shouldn’t he be advising you to avoid churches that refuse to use the C word? No, it’s the businesses who are at fault for not recognizing your deeply held belief in Jesus Christ as your lord and savior.

This is crazy talk. Businesses are in business, and their business is to make money from customers who may or may not be Christian. The crazies cry that anyone who might be offended by a Christian greeting is free to shop elsewhere, but folks, that’s not what this country is about. Separate economic, political, and educational systems for different religious sects is what you get in places like Iraq.

If you want to cling to the idea that this nation was founded by Christians as a Christian nation, you will want to follow that idea to its very roots: the Puritans did not celebrate Christmas. In fact, they outlawed it. They saw no connection between the birth of Jesus Christ and the licentious feasts and gift-giving of the homeland.

And you know what? They were right. There is no connection. We celebrate two entirely separate holidays on December 25. One is a religious commemoration of deep significance to a majority of believers in this country. The other is a great social festival that has become vital to the economy of retailers everywhere. They happen to have the same name, but they have nothing to do with each other, unless you count the tenuous connection of “peace” and “good will.”

So the next time you manage to get yourself all offended because a place of commerce hasn’t acknowledged your religious beliefs, you need to ask yourself: exactly where are you worshipping?

Merry Christmas.