At the risk of being accused of beating the proverbial dead horse, I'd like to go back for a moment to the theme of beauty that we explored twice already this month (on the 2nd, and again on the 16th). My reason this time is a news report about a beautician who has been sentenced to 15 years in prison for involuntary manslaughter, fraud, and practicing medicine without a license. Her crime: she injected the ... um ... derriere of a client with Mazola corn oil, claiming it was a "French polymer treatment" for reducing wrinkles. The client later died of multiple organ failure brought on by the injection of the oil.
I find this very sad. Why was this poor lady so afraid of wrinkles on her backside that she paid $1400 for the bogus "French polymer treatment" that ended up costing her her life? The unfortunate answer is, probably, that she was afraid of looking older and less-than-perfect in a modern culture that puts a premium on physical attractiveness.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to look your best. There's only so much I can do with the looks I have, but I try to keep myself looking good by the time-honored methods of shaving, taking showers, brushing my teeth, combing my hair, and wearing clothes that don't get a disdainful glare from my wife. But I won't go so far as to dye my hair or get a face lift (I don't think there's a crane big enough to do the job, anyhow). I appreciate that ladies take the time to look beautiful...but I think that we've gone too far when looking beautiful requires things like laser hair removal, botox injections, and all the other forms of agony to which women subject themselves because they think they're necessary for looking good.
Someone once said we're lucky that truth-in-packaging laws don't apply to people. There's also the old joke about the man who tells his friends about the beautiful lady he met at a dance and ended up taking back to his apartment for the night..."She took off her dress and her padded bra...she took off her makeup and her false eyelashes and her wig...she took off her paste-on fingernails and her padded pantyhose...and then I turned around, and she was gone!"
A little exaggeration, maybe, but I think you get the point. We are what we are. A person born with some unfortunate deformity is probably justified in wanting to somehow compensate for it. But the average man or woman should probably be happy in his or her skin. Each of us is different, and I truly believe that each of us eventually finds the person who loves them for what they are and not just for how they look. After all, Agnes could have held out for a Brad Pitt or an Antonio Banderas, but she picked me!
And the fact that she wears glasses had nothing to do with it.
Enjoy your weekend. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Friday, January 19, 2007
Nora Boustany, in an article in yesterday's Washington Post titled "Arab World Outraged Over Hangings in Iraq," wrote about Arab reactions to the executions of Saddam Hussein and two other in recent days. Most Arab commentators were indeed outraged; the word "barbaric" summarized the nature of most of the comments, while many observers conveniently forgot the details of Hussein's bloody reign and chose to recycle him as a dignified "martyr."
To me, the most interesting paragraph in Ms Boustany's article read: "In commenting on the beheading of Ibrahim (Saddam's half-brother), none of the Arab commentators mentioned the shock many around the world experienced when foreigners were being kidnapped in Baghdad and beheaded by insurgents, often with grisly videotapes appearing on the Internet."
To me, this says just about all that needs to be said about the nature of the conflict in Iraq and how the Islamic world looks at non-Muslims. While the actual number of insanely violent, ultra-radical Islamists may be relatively small, their activities are condoned, if not actively supported, by many mainstream Muslims. A CNN report on radical Islamists in Britain quoted a British extremist named Omar Brooks as saying that, "Prophet Mohammed's message to nonbelievers is: 'I come to slaughter all of you,'" and, "'We are the Muslims. We drink the blood of the enemy, and we can face them anywhere. That is Islam and that is jihad.'"
It amazes me that the so-called mainstream Muslim world allows this sort of wildly racist and violent rhetoric to go unchallenged. The voices of peace and moderation are muted, few, and far between. The killing of Muslims is a crime, while the grisly murder of Christians, Jews, and other non-Muslims is religiously sanctioned and leads to paradise.
The CNN report quotes an English Imam named Usama Hasan as saying it makes him 'furious' when radicals quote the Quran out of context to justify killing of innocents. "It's a 'very tiny' minority with such beliefs, he said, but 'it only takes a handful, of course, to create devastation...Many people are terrified of Muslims. They are terrified of a brother walking down the road with his eastern dress and his hat and his beard, because they have seen these images associated with suicide bombers,' he said. 'It is up to us to dispel that fear -- to smile at people to tell them that ... the message of Islam is not about bits of cloth. It is not about the beard or head scarf or the face veil or violence. It is about peace.'"
Imam Husan may represent the silent majority of Muslims. But unless he and others like him speak up as loudly as the radicals, unless they challenge the violent rhetoric and the twisted theological justifications for bloody religious bigotry, they are worse than useless - they are nothing more than silent supporters of the worst dregs of humanity. Muslims who rail against being singled out for additional security screening, who object to the view of themselves as wild-eyed radicals, have only themselves to blame until they step up to the challenge of facing down those who willingly and happily slaughter those who don't share their views.
Perhaps the so-called 'mainstream Muslims' will take on this challenge. But, as with so many other things, I'm not holding my breath.
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
To me, the most interesting paragraph in Ms Boustany's article read: "In commenting on the beheading of Ibrahim (Saddam's half-brother), none of the Arab commentators mentioned the shock many around the world experienced when foreigners were being kidnapped in Baghdad and beheaded by insurgents, often with grisly videotapes appearing on the Internet."
To me, this says just about all that needs to be said about the nature of the conflict in Iraq and how the Islamic world looks at non-Muslims. While the actual number of insanely violent, ultra-radical Islamists may be relatively small, their activities are condoned, if not actively supported, by many mainstream Muslims. A CNN report on radical Islamists in Britain quoted a British extremist named Omar Brooks as saying that, "Prophet Mohammed's message to nonbelievers is: 'I come to slaughter all of you,'" and, "'We are the Muslims. We drink the blood of the enemy, and we can face them anywhere. That is Islam and that is jihad.'"
It amazes me that the so-called mainstream Muslim world allows this sort of wildly racist and violent rhetoric to go unchallenged. The voices of peace and moderation are muted, few, and far between. The killing of Muslims is a crime, while the grisly murder of Christians, Jews, and other non-Muslims is religiously sanctioned and leads to paradise.
The CNN report quotes an English Imam named Usama Hasan as saying it makes him 'furious' when radicals quote the Quran out of context to justify killing of innocents. "It's a 'very tiny' minority with such beliefs, he said, but 'it only takes a handful, of course, to create devastation...Many people are terrified of Muslims. They are terrified of a brother walking down the road with his eastern dress and his hat and his beard, because they have seen these images associated with suicide bombers,' he said. 'It is up to us to dispel that fear -- to smile at people to tell them that ... the message of Islam is not about bits of cloth. It is not about the beard or head scarf or the face veil or violence. It is about peace.'"
Imam Husan may represent the silent majority of Muslims. But unless he and others like him speak up as loudly as the radicals, unless they challenge the violent rhetoric and the twisted theological justifications for bloody religious bigotry, they are worse than useless - they are nothing more than silent supporters of the worst dregs of humanity. Muslims who rail against being singled out for additional security screening, who object to the view of themselves as wild-eyed radicals, have only themselves to blame until they step up to the challenge of facing down those who willingly and happily slaughter those who don't share their views.
Perhaps the so-called 'mainstream Muslims' will take on this challenge. But, as with so many other things, I'm not holding my breath.
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
Thursday, January 18, 2007
In a newspaper interview this past Monday, Mr Frank Hargrove, a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, was asked whether he would support a proposed state resolution apologizing for slavery. He responded that "...black citizens should get over it." Not content to hit rhetorical rock bottom, Delegate Hargrave continued to dig himself deeper into the hole by going on to ask "Are we going to force the Jews to apologize for killing Christ?"
For callous insensitivity, these comments are worthy of an award, and the response from both blacks and Jews (not to mention just about everyone else) has been harsh, entirely predictable, and fully justified. We expect a higher standard of behavior and expression of our elected officials, and should hold them to account when they don't deliver.
But having said that, I think it's important to acknowledge that Mr Hargrove, albeit in a graceless and insensitive way, gave voice to what some people in this country think about race relations. A muted undercurrent of opinon points out that slavery was eliminated in America nearly 150 years ago, that the last slave and the last slaveholder died more than 50 years ago, and that America does not get the credit it deserves for acknowledging the stain of slavery on our history and attempting to improve the social and economic position of black citizens. Why, some people quietly ask, are we still being beaten up and asked to atone for evils done by people long dead in an the course of an institution long since abandoned and repudiated?
There's an undeniable power in the words, "I'm sorry." Everyone who has ever been married learns that lesson right away. In some cultures, ritual apology is an important part of resolving issues and moving beyond them. Consider the apologies rendered by modern German leaders for the monstrous evils of the Holocaust. Consider also the incident in 2001 in which a Chinese fighter plane collided with an American surveillance aircraft over what the U.S. insisted was international waters, but the Chinese claimed as part of their 200-mile exclusive economic zone. The Chinese insisted on a formal apology before returning the interned aircrew and the damaged aircraft, while the U.S. government refused to apologize, holding that this would acknowledge that the Chinese were in the right. The incident was finally resolved in a delicate diplomatic dance in which the U.S. government acknowledged regret for the incident without actually apologizing.
So let's move on. If it's important for black citizens to know that the country has formally acknowledged and apologized for slavery, let's go ahead and do it. Let the President make a prime-time address to the nation, preferably on the Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday, expressing sorrow and apologizing for the evils done in the past. And then let's get on with making things right today.
If you have a few minutes, go back in the archives and read my post from December 17th of last year in which I pondered the rhetorical question asked by Lance Morrow: "What if no one ever forgets (evils done in the past)?" Memory is a good thing as far as it helps us to remember past evils and take action to ensure that they are never repeated. But, as Mr Morrow points out, "Obsessive memory mandates revenge."
Let's face the long-past evil of slavery without dwelling on it. Without attempting to minimize the evil, let's recognize that the nation ended it a century and a half ago and has since made great strides toward improving the economic and social position of its black citizens. Let's formally acknowledge the wrong, offer an apology from the national heart, and move forward in a spirit of cooperation to build a better future.
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
For callous insensitivity, these comments are worthy of an award, and the response from both blacks and Jews (not to mention just about everyone else) has been harsh, entirely predictable, and fully justified. We expect a higher standard of behavior and expression of our elected officials, and should hold them to account when they don't deliver.
But having said that, I think it's important to acknowledge that Mr Hargrove, albeit in a graceless and insensitive way, gave voice to what some people in this country think about race relations. A muted undercurrent of opinon points out that slavery was eliminated in America nearly 150 years ago, that the last slave and the last slaveholder died more than 50 years ago, and that America does not get the credit it deserves for acknowledging the stain of slavery on our history and attempting to improve the social and economic position of black citizens. Why, some people quietly ask, are we still being beaten up and asked to atone for evils done by people long dead in an the course of an institution long since abandoned and repudiated?
There's an undeniable power in the words, "I'm sorry." Everyone who has ever been married learns that lesson right away. In some cultures, ritual apology is an important part of resolving issues and moving beyond them. Consider the apologies rendered by modern German leaders for the monstrous evils of the Holocaust. Consider also the incident in 2001 in which a Chinese fighter plane collided with an American surveillance aircraft over what the U.S. insisted was international waters, but the Chinese claimed as part of their 200-mile exclusive economic zone. The Chinese insisted on a formal apology before returning the interned aircrew and the damaged aircraft, while the U.S. government refused to apologize, holding that this would acknowledge that the Chinese were in the right. The incident was finally resolved in a delicate diplomatic dance in which the U.S. government acknowledged regret for the incident without actually apologizing.
So let's move on. If it's important for black citizens to know that the country has formally acknowledged and apologized for slavery, let's go ahead and do it. Let the President make a prime-time address to the nation, preferably on the Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday, expressing sorrow and apologizing for the evils done in the past. And then let's get on with making things right today.
If you have a few minutes, go back in the archives and read my post from December 17th of last year in which I pondered the rhetorical question asked by Lance Morrow: "What if no one ever forgets (evils done in the past)?" Memory is a good thing as far as it helps us to remember past evils and take action to ensure that they are never repeated. But, as Mr Morrow points out, "Obsessive memory mandates revenge."
Let's face the long-past evil of slavery without dwelling on it. Without attempting to minimize the evil, let's recognize that the nation ended it a century and a half ago and has since made great strides toward improving the economic and social position of its black citizens. Let's formally acknowledge the wrong, offer an apology from the national heart, and move forward in a spirit of cooperation to build a better future.
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
As a retired military person, I know that there are many advantages to a military career. Most of those are the ones the recruiters advertise, and include technical training, travel, discipline, educational opportunities, and the opportunity to meet and work with people of all races, religions, and backgrounds. But there's another advantage to a military career that I didn't fully appreciate until last night: the chance to move to a new job and home in a new location every few years. This can be hard on the family, particularly on spouses who may not have the opportunity to develop a career, and children who have to periodically give up the comfort of friends and familiar surroundings and start over again someplace new. But it does have an advantage: it forces you to limit the amount of stuff you accumulate.
When you have to move every few years, and pay out-of-pocket to ship everything that's over your weight allowance, you become pretty ruthless about cleaning house and getting rid of the things you really don't need. It streamlines your life. But Agnes and I have now lived in the same place for a record sixteen years - the longest time I've been in one location since I left home back in 1973 - and I learned the downside of homesteading last night.
We have hired a contractor to remodel our old, battered kitchen. This means, of course, that we have to move all the dishes, all the pots and pans, all the decorations, all the cleaning supplies, all the food - everything - out of the kitchen so the demolition can start. Agnes and I both love to cook, and I'm a hopeless sucker for kitchen gadgets of all kinds, and I can tell you that I had NO IDEA how much stuff was tucked away in that kitchen - in cupboards, pantries, and drawers, under the sink, in and behind the microwave cart, on the walls, etc, etc.
It made me nostalgic for the 'good old days' when, every few years, I would have gotten rid of the gadgets I didn't use regularly, the dish sets we replaced (but kept alongside the new dishes, just in case), and the expired things we bought in enormous quantities at Costco because it was cheaper that way. My aching back feels every one of the things I had to haul out of the kitchen last night and find a temporary storage space for.
But I'm not complaining. Much. The new kitchen will be wonderful and will give us many years of pleasure in cooking and entertaining. I can't wait for it to be done. In the meantime, though, I just hope everything fits back in once it's finished.
Have a good day. If you have a few minutes, get rid of some old stuff. You'll thank yourself later.
More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
When you have to move every few years, and pay out-of-pocket to ship everything that's over your weight allowance, you become pretty ruthless about cleaning house and getting rid of the things you really don't need. It streamlines your life. But Agnes and I have now lived in the same place for a record sixteen years - the longest time I've been in one location since I left home back in 1973 - and I learned the downside of homesteading last night.
We have hired a contractor to remodel our old, battered kitchen. This means, of course, that we have to move all the dishes, all the pots and pans, all the decorations, all the cleaning supplies, all the food - everything - out of the kitchen so the demolition can start. Agnes and I both love to cook, and I'm a hopeless sucker for kitchen gadgets of all kinds, and I can tell you that I had NO IDEA how much stuff was tucked away in that kitchen - in cupboards, pantries, and drawers, under the sink, in and behind the microwave cart, on the walls, etc, etc.
It made me nostalgic for the 'good old days' when, every few years, I would have gotten rid of the gadgets I didn't use regularly, the dish sets we replaced (but kept alongside the new dishes, just in case), and the expired things we bought in enormous quantities at Costco because it was cheaper that way. My aching back feels every one of the things I had to haul out of the kitchen last night and find a temporary storage space for.
But I'm not complaining. Much. The new kitchen will be wonderful and will give us many years of pleasure in cooking and entertaining. I can't wait for it to be done. In the meantime, though, I just hope everything fits back in once it's finished.
Have a good day. If you have a few minutes, get rid of some old stuff. You'll thank yourself later.
More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
The Iraqi government appears to be using the Palestinians as its role model as it lurches from crisis to crisis. As I've often observed, the Palestinians, given a choice of courses of action, will always select the one which is most likely to be in their worst interests (ready, aim, shoot foot). The government of Nuri al-Maliki seems to be working the same way, carefully selecting policies and taking actions guaranteed to further infuriate the Sunni minority and ensure that the bitter insurgency continues.
Yesterday's botched hanging of Saddam Hussein's half-brother, in which his head was torn from his body by the noose, could have been the result of incorrect calculations of weight and drop distance by the hangman. But given the circus which surrounded the execution of Saddam Hussein, the obvious inference for the Sunnis was that the hanging was deliberately calculated to be an unnecessarily barbaric and disrespectful slap in their collective faces.
Consider the case of South Africa, where the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission in the wake of minority white rule led to a largely peaceful transition to majority black government. The ability of all South Africans, black and white, to air their grievances and look at their history in a formal and structured way under the moral leadership of Nelson Mandela, allowed the country to move forward with pride and dignity into an uncertain future.
In Iraq, by contrast, there is no Nelson Mandela to provide a calm and dignified voice of reason, and no apparent interest on the part of the long-oppressed Shia in peacefully working with the Sunni minority to build a new Iraq on the ashes of the Hussein era. A deliberate attempt to set Shia and Sunnis against each other, the destruction of the Golden Mosque in Samarra last February, might have served as a warning about the dangers of sectarian hatred and led Iraqis of goodwill to resolve to work together to take their country back from the extremists.
But, obviously, it didn't work out that way.
The order of the day is vengeance for the Shia, violent resistance for the Sunnis, and a death spiral with no visible end for a once-great nation. Just as radical Palestinians would rather lash out at Israel than work to improve the lot of the Palestinian people, so Iraqi extremists on both sides would rather murder each other - and any Americans conveniently within reach - than rebuild Iraq into the modern and progressive nation it might be.
It's just a shame we seem to be so short on Nelson Mandelas to provide the leadership that could make it happen.
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
Yesterday's botched hanging of Saddam Hussein's half-brother, in which his head was torn from his body by the noose, could have been the result of incorrect calculations of weight and drop distance by the hangman. But given the circus which surrounded the execution of Saddam Hussein, the obvious inference for the Sunnis was that the hanging was deliberately calculated to be an unnecessarily barbaric and disrespectful slap in their collective faces.
Consider the case of South Africa, where the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission in the wake of minority white rule led to a largely peaceful transition to majority black government. The ability of all South Africans, black and white, to air their grievances and look at their history in a formal and structured way under the moral leadership of Nelson Mandela, allowed the country to move forward with pride and dignity into an uncertain future.
In Iraq, by contrast, there is no Nelson Mandela to provide a calm and dignified voice of reason, and no apparent interest on the part of the long-oppressed Shia in peacefully working with the Sunni minority to build a new Iraq on the ashes of the Hussein era. A deliberate attempt to set Shia and Sunnis against each other, the destruction of the Golden Mosque in Samarra last February, might have served as a warning about the dangers of sectarian hatred and led Iraqis of goodwill to resolve to work together to take their country back from the extremists.
But, obviously, it didn't work out that way.
The order of the day is vengeance for the Shia, violent resistance for the Sunnis, and a death spiral with no visible end for a once-great nation. Just as radical Palestinians would rather lash out at Israel than work to improve the lot of the Palestinian people, so Iraqi extremists on both sides would rather murder each other - and any Americans conveniently within reach - than rebuild Iraq into the modern and progressive nation it might be.
It's just a shame we seem to be so short on Nelson Mandelas to provide the leadership that could make it happen.
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
Monday, January 15, 2007
Regular readers of this blog know that there are several themes which run through the posts and provide as much unity to my random thoughts as there's ever likely to be. One of them is a love of and appreciation for history, the back story of the events and people who shaped our world and brought us to the place we are today. Another is the importance of critical thinking. History is in the front of my mind today because of two things: the celebration of the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday here in the United States, and an article in this morning's Washington Post on the teaching of history in our schools.
That Martin Luther King, Jr. was a great man is beyond dispute. He was the public face of the civil rights movement of the 1960's that put the spotlight on racial injustice in this country and led directly to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The racial landscape of the United States today testifies to his courage and dynamic leadership, and if relations between the races are still not what they should be, the blame lies on both sides of the racial divide - but that's a topic for another day.
An article in today's Washington Post looks at what high school and college students today know about Martin Luther King, Jr., and it's sobering. According to the article, a recent survey of civic literacy in college students revealed that about 81% understood that King's famous "I Have a Dream" speech was "an expression of hope for racial justice and brotherhood." That's a pretty good percentage. But most of the remaining 19% thought he was advocating the abolition of slavery.
That such beliefs can exist reflects what our history courses teach, and how we teach them. As I still recall vividly after more than 30 years, my high school history lessons were less about the actual lessons of history than about the rote memorization of key names, dates, and occurances. The simple knowledge of historical facts, without context and interpretation, teaches us nothing. Even worse, the uncritical interpretation of historical facts and events can lead to bad decisions on policies and actions. The famous book Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision Makers, by Richard Neustadt and Ernest May, presents more than 20 case studies in which government decision makers looked at the relevant historical context of choices they had to make and then, for various reasons, chose an interpretation of the historical lessons which led to poor (if not disastrous) policy choices. One wonders how a future edition of this book will look at President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003.
The lesson here, of course, is that history is important. It's more than memorizing facts. Events that happened long before we were born were carried out by real people living in a real world with real hopes and fears. What they did, and why they did it, shaped the world in which we live and provides the context for the choices we make.
The Washington Post article (which starts on Page B1 of the print edition, and can be read online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/14/AR2007011401026.html?sub=AR) contains an interesting observation by a 17-year old high school student who says, "...Martin Luther King Day means much more than Lincoln or Washington's Birthday." Of course, this young lady lives in a time much closer to King than to either Washington or Lincoln. But to believe that George Washington - the "indispensable man" without whom there would probably never have been an independent United States at all, or Abraham Lincoln - who led the nation through the horrific trauma of the Civil War and ensured that there would actually be a single American nation, are less important than Martin Luther King, Jr., seriously stretches credulity. It's important to honor Rev. King, and to recognize what his work meant to the future of the United States. But to imply that his life and achievements transcend those of Washington and Lincoln is historically irresponsible.
Study history, and think about how those long-ago events affect your own life. You'll find it richly rewarding and make yourself a more informed citizen.
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
That Martin Luther King, Jr. was a great man is beyond dispute. He was the public face of the civil rights movement of the 1960's that put the spotlight on racial injustice in this country and led directly to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The racial landscape of the United States today testifies to his courage and dynamic leadership, and if relations between the races are still not what they should be, the blame lies on both sides of the racial divide - but that's a topic for another day.
An article in today's Washington Post looks at what high school and college students today know about Martin Luther King, Jr., and it's sobering. According to the article, a recent survey of civic literacy in college students revealed that about 81% understood that King's famous "I Have a Dream" speech was "an expression of hope for racial justice and brotherhood." That's a pretty good percentage. But most of the remaining 19% thought he was advocating the abolition of slavery.
That such beliefs can exist reflects what our history courses teach, and how we teach them. As I still recall vividly after more than 30 years, my high school history lessons were less about the actual lessons of history than about the rote memorization of key names, dates, and occurances. The simple knowledge of historical facts, without context and interpretation, teaches us nothing. Even worse, the uncritical interpretation of historical facts and events can lead to bad decisions on policies and actions. The famous book Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision Makers, by Richard Neustadt and Ernest May, presents more than 20 case studies in which government decision makers looked at the relevant historical context of choices they had to make and then, for various reasons, chose an interpretation of the historical lessons which led to poor (if not disastrous) policy choices. One wonders how a future edition of this book will look at President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003.
The lesson here, of course, is that history is important. It's more than memorizing facts. Events that happened long before we were born were carried out by real people living in a real world with real hopes and fears. What they did, and why they did it, shaped the world in which we live and provides the context for the choices we make.
The Washington Post article (which starts on Page B1 of the print edition, and can be read online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/14/AR2007011401026.html?sub=AR) contains an interesting observation by a 17-year old high school student who says, "...Martin Luther King Day means much more than Lincoln or Washington's Birthday." Of course, this young lady lives in a time much closer to King than to either Washington or Lincoln. But to believe that George Washington - the "indispensable man" without whom there would probably never have been an independent United States at all, or Abraham Lincoln - who led the nation through the horrific trauma of the Civil War and ensured that there would actually be a single American nation, are less important than Martin Luther King, Jr., seriously stretches credulity. It's important to honor Rev. King, and to recognize what his work meant to the future of the United States. But to imply that his life and achievements transcend those of Washington and Lincoln is historically irresponsible.
Study history, and think about how those long-ago events affect your own life. You'll find it richly rewarding and make yourself a more informed citizen.
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
Sunday, January 14, 2007
How about this crazy weather, eh?
The last few days here in Northern Virginia have been positively springlike, with trees budding, cherry blossoms coming out, and temperatures up to nearly 70. And it's January, for pete's sake! The midwest is reeling under a massive ice storm, Denver is still digging out from all the snow dropped by huge blizzards, and there's even snow in parts of sunny California that don't usually see it. What's going on?
Lately, how you interpret the crazy, changing weather seems to depend on your political persuasion. If you're a conservative Republican, it represents normal fluctuation in weather patterns over decades and centuries. If you're a liberal Democrat, it represents the beginning of the end of life as we know it. If you're a thoughtful Independent (like yours truly), you figure the answer more than likely lies somewhere in between.
Yes, I accept that weather patterns change naturally over time. But I think you have to have your head stuck pretty deeply in the sand to ignore the cumulative effects of human civilization on those patterns. The destruction of the rain forests, the burning of fossil fuels and consequent release of vast quantities of carbon dioxide into the air, the wholesale pollution of water supplies all clearly have an effect on the weather. My own opinion is that we are probably experiencing a normal cycle of weather change, but its effects are being greatly magnified by human activity. I'm not a climatologist and I can't prove it, but it looks pretty obvious to me.
Of course, climate change has its positive aspects: I never expected to enjoy the sight of lovely ladies wearing summer clothes in January. Nevertheless, I can't help the nagging suspicion that we're going to pay - steeply - for this nice weather later on.
Have a good evening. More thoughts later.
Bilbo
The last few days here in Northern Virginia have been positively springlike, with trees budding, cherry blossoms coming out, and temperatures up to nearly 70. And it's January, for pete's sake! The midwest is reeling under a massive ice storm, Denver is still digging out from all the snow dropped by huge blizzards, and there's even snow in parts of sunny California that don't usually see it. What's going on?
Lately, how you interpret the crazy, changing weather seems to depend on your political persuasion. If you're a conservative Republican, it represents normal fluctuation in weather patterns over decades and centuries. If you're a liberal Democrat, it represents the beginning of the end of life as we know it. If you're a thoughtful Independent (like yours truly), you figure the answer more than likely lies somewhere in between.
Yes, I accept that weather patterns change naturally over time. But I think you have to have your head stuck pretty deeply in the sand to ignore the cumulative effects of human civilization on those patterns. The destruction of the rain forests, the burning of fossil fuels and consequent release of vast quantities of carbon dioxide into the air, the wholesale pollution of water supplies all clearly have an effect on the weather. My own opinion is that we are probably experiencing a normal cycle of weather change, but its effects are being greatly magnified by human activity. I'm not a climatologist and I can't prove it, but it looks pretty obvious to me.
Of course, climate change has its positive aspects: I never expected to enjoy the sight of lovely ladies wearing summer clothes in January. Nevertheless, I can't help the nagging suspicion that we're going to pay - steeply - for this nice weather later on.
Have a good evening. More thoughts later.
Bilbo
Saturday, January 13, 2007
In my post of January 2nd of this year, I commented on the subject of beauty and what makes a woman beautiful. That post was inspired by an article on the CNN website that discussed the concern of actors (mainly women) that the extreme fidelity of high-definition TV closeups magnifies whatever flaws they have.
Yesterday, CNN came through again with an article on how celebrities prepare for their walks down the red carpets during the Hollywood awards season. The article was titled, "Nipple Covers, Hair and Other Red Carpet Secrets," and documented the extreme concern of Hollywood luminaries for their appearance as they parade before the lights and cameras.
And that's too bad.
German entertainer Harald Juhnke sings a marvelous song titled "Keine Falte tut mir leid" (loosely translated, "The Wrinkles Don't Bother Me"). It's a very clever song that speaks to me more clearly every year. Here's the last verse, along with my nickel translation:
Ich sag dir keine Falte tut mir leid (I tell you, the wrinkles don't bother me)
Ich bin ein Mann mit viel Vergangenheit (I'm a man with quite a past)
Ich bin nicht wie die jungen Glatten (I'm not like those sleek youngsters)
die noch nichts zu Leben hatten (who haven't yet really lived)
jede Falte könnt 'ne Story sein (Each wrinkle tells a story)
suchst du 'nen Schönling sag ich "sorry!" - nein (If you're looking for a stud muffin, I'm sorry)
ein Buch zu schreiben bräucht ich nicht (I don't need to write a book)
mir steht mein Leben im Gesicht (you can read my life in my face)
Many commentators smarter and more erudite than I have commented on the culture of beauty and youth that we have created in America, and I'm certainly (as I admitted back on January 2nd) a happy observer of beautiful ladies. But the simple fact is that we all get older. The wrinkles form, the hair gets gray (or, worse, deserts us), gravity pulls on muscles lovingly crafted by hours at the gym, and we spend millions of dollars each year on cosmetics, wrinkle creams, botox, liposuction, and all the other magic remedies to try to recapture the beauty of our youth.
But why? As for me, I'm happy in my increasingly decrepit old carcass. I can still dance, I like to think I can still be an interesting social companion for ladies of all ages, and I believe ever more firmly in the old saying that God compensates men for getting older by ensuring that each year there are more women we find attractive.
With or without cosmetics and enhancements.
Have a good day. Be comfortable in your body...it's the only one you'll ever have.
Bilbo
Yesterday, CNN came through again with an article on how celebrities prepare for their walks down the red carpets during the Hollywood awards season. The article was titled, "Nipple Covers, Hair and Other Red Carpet Secrets," and documented the extreme concern of Hollywood luminaries for their appearance as they parade before the lights and cameras.
And that's too bad.
German entertainer Harald Juhnke sings a marvelous song titled "Keine Falte tut mir leid" (loosely translated, "The Wrinkles Don't Bother Me"). It's a very clever song that speaks to me more clearly every year. Here's the last verse, along with my nickel translation:
Ich sag dir keine Falte tut mir leid (I tell you, the wrinkles don't bother me)
Ich bin ein Mann mit viel Vergangenheit (I'm a man with quite a past)
Ich bin nicht wie die jungen Glatten (I'm not like those sleek youngsters)
die noch nichts zu Leben hatten (who haven't yet really lived)
jede Falte könnt 'ne Story sein (Each wrinkle tells a story)
suchst du 'nen Schönling sag ich "sorry!" - nein (If you're looking for a stud muffin, I'm sorry)
ein Buch zu schreiben bräucht ich nicht (I don't need to write a book)
mir steht mein Leben im Gesicht (you can read my life in my face)
Many commentators smarter and more erudite than I have commented on the culture of beauty and youth that we have created in America, and I'm certainly (as I admitted back on January 2nd) a happy observer of beautiful ladies. But the simple fact is that we all get older. The wrinkles form, the hair gets gray (or, worse, deserts us), gravity pulls on muscles lovingly crafted by hours at the gym, and we spend millions of dollars each year on cosmetics, wrinkle creams, botox, liposuction, and all the other magic remedies to try to recapture the beauty of our youth.
But why? As for me, I'm happy in my increasingly decrepit old carcass. I can still dance, I like to think I can still be an interesting social companion for ladies of all ages, and I believe ever more firmly in the old saying that God compensates men for getting older by ensuring that each year there are more women we find attractive.
With or without cosmetics and enhancements.
Have a good day. Be comfortable in your body...it's the only one you'll ever have.
Bilbo
Friday, January 12, 2007
In my post this past Wednesday, I admitted my lack of knowledge of economics. I still don't understand much about the topic (and I'm sure our financial advisor hopes it stays that way), but I do understand the concept of spending money.
With that in mind, I would call your attention to an interesting website I found this morning - the National Priorities Project (http://nationalpriorities.org), which is "...a 501(c)3 nonpartisan education and advocacy organization that makes its tools, resources, and data available to the general public. NPP does not support any candidate or political party" (quoted from the site). NPP attempts to present economic data in terms even an economic illiterate like myself can understand.
One part of the website calculates the running cost of the war in Iraq by "...analyzing the legislation appropriating money for the Iraq War and Congressional Research Service reports. The CRS reports were based not just on Congressional appropriations, but on the Department of Defense's (DOD) DFAS monthly obligations reports indicating funds transferred from other functions to the Iraq War" (quoted from the site). It also provides estimates of what this sum might fund were we not at war. As I write this (at about 4:50 AM), the running total is just passing through $357,647,660,000.00.
Yes, you read that correctly - more than three hundred fifty-seven billion dollars, much of which appears to have been spent to no purpose.
You can see this running total here: http://costofwar.com/index.html, and can also see it expressed in terms of various types of public programs, or as a function of your state or locality (if it has been calculated for your locality yet).
As the nation debates the President's new plan for salvaging something from the Iraq adventure, consider these numbers as you decide whether the war is worth it and how we should proceed. I've already decided where I stand, as you know if you've been reading this blog regularly...study the issue, look at the numbers and make up your own mind.
By the way, the total is now just passing through $357,649,200,000.00. The time as I write this is 5:00 AM. It took ten minutes to grow by just over $1,500,000.00.
Think about it.
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
With that in mind, I would call your attention to an interesting website I found this morning - the National Priorities Project (http://nationalpriorities.org), which is "...a 501(c)3 nonpartisan education and advocacy organization that makes its tools, resources, and data available to the general public. NPP does not support any candidate or political party" (quoted from the site). NPP attempts to present economic data in terms even an economic illiterate like myself can understand.
One part of the website calculates the running cost of the war in Iraq by "...analyzing the legislation appropriating money for the Iraq War and Congressional Research Service reports. The CRS reports were based not just on Congressional appropriations, but on the Department of Defense's (DOD) DFAS monthly obligations reports indicating funds transferred from other functions to the Iraq War" (quoted from the site). It also provides estimates of what this sum might fund were we not at war. As I write this (at about 4:50 AM), the running total is just passing through $357,647,660,000.00.
Yes, you read that correctly - more than three hundred fifty-seven billion dollars, much of which appears to have been spent to no purpose.
You can see this running total here: http://costofwar.com/index.html, and can also see it expressed in terms of various types of public programs, or as a function of your state or locality (if it has been calculated for your locality yet).
As the nation debates the President's new plan for salvaging something from the Iraq adventure, consider these numbers as you decide whether the war is worth it and how we should proceed. I've already decided where I stand, as you know if you've been reading this blog regularly...study the issue, look at the numbers and make up your own mind.
By the way, the total is now just passing through $357,649,200,000.00. The time as I write this is 5:00 AM. It took ten minutes to grow by just over $1,500,000.00.
Think about it.
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
Thursday, January 11, 2007
President Bush has delivered his much-anticipated speech laying out his new plan for resolving the mess he has created in Iraq. My reaction to the speech began last night while he was speaking. I fell asleep.
On reading the full text of his speech this morning, these are my reactions:
"Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me." This is about as close as Mr Bush will ever come to admitting that he and his national security and military team botched the invasion and occupation. The passive voice is a wonderful thing. A simple, "I have made some serious mistakes in the planning and execution of this war, and I accept full responsibility for them" would have resonated far better with me.
Mr Bush continues to link the war in Iraq to the so-called "war on terror." In this, I can agree with him: the ill-considered invasion and occupation of Iraq have radicalized an already-radical Islamic world, offering a prime training ground for new generations of single-minded jihadists.
Mr Bush stated that, "Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated." From which position of strength are we forcing him to make this promise, and why should we believe it now?
Mr Bush says that US and Iraqi forces will "... have a green light to enter these neighborhoods (where insurgents hide)." Fine. But I question whether our soldiers on the ground will be permitted to employ the utter ruthlessness that has been used by their enemies. They are fighting under legal and moral restrictions that their enemies ignore and use against them. The time has come to take the gloves off. If we are going to send more young men and women into harm's way, we should let them do what they must to get the job done. The Roman emperor Caligula supposedly once said of Rome's enemies, "Let them hate us as long as they fear us." Well, at the moment, our enemies hate us, but don't fear us because they know we won't fight them with all our ruthless might. If we're going to stay, it's time for the Caligula Option.
Mr Bush also said that he has "... made it clear to the prime minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people - and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people." The President appears not to have noticed that the Iraqi government - and his administration - have already lost the support of the American people.
I believe in my heart that America will, in the end, always do the right thing...after all other options have been exhausted. I believe we have exhausted those options. We gave the Iraqi people the gift of a future free of Saddam in a nation rich in oil resources. They used that gift instead to turn on each other and settle old scores. Granted, we have not given them much reason to view what we have done as a "gift," but that's no longer either here or there. The time has come to leave the Iraqis to their own devices. We must either go in with our full might, with the intention of utterly crushing the insurgency, or we should pull every US Soldier, Marine and Airman out of Iraq and return to the fundamental mission of tracking down and eliminating radical elements who have used or would employ the tactic of terror against us and our homeland.
Mr President, you have one last chance to earn my support. Use it.
Unfortunately, I don't think you will.
More thoughts later.
Bilbo
On reading the full text of his speech this morning, these are my reactions:
"Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me." This is about as close as Mr Bush will ever come to admitting that he and his national security and military team botched the invasion and occupation. The passive voice is a wonderful thing. A simple, "I have made some serious mistakes in the planning and execution of this war, and I accept full responsibility for them" would have resonated far better with me.
Mr Bush continues to link the war in Iraq to the so-called "war on terror." In this, I can agree with him: the ill-considered invasion and occupation of Iraq have radicalized an already-radical Islamic world, offering a prime training ground for new generations of single-minded jihadists.
Mr Bush stated that, "Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated." From which position of strength are we forcing him to make this promise, and why should we believe it now?
Mr Bush says that US and Iraqi forces will "... have a green light to enter these neighborhoods (where insurgents hide)." Fine. But I question whether our soldiers on the ground will be permitted to employ the utter ruthlessness that has been used by their enemies. They are fighting under legal and moral restrictions that their enemies ignore and use against them. The time has come to take the gloves off. If we are going to send more young men and women into harm's way, we should let them do what they must to get the job done. The Roman emperor Caligula supposedly once said of Rome's enemies, "Let them hate us as long as they fear us." Well, at the moment, our enemies hate us, but don't fear us because they know we won't fight them with all our ruthless might. If we're going to stay, it's time for the Caligula Option.
Mr Bush also said that he has "... made it clear to the prime minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people - and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people." The President appears not to have noticed that the Iraqi government - and his administration - have already lost the support of the American people.
I believe in my heart that America will, in the end, always do the right thing...after all other options have been exhausted. I believe we have exhausted those options. We gave the Iraqi people the gift of a future free of Saddam in a nation rich in oil resources. They used that gift instead to turn on each other and settle old scores. Granted, we have not given them much reason to view what we have done as a "gift," but that's no longer either here or there. The time has come to leave the Iraqis to their own devices. We must either go in with our full might, with the intention of utterly crushing the insurgency, or we should pull every US Soldier, Marine and Airman out of Iraq and return to the fundamental mission of tracking down and eliminating radical elements who have used or would employ the tactic of terror against us and our homeland.
Mr President, you have one last chance to earn my support. Use it.
Unfortunately, I don't think you will.
More thoughts later.
Bilbo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)