The Two-Letter Insult

There are a lot of disheartening things about the harsh political partisanship that has been the sand in the gears of our government, but one of the most disheartening is the level of childish insult to which some will descend. A prime example came in - of all places - President Bush's State of the Union address on January 23rd, in which he said, "Some in this Chamber are new to the House and Senate — and I congratulate the Democrat majority. "

As you may know from recent commentary, Republicans often use the term Democrat rather than Democratic as the adjective to describe the other party. It's a little thing, but it infuriates the Democrats and thus has become a childish and petty way for Republicans to dig at their ideological opponents. That the President chose to do it in the forum of a major address to a joint session of Congress is a sign of casual disrespect. When asked about it in an interview with National Public Radio yesterday, the President laughed and said that he hadn't been aware he'd said it, and didn't do so deliberately; indeed, the printed copies of the speech distributed by the White House used the correct term. But the fact that the Chief Executive would automatically, if unknowingly, use a term known to anger his political opponents sends a clear and unfortunate signal.

There are enough differences of principle to divide the conservative Republicans from the liberal Democrats without either side aggravating the situation by going out of its way to show petty disrespect. We ought to be able to expect better from those we elect to lead the nation.

Yesterday my daughter sent me this picture, said to be the 10,000 year-old fossilized remains of a politician recently unearthed in an archaeological dig in Washington, DC:

As a popular saying in my office goes, it's like a clown on fire...sort of funny, but sort of sad.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Yes, But Is It Literature?

I suppose it had to happen eventually: an author in Finland has published a 332-page novel written entirely in text message format. The book, titled The Last Messages, tells the story of a Finnish information-technology executive who quits his job to travel throughout Europe and India, keeping in touch with his friends and relatives only through text messages.

Readers of this blog know that I appreciate clear and persuasive writing, mainly because I see so little of it in my job. It seems as if schools these days are less interested in correcting mistakes of composition, grammar, spelling and punctuation, and more interested in making sure everyone gets a passing grade (or better, since some parents appear to take it as a personal insult if their child receives a grade as mundane as a "C"...which is, after all, supposed to be the average). One of the most precious gifts I received as I was growing up was a mother who was very literate and encouraged in all of us a love of reading and writing; another was a series of truly wonderful teachers of English who set and enforced high standards of performance.

I'm continually amazed by the quality of the writing churned out by people who should be able to do better: writing characterized by sentences and paragraphs that don't make sense, subjects and verbs that don't agree, and egregious spelling errors (often resulting from overreliance on the automated spell-checker which, after all, doesn't tell you that you've used the wrong word but spelled it correctly). My mother taught us that we would be judged by people who didn't know us on the basis of what we wrote and said, long before they knew anything else about us. It's true: when I read a business letter that's poorly composed or full of grammatical errors and spelling mistakes, it tells me that the writer didn't care enough to spend the time to make sure his message was clear. It insults me as the reader by telling me I'm not important enough to receive the writer's best effort.

Part of the problem is that e-mail and text messaging have driven down standards of writing in the interest of brevity. I understand "rotflol" and "ttfn" and "ygbkm," but it doesn't mean I have to like them, especially when they appear in formal correspondence. A little formality in writing - even in a breezy e-mail to a close friend - is not a bad thing, for it shows respect for the recipient of the message.

As for Mr Hannu Luntiala, the author of the Finnish text-message novel, I wish him all the best and hope his book sells well.

But I won't be buying it.

Have a good day. Write something worth reading. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

The Belief Tank

This morning's "Doonesbury" cartoon took off on the plans for the proposed Bush Presidential Library in the forum of a daily White House press briefing. At one point, the off-panel Press Secretary says that the Library won't be "just a library," but that it will also include "a belief tank, to groom future legacy tenders." Asked what a "belief tank" is, the Press Secretary replies, "It's like a think tank, only without the doubt."

One of the recurring themes of this blog, as you know if you are a regular reader, is the danger of blind faith - religious or political. A little skepticism is a good thing, and it's always good to question those who are absolutely convinced of their righteousness...because you usually discover that they don't have any basis for this belief other than I know I'm right and you're wrong. Of course, you can take skepticism too far also, at which point it turns into cynicism - which is little more than belief in nothing.

There's an interesting series on National Public Radio called, "This I Believe," in which both famous and average people have about three minutes to talk about the beliefs that help shape their lives. Interestingly, I have yet to hear one talk about political or religious beliefs; most are deeply thoughtful pieces that look at friendship, outrage, and simple everyday concepts and activities that help ground us in our lives. I've often wondered how I would summarize all the random thoughts bumping around my head in intellectual Brownian Motion if I had to do it in the 300 or so words of a "This I Believe" essay. Perhaps I'll take a stab at it in a future blog entry.

But for now, let's return to the "Belief Tank" with which we started this discussion. Deeply held beliefs can provide a moral compass to guide our lives. But they can also be an intellectual crutch that allows one to comfortably ignore complex and often unpleasant reality. A cartoon hanging on my refrigerator door shows a man standing in front of two adjacent doors: one to the left labeled "Think Tank," and the other on the right labeled "Shout-Louder-Than-the-People-Who-Disagree-With-You Tank." I think that if you listen long enough to Fox News, any of the political punditry shows on network TV, or hysterical ranters like Glenn Beck and Nancy Grace on CNN, you will recognize that they reside mainly behind the right-hand door where, as one reviewer has noted, "(there is an) enormous ratio of words to substance."

The message today is simple: do your own thinking. Don't live in a comfortable "Belief Tank" in which you think you know all the answers. Listen to all sides, weigh the strength of their their evidence - not just the volume of their arguments - and make your own decisions.

That's the essence of democracy.

Have a good weekend. More thoughts later.

Bilbo

Stumbling Around

In an opinion article published in the New York Times on January 14th, Nicholas Kristof asked this timely question about the United States: "Why are we so awful at foreign policy?"

After a brief historical review of some memorable foreign policy disasters - of which Iraq is only the most recent - Mr Kristof postulated two reasons for America's foreign policy ineptitude: first, that "...great powers always lumber about, stepping on toes, provoking resentments, and solving problems militarily simply because they have that capability..."; and second, that "We (the United States) don't understand the world."

I think the second reason deserves a little more attention, particularly since Mr Kristof writes that it is "particular to the U.S." It's very true that we as a nation and a people have a shockingly poor understanding of the world around us. This is true for many reasons, not the least of which is that Americans as a whole don't travel abroad very much, and when we do, the trips are most often on the order of ten-world-capitals-in-seven-days tours which provide little interaction with foreign citizens other than store clerks and restaurant and museum staffs. Most Americans, other than military personnel and their families posted overseas, will never live or work in a foreign country, and thereby gain a deeper understanding of how other peoples think and act, and of the social, cultural and political prism through which they view us.

Another reason is our general lack of interest in and ability to speak languages other than English. America is so big, and our need to travel abroad so small, that most Americans never need to learn anything other than English. This prohibits us from learning what people around the world are really saying, and contributes to the view of the Ugly American whose first words on entering a store in a foreign land are, "Does anyone here speak English?"

A third reason is our educational system which places insufficient emphasis on the study of history (among other things). Without a sound knowledge of where we've been and what we've done in the past, it's hard to understand how we got where we are today and what the issues are that surround us.

I could go on at great length, but I think these three ideas are a good start for understanding the answer to Mr Kristof's original question. We live in a vast, interconnected world in which everything we do as a nation has profound consequences both for today and for the future. And since we'll have to live in the future we make today, we owe it to ourselves and to our children and grandchildren to educate ourselves to make the right decisions.

Have a good weekend. More thoughts later.

Bilbo

Elephants, Jackasses, and Badgers

Yesterday I got into a three-way e-mail discussion with my friend Jake and John, one of my co-workers. It started when John sent out an e-mail that traced the historical development of liberals and conservatives beginning with the discovery of beer and the invention of the wheel (the wheel making it possible for men to easily get to beer). As this bizarre historical overview spun out of control, it eventually addressed the development of the symbols of Republican conservatism (the elephant - the largest and most powerful land animal) and Democratic liberalism (the jackass).

As so often happens when these disucssions get underway, I found myself once again insisting that I am neither liberal nor conservative, Democrat nor Republican, but a principled Independent who accepts the best parts of both conservative and liberal beliefs. In general, I think the jackass is an appropriate symbol for the Democrats, who are frequently loud, whiny, and stubborn, while the elephant is an appropriate symbol for the Republicans - a huge, lumbering animal which, when aroused, trumpets loudly and thunders blindly forward, crushing everything in its path. Well, all right, said John - if you want to be an independent, sitting on the fence and criticizing all sides, what's the appropriate symbol for you? He decided on the badger, and provided this delightful picture:

Well, I suppose I can live with that. After all, I've been called an idiot by a commenter to this blog, so I guess I can handle having the badger as a symbol. And I do, after all, intend to continue using this blog to badger hypocritical politicians and religious figures of all parties and labels. As the local curmudgeon-at-large, I can hardly do otherwise.

Let's hear it for the badgers!

Have a good day. More thoughts coming over the weekend.

Bilbo

Where are the Voices?

Thomas Friedman, one of my favorite commentators on the Middle East, wrote a very perceptive article in yesterday's New York Times. It began this way: "It's hard to know what's more disturbing: the barbaric sectarian murders by Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq, or the deafening silence with which these mass murders are received in the Muslim world. How could it be that Danish cartoons of Muhammad led to mass violent protests, while unspeakable violence by Muslims against Muslims in Iraq every day evokes about as much reaction in the Arab-Muslim world as the weather report? ... Where is the "Million Muslim March" under the banner: 'No Shiites, No Sunnis: we are all children of the Prophet Muhammad.'"

How, indeed? Where, indeed?

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is very vocal and very active in protesting any perceived bias against Muslims in this country. But a thorough read of its website (www.cair-net.org) reveals exhaustive reporting on alleged offenses against Muslims in America, yet not a single condemnation of Muslim on Muslim violence. There is a section of the website titled "National and Worldwide Muslim Condemnation of Terrorism" which provides nice words to convince Americans of the loyalty and essential peacefulness of Muslims, yet reveals no concerted effort to counter the worst excesses of the Muslim world in the Muslim world.

Mr Friedman goes on to ask, "If Arab Muslims can summon the will to protest only against the insults of 'the foreigner' but never the injuries inflicted on their own by their own, how can they ever generate a modern society or democracy - which is all about respecting and protecting minority voices and unorthodox views?"

I will begin to take Muslim complaints about insults to their religion seriously when the Muslims themselves show that they are ready to accept legitimate criticism, and to get their own house in order.

Until that time, every yawning repetition of the words "in the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate" which begin Muslim prayers is nothing more than an exercise in rank hypocrisy.

But you won't learn that from CAIR, and that's too bad.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

The State of the Union

Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires that "He (the President) shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient..." Last night, President Bush presented his annual "State of the Union" speech; today, as you might expect, I have my own comments to add to those of the professional talking heads.

In general, I thought the President did a workmanlike job of putting the best face on a bad situation while presenting a meager laundry list of proposals for the future. I didn't find myself inspired by his rhetoric or stirred to action by any of his proposals. I thought the speech was more significant for what it didn't say than for what it did. Here are specific comments on a few of the topics he addressed:

Economics. Mr Bush said he will submit a budget that will eliminate the federal deficit within five years, balancing the budget without raising taxes. That will be a miraculous feat if he can pull it off...but as long as we keep paying for a high-intensity war with emergency appropriations and keep it off the federal books, he might just be able to pull it off.

Education. Mr Bush urged renewal of the No Child Left Behind Act, claiming it has been successful in improving our schools and helping minority students. That's a matter of opinion. If you've been reading this blog for any length of time, you know the importance I attach to education. I wanted to see more proposals for federally subsidized student loans and other aid to our education system at every level.

Health Care. If there is anything as important as education, it's quality, affordable health care. Mr Bush put forward some proposals which seek to make health care insurance more affordable through changes in tax policy. While that would help, it's not enough. Health care is not provided by tax attorneys and CPAs and insurance company adjusters - it's provided by well-educated doctors working in well-staffed, equipped and funded hospitals, and by programs that emphasize staying well rather than recovering from illness. I have ideas of my own, and we'll talk about them in future posts.

Iraq. The President acknowledged that the situation in Iraq is not good, and encouraged us to give his new plan a chance. I'm willing to give it that chance. But as I've written here before, I don't think we are capable of the utter ruthlessness that will be necessary to crush the insurgency and make the Iraqis take responsibility for their own future.

"The War on Terror." I still think this is a stupid concept. We are not at war with "terror" as an enemy that can be killed, captured, or otherwise eliminated. We are at war with focused, ruthless religious extremists and drug lords who use acts of "terrorism" as a tactic to achieve their ends. Mr Bush did, in fact, acknowledge that the danger we face is that of radical Islam, both Shia and Sunni. But to label our enemies "terrorists" as if that were a useful defining category ignores the complexity of the danger we face. I think the President understands this, but I also think he is conditioned to thinking in oversimplifications that define our enemies as "terrorists" who "hate freedom."

Okay, that's enough. I was not terribly impressed by the State of the Union speech, but I would probably have been disappointed in any case. Presidential leadership needs to be exercised every day, not once a year in a formal address to a joint session of Congress. I'm still waiting for the calm, focused, energetic leadership that will inspire Americans to work together for a better future.

And, as always, I'm not holding my breath.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

News from Under a Rock in Pakistan

That sunny bluebird of happiness, Ayman al Zawahiri, has emerged from hiding to distribute yet another recorded fulmination against the United States in general and President Bush and the war in Iraq in particular. He lets us know that, "If you want to live in security, you must accept the facts of what is happening on the ground, and reject the fantasies with which Bush tries to deceive you."

Amazingly enough, I have finally found something on which I can tentatively agree with a bigoted, hectoring moron like Mr al Zawahiri - that we should reject the fantasies with which our government has tried to deceive us. Of course, Mr al Zawahiri has failed to note that the President has finally - however belatedly - accepted that all is not well in Iraq, that everyone knows it, and that a change in strategy and tactics is needed. But I think that Mr al Zawahiri's call for "(acceptance of) the facts of what is happening on the ground" works both ways.

The ghastly sectarian violence that is tearing Iraq apart really got underway when al Qaeda in Iraq (the local franchise of Mr al Zawahiri's peace-loving and God-fearing organization) bombed the Shiite shrine in Samarra. Thus, "the facts of what is happening on the ground" have been shaped as much by the religious hatreds inflamed by Mr al Zawahiri as by our own actions. While we have made serious mistakes in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, a dispassionate look at "the facts of what is happening on the ground" would show that the US and its meager handful of allies have tried to repair Iraq and return it to a functioning society...whereas the Mr al Zawahiri and his allies have done nothing to help the situation, and everything to fan the hatreds that have turned Iraq into hell on earth for its suffering people.

Sadly, most of the Muslim world will uncritically accept whatever someone like al Zawahiri or Muqtada al Sadr says, simply because he's one of their own. They'll accept the hatred and bigotry that flows in the guise of religious pronouncements, and they'll ignore the responsibility of Mr al Zawahiri and his fellow Islamists for bringing so much misery to the people of Iraq and the larger Middle East. Instead, they'll do what they've always done: place the blame for every wrong on those useful whipping boys, the US and Israel.

So, Mr al Zawahiri, please crawl back under your rock and let the people of Iraq solve their problems without your help. And stay there. No one needs a useless bigot like you.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Winter Arrives in Northern Virginia

After the first half of January, which felt more like the first half of April, winter has arrived in the Washington, DC area with a vengeance.

I have to qualify that, of course. I grew up in Western Pennsylvania, and I remember the fierce winters we used to have, the ones that carried snow measured in feet down from the Great Lakes and buried us in soft white. We thought nothing of hiking through knee-deep snow to the bus stop to catch the school bus, and my first driving lessons were in the enormous parking lot of our church, surrounded by giant heaps of snow pushed aside by fleets of plows (my Dad wasn't stupid). But here in the DC metro area, an inch of snow causes complete panic...and the bare two inches we had yesterday has resulted in closed schools and traffic chaos. Of course, the sleet and freezing rain we had on top of the snow didn't help, but nevertheless, it doesn't take much to tie this area in knots.

I'm glad for the snow. Agnes and I are four-seasons people, and in winter, you're supposed to have snow. But like everything else, you take the good with the bad. I've already spent an hour outside this morning, cleaning snow and ice off the cars and shovelling out the driveway and sidewalks. It felt good. Of course, it'll feel different later, when my aging muscles finally realize what I put them through this morning, but I'll manage.

In the meantime, I think I'm ready for one of my favorite winter things: listening to my recording of Dylan Thomas reading "A Child's Christmas in Wales." If you've never heard it, you're missing one of the great treats of the season and the language, and you can download it from iTunes.

So make yourself a cup of hot chocolate, sit in front of the fire, open up the morning paper, and listen to Dylan Thomas in the background.

Life's good.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Some Thoughts on Being an Idiot

I always enjoy receiving comments on the topics I post in this blog, if for no other reason than it tells me someone is reading it. I invite comments in the hope that they are in the same tone of reasonable thought I try to put into the things about which I write. Yesterday afternoon, an anonymous reader left a comment on my post from January 18th, in which I suggested that if blacks want a formal apology for slavery, we ought to go ahead and do it and then move on. This particular reader's comment opened with the sage observation, "You're an idiot."

Well, I've been called that (and worse) before. But if I'm going to be called an idiot, I'd rather it be for a reason that makes sense. The anonymous commenter goes on to say, "President Bush didn't own slaves. I don't own slaves. There's nothing to apologize for. Get over it. Besides, you're a cracker."

With all due respect to someone who actually took the time to leave a comment, this individual completely missed the point. I actually did note that slavery was outlawed in America over 150 years ago, and that the last actual slaves and slave owners have been dead for a very long time. The point I was making was that we need to recognize those facts and move on. "Get over it" was the comment made by a Virginia legislator that started the entire brouhaha and inspired my commentary. "Get over it" is, to me, a poor choice of words for a valid idea; a better choice might be, "Let's move beyond it."

And that was my point. We need to move beyond a constant focus on the historical fact of slavery and work together to create a better future for all citizens, of whatever color. If it takes an apology to help make that happen, okay, let's do it. And then let's move on to tackle the real problems that still exist as part of the legacy of that era.

By the way, if we accept the definition of a "cracker" in my Websters New Collegiate Dictionary as being "a poor, usually Southern white - usually used disparagingly," my commenter called it wrong. I am white, but comfortably middle class, and originally from Pennsylvania.

Which brings me to my anonymous commenter's parting shot: "What puts you on a soapbox?" Well, as I wrote in my very first post back in March of 2006, I'm interested in a lot of things. I'm a pretty opinionated fellow with a lot of thoughts on a lot of topics, as regular readers of this blog know. What puts me on a soapbox? The fact that I have a way to share those thoughts with the millions of people who cruise through the blogosphere every day. I don't expect everyone to agree with what I write...the world would be a pretty boring place if we all agreed on everything all the time. But if you don't agree, and choose to comment, don't drop to the level of insult - say something better. Convince me I'm wrong. Opinionated though I am, I have been known to change my mind about some things...as long as you can convince me your point of view is the better one.

So I'm going to keep writing about a lot of things. Some of the things I write will irritate or anger some readers. But if I've made you think, I've accomplished what I set out to do with this blog.

If not, in the words of my anonymous commenter, get over it.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo