November 2007 Archive
« October 2007 | Home | December 2007 »
November 23, 2007
Thanks
We had a nice Thanksgiving yesterday - hope you all did, too. I think our turkey came out particularly well this time. We adjusted the brine slightly this year. Today is a mellow day of relaxing with warm comfy clothes and warm comfy cats (not to mention warm comfy husband).A friend of mine on LJ wrote that she was thankful for resources, connection, and community. I like that list, so I'll say "me too" to that. We have had an especially supportive community of late in ways large and small -- ranging from a long-lost cousin I'm back in touch with to our veterinarian (of 7 years) who, like all the good docs, really treats the whole family, not just the kitties themselves.
I'm listening to Jane Monheit's debut album this afternoon -- new-to-us -- really nice stuff. I think I'll get the rest of her albums over time. Here's a youtube of her performing a Christmas song in Washington in 2005. Except for the shot of Dubya and the Stepfirst-lady, it's nice. Looks like they're at the National Building Museum.
<=> | in: Journaling
November 20, 2007
Thanks, Guv'na!
The Governor of Virginia sent out a Thanksgiving email today that was actually pretty good. Most of the political spam I get is fairly nauseating -- but actually I think it's the *campaign* spam I get that's annoying. This was just a Happy Thanksgiving email, and the Governor has reason to be happy, as the Democrats are turning Virginia slowly away from haters-ville and into a more rational place. During the time we've lived here we've already replaced one wingnut Senator with someone a bit more reasonable. And next year I expect that the other Republican Senator will be replaced with a more reasonable Democrat. Our own wingnut state senator was ousted just this month and replaced with a healthcare policy expert. And Fairfax County is trending more and more Democratic. There are still a bunch of haters in some of the more rural parts of the state, but maybe over the next few years they can be further marginalized.Anyway, the Governor has non-partisan reasons to be proud, too. According to his email:
We are the best managed state in America (Governing Magazine), the best state to do business (CNBC and Forbes.com) and the best state for a child to be born in today (Education Week). I've worked hard with so many of you in my first 22 months in office to increase our transportation investments, protect open space, clean up our rivers and the Bay and expand educational opportunities with a special focus on our youngest children. We have significant challenges, but also have every reason to be optimistic that we can keep Virginia strong.And nowhere in this message did he blather on about 'security' - which I found very refreshing. I've got some issues with Tim Kaine, but he's far superior to the alternative he was running against.
In other local political news, TheGuy and I were at our local Chipotle the other day (I'm having a sustained burrito fetish, which is fodder for another post at some point in the future) and I was gnoshing on my guacamole and looked up at the people in line and said: "Hey, that guy looks like Mark Sickles." Sickles is our state house delegate. TheGuy took a look and said, "It is, it is Mark Sickles!" So then we had an amusing conversation about whether we should say hello. On the one hand, let the man eat his burrito in peace! On the other hand, maybe he'd be pleased to know that his constituents know who he is. (My estimate was that maybe only 3 people in the whole place would have any idea who he was.) But then what would we say? Congratulations on your recent smashing victory? (He ran unopposed.) Should we pick something to rant at him about? This part of the County is pretty well-run, so we don't actually have much to complain about that isn't already on his agenda. In the end, we decided to leave him alone. But talking it over was good for a few giggles.
<=> | in: State & Local
November 17, 2007
This and That
Did anyone notice that it's November? And Thanksgiving is early this year? Yeah. Eek! We made our first trip to the grocery store this morning to start stocking up on turkey day goodies. I think my apple pie this year will have three kinds of apples in it. Yummm. I started playing Christmas music yesterday. Not sure that TheGuy is totally thrilled about that, so I try to restrain myself to when he's not around - at least until after Thanksgiving proper. Hee.One public service announcement: if you're like me, and like to wear soft, warm cotton things in the fall and winter -- you must feast your eyes on this year's holiday Land's End catalog. They must have a new layout/design person or something, because it is excellent. It's a mostly solid green color with a little Christmas tree light motif on the bottom (at this moment it's the top catalog listed on this page - you can request one of your very own). I am feeling the urge to buy several of every article of clothing I like in there in various colors. Well done, advertising people! (Their quality and stitching is generally very good, too.)
We've got a few small house projects -- well, purchases really -- to try to do this winter, among them a new range for the kitchen. After the big (expensive) projects of the yard and the windows, it will be nice to tackle things that are somewhat more manageable. This week's will be the last turkey we cook on this old range, I suspect. I'm also feeling another massive purge in our future -- both clothes (before the end of '07, so we can claim the donation on the tax return), and more books. In fact, if I weren't trapped under a cat, I might be working on a closet purge right now. But the kitty is so warm and cute!
<=> | in: Journaling
November 16, 2007
Horrifying
I haven't been watching any of the stupid "debates" in this primary campaign. But I did note the following in some of the coverage I was reading:BLITZER: You say national security is more important than human rights. Senator Clinton, what do you say?WTF?
CLINTON: I agree with that completely.
November 14, 2007
Reagan's Racist Pandering
Bob Herbert and Paul Krugman at the New York Times have done a good job pushing back at those (like that idiot shill David Brooks) trying to whitewash Ronald Reagan's racist pandering during his candidacy and presidency.Krugman mocks the notion that bleating about "states rights" in a town where three civil rights workers were murdered was just an "innocent mistake":
Similarly, when Reagan declared in 1980 that the Voting Rights Act had been “humiliating to the South,” he didn’t mean to signal sympathy with segregationists. It was all an innocent mistake.Herbert:
In 1982, when Reagan intervened on the side of Bob Jones University, which was on the verge of losing its tax-exempt status because of its ban on interracial dating, he had no idea that the issue was so racially charged. It was all an innocent mistake.
And the next year, when Reagan fired three members of the Civil Rights Commission, it wasn’t intended as a gesture of support to Southern whites. It was all an innocent mistake.
Everybody watching the 1980 campaign knew what Reagan was signaling at the fair. Whites and blacks, Democrats and Republicans — they all knew. The news media knew. The race haters and the people appalled by racial hatred knew. And Reagan knew.On a related note, Orcinus has a useful collection of strategies to use when people say bigoted or racist things right in front of you. Fortunately, I don't come up against that very often -- but there are certainly circumstances where I need to brace myself and be prepared for it, so it's good to have a few more handy tactics in my back pocket. Some of my favorites (not always applicable in all situations):
He was tapping out the code. It was understood that when politicians started chirping about “states’ rights” to white people in places like Neshoba County they were saying that when it comes down to you and the blacks, we’re with you.
And Reagan meant it. He was opposed to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was the same year that Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney were slaughtered. As president, he actually tried to weaken the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He opposed a national holiday for the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He tried to get rid of the federal ban on tax exemptions for private schools that practiced racial discrimination. And in 1988, he vetoed a bill to expand the reach of federal civil rights legislation.
After the umpteenth spew of racial slurs at a family gathering, I informed my husband that the next time it happened I would gather our sons and he had five minutes to join me in the car or he was walking home. After doing this the in-laws got the hint and at least I don't have to hear it as often any more.I can't document my best comeback here but trust me, it was a good one. And funny. Ask me in person sometime.
I straight laugh at people, call them "Strom Thurmond" and "David Duke", tell them to go down to city hall and have a fruity-ass white pride parade in front until they feel good enough about themselves to not spout 150-year old stereotypes. [tho then there's the "fruity-ass" issue -- I probably wouldn't use that term!]
Gotta say, the best comeback of this thread is..."You are proud to have that opinion? Please explain." Racists, while not self-aware in general, are generally conscious enough to know when they have been called an asshole and yet have no reasonable recourse to violence in the face of a normal and polite question.
<=> | in: Civil Rights & Feminism / Republicans
November 12, 2007
Media Rundown
Gah - the political stuff is so ghastly, and the environmental stuff such a nightmare, and the economic picture so depressing -- I can't bring myself to weblog about any of that stuff. How about recent personal media consumption, instead? Bread and circuses, yes! Let's see...I recently Vernor Vinge's The Peace War -- not nearly up to Deepness in the Sky or Fire Upon the Deep, unfortunately. But better than Rainbows End.
Lately I've been finding the Netflix movies I've been getting so boring that about a third of the way I browse over to Wikipedia to read the summary and see whether I want to bother to finish it. The answer was 'no', for example, for both Transamerica (however much I appreciate Felicity Huffman's work and Dolly Parton's song) and Notting Hill. I did, over the last few weeks, power through the bulk of Babylon 5 again. It's still good, 10 years later. Makes me think that I should probably try something like The Wire which gets rave reviews from everyone I know who's seen it, or Six Feet Under, which we only saw the first one or two seasons of. Extended stories may be where it's it at for me for awhile with respect to teevee/movies.
Most recently in music I've been listening to the new A.J. Roach and the new Bruce Springsteen. I've also given a listen or two to Morcheeba's The Big Calm album, which I bought after someone pointed me to a song of theirs. And, TheGuy had the brilliant idea to create a 'Sleepy' playlist for me to play when I'm not able to sleep very well. Been listening to that a lot, too. It includes selected songs (almost 500 of them) from artists such as: Ray Lamontagne, Sarah McLachlan, Randall Bramblett, Iron & Wine, Enya, Norah Jones, Nightnoise, Alison Krauss, Emmylou Harris, Cowboy Junkies, Harry Belafonte, Clannad, Sting, and many more. It's great - each of us keep thinking of things to add to it.
<=> | in: Journaling
3 Comments --
Yeah, The Wire is amazing. Both you and TheGuy will dig it tremendously. It may take a few hours to get into at first, but once it takes hold there's no letting go. Its the best, most realistic, most savage, and often most hilarious indictment of the way we live today that I can think of.
I like Six Feet Under quite a bit too, although The Wire is better and I think SFU drops the ball occasionally. Season 2 and particularly Season 4 aren't as good as S1, S3 (particularly the Lili Taylor stuff), and the second half of S5.
You may like Deadwood or Battlestar Galactica too, although I'd give The Wire a go first.
Finally, regarding sleep, I made a similar mix for an ex-gf. "Asleep" by The Smiths, "Sleeping In" by The Postal Service, and particularly "Sleep" by The Dandy Warhols are good in that vein. :)
Posted by: Kevin on November 13, 2007
funny, when I think of Netflix it's partly for good movies I never made it to, but it's largely for TV shows I'd like to watch but am not willing to buy -- ranging from Season 5 of the West Wing (no post-Sorkin purchases for me!) to the Rockford Files (heh)...
Posted by: acm on November 14, 2007
November 10, 2007
Juvenile Little Man-Children, Wanking RIGHT ON YOUR TV!
It is this kind of bullshit -- that Digby documents and characterizes so well -- that is going to push me into supporting Hillary Clinton. Because enough is enough, dammit -- these insecure little man-children really need to get a @$&* grip. Go read the quotes she found - these are some seriously twisted people controlling our political discourse. Digby says:I don't care who you support in the election, this kind of talk -- especially just spewing out in the mainstream media with very little awareness --- makes the hair stand up on the back of your neck if you happen to be female. It's like having everyone assume that the "normal" state of being in this world is male and this strange idea of appealing to women is some sort of illegitimate pander to an extreme, fringe interest group.And yes, when I was reading some of that, the hair on the back of neck did stand up. Truly horrifying.
For decades the Republicans have been running against the "soft" (read: "gay" or "sissy") Democrats and it's worked quite well for them. But with an actual woman running to be the Big Kahuna, it seems to have scrambled the decks, which isn't surprising. Their attacks are received differently when they aren't seen through the lens of a puerile boys locker room. It has a different characteristic, more jarring and dissonant, maybe because it's so much more direct. (I'm certainly not defending the "gay" slur either --- it's just that it's so commonplace in politics that most people don't even see it.)
But what did surprise me --- and I guess I'm just a fool for not having realized it before --- is that so many of these men in the media seem to have such severe psychological issues in this sphere. Tucker and Matthews and many of their guests are personally offended that a woman would appeal directly to other women for votes, as if that's undemocratic and unfair. And they get extremely bent out of shape when their sexist attitudes are challenged.
(Besides, Edwards screwed over the women bloggers, and Obama's got his head wedged with respect to religion and now Social Security, among other things.)
<=> | in: Media Dysfunction
2 Comments --
Glad to see you've commented on the recent gender uproar in the Democratic primary. I've been curious to hear your take on it all.
I'm not going to defend the asshats (Carlson, Matthews, etc.) who comprise most of our television punditry. Digby's called out their double standard pretty well, already.
That being said, I do think there's a difference between Hillary asking for women's votes or suggesting she'll represent women better by virtue of her two X-chromosomes, and doing what she did after her fumble in the last debate, which was to fall back explicitly on the gender divide to explain her lousy performance.
Regarding the second paragraph cited above about hard Republicans and "soft" Democrats, I'm not sure I see its applicability yet, particularly given that Clinton, like Al Gore before her, has appropriated much of the GOP's usual rhetoric to go after her primary opponents. (Case in point, Clinton on Iran.) Alas, these days "acting electable" means "acting centrist," even if the center is skewed so far right that it makes Richard Nixon look like a flaming liberal. Rather than use her thirty-point lead to strike out new territory and push the state of political discourse back in the right (left) direction, Clinton has reified the current dismal state of things. So, I'm not sure I'm seeing this "scrambling of the decks" Digby cites. Looks like more of the same to me.
Also, I actually do think it's kinda sad to hear several smart, independent women I know admit in conversation that they fall into the Clinton camp primarily to see that final glass ceiling shattered. But, that ceiling's never hung over my head, so who am I to judge? People voted for Kennedy to see a Catholic in the Oval Office, people vote every year for candidates because they're northern/southern/western. So, I guess voting on the basis of gender is just more of the same. I would complain about the fact that our political discourse has degenerated so much that identity matters more than issues, but, upon further reflection, it's always been this way. In any case, it's not likely to change in our lifetimes.
Posted by: Kevin on November 12, 2007
I haven't dug very far, but I haven't seen the victim-claiming by Clinton that people keep attributing to her. What's the quote? Just the "strong woman" thing from campaign staff? That's it? Pretty weak tea, if that's all. There may be more, but I haven't seen it.
The second paragraph to me is more about media narratives than what the candidates themselves are doing, which is what I thought Digby was referring to when she talked about scrambling the decks. *shrug*
I don't fall into anyone's particular camp (although I still lean Edwards in spite of his occasional asshattery), but if I do vote, I'll feel much less conflicted about voting for Clinton after seeing all this utter nonsense thrown at her. Call it misguided solidarity, but there it is.
Posted by: Medley on November 12, 2007
November 9, 2007
Muffins
This multigrain chocolate muffin recipe looks scrumptious (except for the dates, but TheGuy would like them...). I found the link to it over at Jenipurr's. I might try to make these this weekend -- I haven't baked anything in ages.<=> | in: Health & Food
1 Comments --
If you want to see lots of choices for cupcakes (I know you said muffins, but hey, cupcakes are tasty:)), check out vanillagarlic.blogspot.com.
I have yet to find a muffin recipe I really love, although I have made some blueberry muffins with buttermilk that were ok.
Posted by: Joni on November 10, 2007
November 8, 2007
Too Many Choices
The Washington Post Magazine (a pale and rather provincial shadow of the NYT Magazine), recently had an issue on public schools and private schools in the Washington Metro region and the agonizing choices parents have to make. What a nightmare. On the one hand, some of (even the good) public schools sound like fascist little teach-to-the-test drilling regimes, and on the other hand, the private schools around here are full of over-privileged, rich brats who believe their lives are just terribly, terribly stressful and it's so unfair that those poor kids get a break on admission fees to colleges. I did like this statement from one mother who sends her kids to public school:within reason, a certain amount of rough and tumble prepares children for a world in which they will have to advocate for themselves and find the inner resources to rise to adversity.Time enough, perhaps, to settle into the comfortable arms of privilege at the elite colleges and universities? I was talking with a somewhat older friend of mine who has children in Montgomery Country and who also grew up in Maine. He related how it's very different in urban/suburban areas where there are numerous choices as to what school to go to (and, sometimes, where to live to ensure that) versus where we grew up where you in District X which had its one high school and one middle school and that was that.
It's human nature to adapt quickly to the pleasures and conveniences of privilege, and, soon after, we can start to feel entitled to them because we believe we are somehow better than others who are less advantaged. I've observed that it's easier to slip into this trap if you grow up in the cocoon of private school. This was made especially clear to me recently at a friend's potluck, when I overheard a group of private school kids bitterly and unselfconsciously complaining about what they perceived to be the unfair admissions advantage given African American students at elite private high schools and colleges. At first, considering the economic and educational advantages these kids had experienced, I thought they were kidding. When I saw that they weren't, I couldn't help but look upon it as an unintentional parody of privilege.
Surrounded by peers from such a wide variety of backgrounds, my children know pretty well that their comfortable circumstances simply reflect the luck of the draw.
<=> | in: General Musings
November 7, 2007
Lyric of the Day
We were recently doing a long-ish drive and I once again re-discovered that Don Henley makes some excellent driving/sing-along music. My favorite for the recent trip was "I Will Not Go Quietly."I'm brave enough to be crazy
I'm strong enough to be weak
I see all these heroes with feet of clay
Whose mighty ships have sprung a leak
And I want you to tell me darlin'
Just what do you believe in now?
1 Comments --
what was that song of his with the lyric, "I'm not easy to live with, I know that it's true. You're no picnic either, babe - it's one of the things I love about you."
I can relate. :-)
Posted by: Liz on November 10, 2007
November 6, 2007
Local Election
Virginia had state and local elections today. While I'm pretty disgusted with the political scene in general (Chuck Schumer can go @$*( himself, for example), and am still contemplating withholding the vote in '08, I did vote in this election. It was an open race for our county supervisor's seat, among other things, and TheGuy and I happen to have met each of the candidates through TheGuy's work with our housing association. The candidate we voted for was at the polls when I went this afternoon and I said hello. Introduced myself and said: "you may remember my husband [x], from [y]." "Oh yes," he said. But who the hell knows? What's he going to say? No? He's a politician! Hahaha. Anyway, I also voted for almost half a billion dollars in transportation and school bonds. Gack. But even the Republican sample ballot recommended voting 'yes' on them, so borrow, borrow and spend, spend, spend, dear county! Whee!For a brief minute I pondered giving our candidate a bit of a grilling about how he really plans to revitalize the blight that is the Springfield Mall (which was a big part of his platform, from what little I read.. ), but then I decided not to pester the guy. Not like it was going to affect my vote. But it would be nice to demolish the entire mall and start over. How quickly can that happen?
<=> | in: State & Local
1 Comments --
I do hope when you say 'withhold' your vote in '08, that you do not mean not voting at all. Better to show at the polls and write in 'None of the Above' (or TheGuy's name!) if you don't like the candidates. If we don't show up and vote, it just looks like apathy not protest. I think the poor showing of Americans at the polls is one of the reasons we get the candidates we do.
Posted by: Anne Meridiem on November 9, 2007
November 5, 2007
Gay-Hatin' Gospel
Fred Clark's Gay-Hatin' Gospel series over at Slacktivist is a must-read. He examines the question of how "gay-hating" has come to be a common, if not the most common, perception of Christianity. Part 1 explores the theory that gays are a safe target (he goes through less satisfactory theories early before getting to what he thinks is the root of the issue.)I don't think this safe-target dynamic fully explains the motive or the cause of American evangelicalism's anti-gay obsession, but I do believe it accounts for part of its appeal. That appeal is all the more appealing in the American church, where we're deeply anxious about the fact that we don't seem significantly different from everybody else in our culture. Since we expend our lives chasing after the exact same things as everyone else, and since we can't say with any confidence that "They'll know we are Christians by our love," we have to latch onto whatever insignificant signifiers we can. We don't drink (in public), and we don't dance (well). Still not convinced we're the elect, the chosen few? Well then, um, we're heterosexual. Dazzled yet?Part 2 ponders inner demons and closet cases, of which there are many among the most vociferous gay-bashers among the Christian right. Part 3 looks at the 'innocent backlash' -- the notion that
this perception is inaccurate -- that nine out of 10 young non-Christians and four out of five young churchgoers have somehow gotten the wrong idea. The contempt American Christianity displays toward homosexuals, these proponents say, is just the right amount. Christians, this theory holds, do not regard homosexuals as particularly or especially deserving of condemnation, it's just that homosexual activists have become so vocal in promoting their radical homosexual agenda that -- purely in response -- Christians have been forced to become equally vocal in reply.My favorite is the exegetical panic defense (what a great phrase), discussed in Part 4:
the dissonance that comes from questioning one's own conscience and experience -- is what underlies what I'm calling here the Exegetical Panic Defense. This is what happens when an evangelical who has been taught to believe in the Big Gay Evil finally gets to know a flesh-and-blood homosexual human being and starts to think that, actually, this person doesn't really seem like they are evil or a threat or righteously miserable due to their sordid "alternative lifestyle."Part 5 looks at the possibility that it's about plain old political power.
For some other Christian, someone relying on something like the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, this can be an instructive experience. Those kinds of Christians are allowed, and even required, to learn from their experience, from their reason and conscience.*** For such people, this new friend (or old friend coming out with new information) will serve as a tonic against the idea that Christians ought to be characterized by an "excessive contempt" for homosexuals.
But for an evangelical relying on the Unilateral, weighing your own experience against the purportedly crystal clear teachings of scripture is verboten. Something's gotta give and that something, in this case, is their own experience, conscience and instincts. That's when the panic-inducing cognitive dissonance kicks in and fight-or-flight takes over. And then anything could happen.
The demagogues of the religious right pursue power -- political and economic power -- by preying on fears and prejudices. Their power depends upon the perception of barbarians at the gate, on the perception that some menacing Other is on the verge of destroying all that their followers hold dear. This Other, the demagogue's scapegoat who must die for our salvation, can't be something that presents a genuine danger, because that would expose the demagogue's impotence to protect his followers from real threats.Part 6 revisits the backlash theory.
Homosexuals make an ideal scapegoat for the demagogues manipulating and fleecing their evangelical flock. The safe-target dynamic ensures that your scapegoat isn't someone your sheep are likely to know or empathize with, and the innocent-backlash claim provides a fig leaf that allows the demagogues to claim that the nastiness they're promoting is justifiable.
The only real difficulty with demonizing homosexuals is that they're not actually demons. Homosexuals don't actually present any kind of threat at all to American evangelicals. The demagogues overcome this obstacle by doing what demagogues are best at: lying. Homosexuals, they claim, are a threat to Marriage, and to The Family, and to the Word of God. Reality doesn't support such claims, so they embellish reality. They claim that same-sex marriage would destroy the institution of marriage because, um, mumblemumblemumble pound pulpit, it just would!
Really, the whole thing is worth a close read. I've only pulled a few snippets.
<=> | in: Religion & Politics
November 4, 2007
Remembering Often Makes me Cringe
Xeney just put up a post noting, among other things, that she's been online-journalling for 10 years. She writes:I do read my own archives, not often, but at times when I need to. And sometimes they make me cringe, but more often they make me nostalgic, like looking at bad photographs from ten years ago: at the time you want to burn those photos because you look fat or you have bad hair or you can't believe you ever wore that plaid thing, but years down the road you just marvel at how young you were, at how much you still had to learn. Years later you cut yourself some slack and wish you'd gone a little easier on that girl.I don't think there's ever been a time in my life when I didn't look back 5 years and just cringe at myself. It's why I tend not to read my archives, actually, or look at old pictures, or reflect much at all, because I just end up embarrassed with myself. (Of course, I'm the type who can still remember things that happened in 5th grade and be embarrassed about them.) Things I wish I'd done differently, not done, or thought to do. It's almost never about what clothes I wore or car I drove or anything like that - it's usually some interaction or way of doing things that I just wish I'd been smarter, smoother, or more mature about. Probably the people who were the other parts of those interactions don't remember at all (I can hope, anyway), but if I think back too much, I start remembering all sorts of crap I wish I'd done differently or better. TheGuy would say that I'm altogether too hard on myself and that's probably true on a level. It's a hard, hard habit to break, though.
<=> | in: General Musings / Journaling / Weblogs & Citizen Writing
1 Comments --
I sometimes read the archives just to see how much better of a writer I've become. That was one of the fun things about doing a book review email newsletter for five years: looking back over those reviews, while some of it was cringeworthy, it was also fascinating to see the development of my style and thinking, not to mention the switch in the kinds of books I was reading.
Posted by: Glen on November 6, 2007
November 3, 2007
The Problem with "Illegal"
Dave over at Orcinus talks about the problem with the term "illegal" when referring to people who've immigrated to this country without proper documentation. He quotes Lawrence Downes from the NYT:Since the word modifies not the crime but the whole person, it goes too far. It spreads, like a stain that cannot wash out. It leaves its target diminished as a human, a lifetime member of a presumptive criminal class. People are often surprised to learn that illegal immigrants have rights. Really? Constitutional rights? But aren’t they illegal? Of course they have rights: they have the presumption of innocence and the civil liberties that the Constitution wisely bestows on all people, not just citizens.and then adds:
The biggest problem with insisting on labeling other people as "illegals" is that it utterly begs the question -- which, with 12 million people now fitting the description, becomes acute -- just how appropriate and workable are the laws that make them so in the first place.
<=> | in: Civil Rights & Feminism / Federal Politics
November 2, 2007
Books on Fire
The Economist had a short but compelling review of "Books on Fire", in translation from the French -- it's a look at centuries of deliberate or careless destruction of books. I thought this paragraph sums up so well a dangerous, authoritarian, and theocratically-minded subset of American society that we've become all too familiar with in recent years:Books educate people and educated people ask awkward questions of those who govern them. The educated, in short, are considered ungovernable. Better to keep people ignorant of the past and to concentrate their minds upon the fanciful utopia that lies ahead.The Economist, in its usual wry way, had an amusing title for this review: Libraries: Nasty, Dangerous Things.
<=> | in: Books / Civil Rights & Feminism
November 1, 2007
Infield Grass
I've been meaning to write up a little post/summary of the 2007 Nationals baseball season, but dunno when I'll get around to it. Work is proceeding apace on the new stadium. Today they started putting the infield grass sod down. The (near-)live stadium-cam is now aimed at the infield as construction continues.Best way to keep tabs on Nationals news is to follow Svrluga's blog at the Post and Screech's Best Friend's citizen reporting at the Nats 320 blog. I doubt we'll actually go to many games at the new stadium -- seems like it's going to be a hassle to get there, and too expensive anyway, but I'm sure we'll get there at least a couple of times.
<=> | in: Entertainment
1 Comments --
I misread the title on this as "infidel grass".
Posted by: Sidra Vitale on November 2, 2007
Oy, you haven't watched The Wire yet?! You're really missing some awesome stuff! We've got everything but the most recent release if you'd rather borrow from us instead of NetFlix...
Posted by: genehack on November 12, 2007