It didn’t take very long for someone to come up with a name for new legislation in the wake of Casey Anthony’s acquittal on murder charges: Caylee’s Law, which would make it a felony for a parent to fail to report a child missing (as if this happens all the time). It’s not the law I have the biggest problem with – it’s the fact that they have to name these things after adorable-child crime victims to get our attention. We have Megan’s Law, Jessica’s Law – even Buster’s Law (that’s animal cruelty legislation named after a dog). But in my case, tugging at my heartstrings doesn’t work – it actually has the opposite effect. I’m perfectly happy with AB 2531 or something dry like that, if it’s a good law. Leave my heartstrings alone! But I guess if a name is needed to raise awareness, I should shut up.
You may have heard my theory before, but just to repeat: if Disney had named the insect character Jiminy Cockroach instead of Jiminy Cricket, guess which bugs we’d be kind to and which we’d be stepping on. Most of us really are suckers.
Fortunately, it doesn’t always work. Here where I live, there was a huge eucalyptus tree whose roots were creating a “speed bump” in the street in front of a branch library, nearly causing numerous traffic accidents. The city announced this tree would have to be removed because of the road hazard. So what did the tree huggers do? You guessed it – they gave it a name, and soon there was a movement to Save Tom the Tree. But the city was a little more concerned with saving drivers than Tom. The tree was cut down – and the road resurfaced. A small sapling was planted on the sidewalk in the spot that Tom once occupied, and will eventually grow. Interesting, though, that I don’t hear anybody calling it Tom, Jr. Actually, I do call it that, every time we pass it.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Friday, June 24, 2011
Gross-out Therapy
So now the FDA is going to require unpleasant graphics or photos to cover the top half of cigarette packs sold in the U.S. Some of them are really disgusting. Now, I don’t smoke (I stopped when I was 23), but there’s something wrong with these pictures.
I feel sorry for you if you do smoke. Beside the health issues, it’s just plain difficult. The number of places where you’re allowed to do so is diminishing rapidly. The people pass initiatives to load punitive taxes on cigarettes. Smoking used to make you look sophisticated; those days are over.
But I see a really slippery slope here. If the government is going to start requiring those who put out potentially bad products to post ugly pictures on their packaging, where is that heading? Instead of the fancy label on that $30 bottle of wine you just bought, will there someday have to be a photo of a cirrhosis-scarred liver on the bottle? Or how about pictures of fat kids on Coke cans? Or someone throwing up after eating hamburger meat with E. coli?
Attempts to force physicians to show pictures of aborted fetuses to women opting to get that procedure have been blocked consistently. So why are these cigarette-pack graphics any better?
Gross-out therapy has been tried before. I heard a neurologist, who’s an expert on addiction, interviewed on NPR yesterday. He said that in the short term, such measures do actually work, causing people to want to give up bad habits and discouraging newbies from starting or continuing with them. But after a while, the effect wears off – we humans can adapt to almost anything -- and we’re left with just that extra little bit of required ugliness in our environment, accomplishing very little.
It’s an accepted fact that smoking kills people. Even alcohol, in moderation, is purported to have some health benefits. But tobacco has virtually nothing to recommend it, except that the plants help repel certain insect pests in gardens. So if it’s so awful, why doesn’t government stop fooling around with these behavior-altering schemes and simply ban tobacco outright, maybe after a five-year warning?
Cold turkey is really the only thing that works. And it’s a lot cheaper.
I feel sorry for you if you do smoke. Beside the health issues, it’s just plain difficult. The number of places where you’re allowed to do so is diminishing rapidly. The people pass initiatives to load punitive taxes on cigarettes. Smoking used to make you look sophisticated; those days are over.
But I see a really slippery slope here. If the government is going to start requiring those who put out potentially bad products to post ugly pictures on their packaging, where is that heading? Instead of the fancy label on that $30 bottle of wine you just bought, will there someday have to be a photo of a cirrhosis-scarred liver on the bottle? Or how about pictures of fat kids on Coke cans? Or someone throwing up after eating hamburger meat with E. coli?
Attempts to force physicians to show pictures of aborted fetuses to women opting to get that procedure have been blocked consistently. So why are these cigarette-pack graphics any better?
Gross-out therapy has been tried before. I heard a neurologist, who’s an expert on addiction, interviewed on NPR yesterday. He said that in the short term, such measures do actually work, causing people to want to give up bad habits and discouraging newbies from starting or continuing with them. But after a while, the effect wears off – we humans can adapt to almost anything -- and we’re left with just that extra little bit of required ugliness in our environment, accomplishing very little.
It’s an accepted fact that smoking kills people. Even alcohol, in moderation, is purported to have some health benefits. But tobacco has virtually nothing to recommend it, except that the plants help repel certain insect pests in gardens. So if it’s so awful, why doesn’t government stop fooling around with these behavior-altering schemes and simply ban tobacco outright, maybe after a five-year warning?
Cold turkey is really the only thing that works. And it’s a lot cheaper.
Friday, June 17, 2011
The Madding Crowd
The riot in Vancouver following the Canucks loss to the Boston Bruins in the Stanley Cup hockey contest has turned into a sort of scientific phenomenon that social theorists are trying to figure out. For starters, this was Canada – the last place you’d expect something like that to happen.
The cops and the media struggled with whether this should be called a “riot” or not. Well, “riot” these days has a connotation of humor or enjoyment, and a lot of the participants in Vancouver who were looting stores and burning cars were actually enjoying themselves – which is really sad. It had nothing at all to do with losing the Stanley Cup. So “riot” works fine for me.
The theorists divided the crowd into three main layers. The first were the actual troublemakers; the second stood by cheering them on, and the third were spectators. Layers two and three didn’t have the cojones to actually cause trouble themselves, but they sure enjoyed watching it – and having their own pictures taken in front of scenes of mayhem on their smart phones.
There were probably fourth and fifth layers – the fourth being people who wanted to get out of the crowd and were trapped, and the fifth being the few people who tried to prevent those in the first layer from doing the damage. Some were beaten up for trying.
The Vancouver cops were adhering to a plan, apparently designed to control the crowd without confronting it -- which may be supported by police science, but generally not acceptable to the public, who would have preferred heavy tear gas and clubs swinging. Some say the city should have never invited people to go downtown to watch the hockey game on big screens. There simply weren’t enough cops, it appears, to handle those crowds. They say the city may have been lulled into a false sense of security by the success of the Olympics, crowd-wise, but then, there were 8,000 police on duty. The only good news was that there was no shooting among the crowd – they don’t do handguns in Canada.
Vancouver just happened to have a convention of travel bloggers in town during Wednesday night’s activities – whoops!
It’s my belief that social media and smart-phone technology have become the steroids fueling these events. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against these things at all. But if Facebook and Twitter can cause an Arab spring, what role did they play in Vancouver? With these modern marvels, the human race clearly has a tiger by the tail, and had better figure it out fast.
The cops and the media struggled with whether this should be called a “riot” or not. Well, “riot” these days has a connotation of humor or enjoyment, and a lot of the participants in Vancouver who were looting stores and burning cars were actually enjoying themselves – which is really sad. It had nothing at all to do with losing the Stanley Cup. So “riot” works fine for me.
The theorists divided the crowd into three main layers. The first were the actual troublemakers; the second stood by cheering them on, and the third were spectators. Layers two and three didn’t have the cojones to actually cause trouble themselves, but they sure enjoyed watching it – and having their own pictures taken in front of scenes of mayhem on their smart phones.
There were probably fourth and fifth layers – the fourth being people who wanted to get out of the crowd and were trapped, and the fifth being the few people who tried to prevent those in the first layer from doing the damage. Some were beaten up for trying.
The Vancouver cops were adhering to a plan, apparently designed to control the crowd without confronting it -- which may be supported by police science, but generally not acceptable to the public, who would have preferred heavy tear gas and clubs swinging. Some say the city should have never invited people to go downtown to watch the hockey game on big screens. There simply weren’t enough cops, it appears, to handle those crowds. They say the city may have been lulled into a false sense of security by the success of the Olympics, crowd-wise, but then, there were 8,000 police on duty. The only good news was that there was no shooting among the crowd – they don’t do handguns in Canada.
Vancouver just happened to have a convention of travel bloggers in town during Wednesday night’s activities – whoops!
It’s my belief that social media and smart-phone technology have become the steroids fueling these events. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against these things at all. But if Facebook and Twitter can cause an Arab spring, what role did they play in Vancouver? With these modern marvels, the human race clearly has a tiger by the tail, and had better figure it out fast.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Patterns
I’d like to join in expressing shock and shaking my head at the revelations about New York Congressman Anthony Wiener’s sexual tweets, but frankly, I’m exhausted. Let’s see, there’s our ex-governor, there’s John Edwards, Tiger, the IMF guy – I’ll let you finish the list. The sad part of these stories, of course, is the damage, not just to the villain du jour, his family and to potential victims, but to our faith in those presumed to be leaders and role-models among us – how many more hits can that faith take?
More often than not, the volcano of publicity erupts following an event that is simply a pattern, perhaps a longstanding one, coming to the surface – and we all have patterns. It doesn’t have to be sexual. It could be about drinking, eating, shopping, gambling or playing videogames. It starts out as a predilection, then becomes a pattern. If we lose control of the pattern and it gets destructive, we call it addiction. What follows are unbelievable lapses of judgment, lies, and the betrayal of those we love. It’s just very easy to say, “How could he…?”(or she) when that isn’t one of our own patterns. There are as many strokes as there are folks.
Congressman Weiner’s resignation is the right course, simply because no one will take him seriously again for a very, very long time. But I wonder: if his problem had been alcoholism, a potentially more debilitating and destructive addiction, would we have been more forgiving?
Before we play the “ain’t it awful” game, maybe we should reflect on our own performance at dealing with patterns. For starters, how about our insatiable appetite for every last sordid detail of these stories, served to us by cable TV reporters breathlessly expressing shock and amazement. They should be sending thank-you notes to these perpetrators, maybe with an expensive bottle of wine. They know very well how much we out here in the audience love train wrecks.
More often than not, the volcano of publicity erupts following an event that is simply a pattern, perhaps a longstanding one, coming to the surface – and we all have patterns. It doesn’t have to be sexual. It could be about drinking, eating, shopping, gambling or playing videogames. It starts out as a predilection, then becomes a pattern. If we lose control of the pattern and it gets destructive, we call it addiction. What follows are unbelievable lapses of judgment, lies, and the betrayal of those we love. It’s just very easy to say, “How could he…?”(or she) when that isn’t one of our own patterns. There are as many strokes as there are folks.
Congressman Weiner’s resignation is the right course, simply because no one will take him seriously again for a very, very long time. But I wonder: if his problem had been alcoholism, a potentially more debilitating and destructive addiction, would we have been more forgiving?
Before we play the “ain’t it awful” game, maybe we should reflect on our own performance at dealing with patterns. For starters, how about our insatiable appetite for every last sordid detail of these stories, served to us by cable TV reporters breathlessly expressing shock and amazement. They should be sending thank-you notes to these perpetrators, maybe with an expensive bottle of wine. They know very well how much we out here in the audience love train wrecks.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Doomsday is No Joke
So, you’re thinking, “Oh no, now you’ve really gone off the deep end!” That’s a plunge I probably took long ago, but no, I don’t believe today is Doomsday.
The prediction of Harold Camping, the 89-year-old president of Family Radio, has been a gift from heaven for comedians and talk-show hosts. I’ve enjoyed making jokes about this myself. But some aren’t laughing. There are people all over the world who believe this – or have been persuaded by the billboards – and have been prompted to quit jobs, sell property and otherwise trash their lives. It especially upsets me to hear NPR actually providing coverage of this. But they’re kind of stuck: If millions of people are talking about this, don’t the media have to cover it? On the other hand, would fewer people be talking about it if the media didn’t give it the time of day? But the damage has been done. While you’re driving to work, it’s hard to ignore a billboard that screams GAME OVER.
The prophet in this case is just the latest in a series that have popped up periodically for centuries. I’m sure he believes what he says – otherwise, he wouldn’t have spent millions on this billboard campaign. But it’s especially sad when you think about the good that these funds amassed by a religious man could have done in the world.
One spiritual writer has told us that Judgment Day really comes “hourly and continually.” That means we’re being called to account moment by moment for what our own lives have meant so far. If you’re asking me what I believe, it’s that we were put here to do more than just take up space.
I’m writing this ahead of the End, which means in a few hours I may have to eat my words. Fine. But in case I miss it, if you see seven guys in the sky dressed in white with wings and blowing trumpets, I’d appreciate it if you’d give me a heads-up. Thanks!
The prediction of Harold Camping, the 89-year-old president of Family Radio, has been a gift from heaven for comedians and talk-show hosts. I’ve enjoyed making jokes about this myself. But some aren’t laughing. There are people all over the world who believe this – or have been persuaded by the billboards – and have been prompted to quit jobs, sell property and otherwise trash their lives. It especially upsets me to hear NPR actually providing coverage of this. But they’re kind of stuck: If millions of people are talking about this, don’t the media have to cover it? On the other hand, would fewer people be talking about it if the media didn’t give it the time of day? But the damage has been done. While you’re driving to work, it’s hard to ignore a billboard that screams GAME OVER.
The prophet in this case is just the latest in a series that have popped up periodically for centuries. I’m sure he believes what he says – otherwise, he wouldn’t have spent millions on this billboard campaign. But it’s especially sad when you think about the good that these funds amassed by a religious man could have done in the world.
One spiritual writer has told us that Judgment Day really comes “hourly and continually.” That means we’re being called to account moment by moment for what our own lives have meant so far. If you’re asking me what I believe, it’s that we were put here to do more than just take up space.
I’m writing this ahead of the End, which means in a few hours I may have to eat my words. Fine. But in case I miss it, if you see seven guys in the sky dressed in white with wings and blowing trumpets, I’d appreciate it if you’d give me a heads-up. Thanks!
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Let's Make a Deal
Let's tell the Pakistanis the following, kinda like Tony Soprano might put it: "Look, stop breaking our … about not telling you about invading your country to kill Osama bin Laden., and we won't break yours about not telling us he was there -- deal?"
There is no percentage in antagonizing Pakistan. I wish Leon Panetta hadn't told the world we didn't trust them. It would have been better to say, "Well, we decided to tell as few people as possible about this operation to ensure its success," and leave it at that. Let's stop trying to explain this to the world! We invaded a sovereign country to get a real bad guy. We got him. For whatever reason, the Navy Seal shot him to death. End of story. When the full account finally comes out about how we did this, we're not going to have perfectly clean hands. Let's just accept that, and let Pakistan save a little face. Whether we like it or not, we're better off not making them our enemies.
Should we release pictures of the dead bin Laden? NO. We have good proof that he's dead -- we don't need to prove it to anyone. This is not a Mafia hit, and we don't have to put the grisly photos in the Daily News to prove it. Rubbing noses in it accomplishes nothing. That said, don't be surprised if someone releases a new video of bin Laden, shot before his death, just to energize the believers with the idea that he might be still around.
If those who don't believe Barack Obama was born in this country are "birthers", does that mean those who don't believe Osama bin Laden is dead are "deathers"? Just wondering.
There is no percentage in antagonizing Pakistan. I wish Leon Panetta hadn't told the world we didn't trust them. It would have been better to say, "Well, we decided to tell as few people as possible about this operation to ensure its success," and leave it at that. Let's stop trying to explain this to the world! We invaded a sovereign country to get a real bad guy. We got him. For whatever reason, the Navy Seal shot him to death. End of story. When the full account finally comes out about how we did this, we're not going to have perfectly clean hands. Let's just accept that, and let Pakistan save a little face. Whether we like it or not, we're better off not making them our enemies.
Should we release pictures of the dead bin Laden? NO. We have good proof that he's dead -- we don't need to prove it to anyone. This is not a Mafia hit, and we don't have to put the grisly photos in the Daily News to prove it. Rubbing noses in it accomplishes nothing. That said, don't be surprised if someone releases a new video of bin Laden, shot before his death, just to energize the believers with the idea that he might be still around.
If those who don't believe Barack Obama was born in this country are "birthers", does that mean those who don't believe Osama bin Laden is dead are "deathers"? Just wondering.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Don't Party Too Hearty
At our house, we opened some champagne last night on hearing of the slaying of Osama bin Laden -- but our group didn't finish the bottle.
Revenge is indeed sweet, and as I told friends last night, it's a language that our enemies understand. But it works both ways, and the cycle can go on forever -- perhaps that's why the Lord said we should leave it up to him. Clearly, we are in more danger today than we were on Saturday, as the terrorists are likely already plotting about how to get us back. The killing of bin Laden, as has been pointed out, occurred eight years to the day after President Bush stood on the deck of the aircraft carrier proclaiming "mission accomplished" in Iraq.
It's also clear that President Obama had a few more important things on his mind than dealing with Chief Birther Donald Trump, who should be feeling pretty silly at the moment. Will this translate into an easy victory for Obama next year? Don't count on it. I've often said that President Carter would easily have been reelected if the Iran hostage rescue mission had succeeded -- but that was in April 1980 -- much closer to Election Day. If we have a national disease, it's a short attention span, and there will be plenty to bash Obama with between now and November '12. Suppose, just for starters, that there's a major terrorist revenge attack in this country that we're unable to stop?
It's being reported that some of the intelligence to back up the raid on bin Laden's compound came from detainees at Guantanamo Bay. I haven't heard how that information was obtained -- hopefully, Jack Bauer wasn't involved. We don't need Rumsfeld & Co. shouting, "Ya see?"
But don't get me wrong -- I'm not suggesting in the least that this moment in history isn't worthy of celebration. When I think of how our TV screens have often been filled with crowds in certain other countries jumping up and down when bad things happened to us, I hope their screens are filled with our flag-waving crowds in Washington and New York, if their governments let them see it.
Right now, though, sleeping with one eye open and keeping a finger on the trigger seems like a really good idea.
Revenge is indeed sweet, and as I told friends last night, it's a language that our enemies understand. But it works both ways, and the cycle can go on forever -- perhaps that's why the Lord said we should leave it up to him. Clearly, we are in more danger today than we were on Saturday, as the terrorists are likely already plotting about how to get us back. The killing of bin Laden, as has been pointed out, occurred eight years to the day after President Bush stood on the deck of the aircraft carrier proclaiming "mission accomplished" in Iraq.
It's also clear that President Obama had a few more important things on his mind than dealing with Chief Birther Donald Trump, who should be feeling pretty silly at the moment. Will this translate into an easy victory for Obama next year? Don't count on it. I've often said that President Carter would easily have been reelected if the Iran hostage rescue mission had succeeded -- but that was in April 1980 -- much closer to Election Day. If we have a national disease, it's a short attention span, and there will be plenty to bash Obama with between now and November '12. Suppose, just for starters, that there's a major terrorist revenge attack in this country that we're unable to stop?
It's being reported that some of the intelligence to back up the raid on bin Laden's compound came from detainees at Guantanamo Bay. I haven't heard how that information was obtained -- hopefully, Jack Bauer wasn't involved. We don't need Rumsfeld & Co. shouting, "Ya see?"
But don't get me wrong -- I'm not suggesting in the least that this moment in history isn't worthy of celebration. When I think of how our TV screens have often been filled with crowds in certain other countries jumping up and down when bad things happened to us, I hope their screens are filled with our flag-waving crowds in Washington and New York, if their governments let them see it.
Right now, though, sleeping with one eye open and keeping a finger on the trigger seems like a really good idea.
Friday, April 29, 2011
My 180 on the Wedding, Almost
I hereby announce that I am no longer a Royal Wedding disser. I was one of the estimated 2 billion who watched it, though Circadian rhythm won out, dictating that I pull the plug around 3:30 a.m. But it was really an impressive event -- nobody does the royal thing better than the Brits. And I'm sure we're all grateful for the distraction it provided from other things going on in the world -- it was a real "mental health day" for the soul.
But tell me it wasn't a chick thing. Did the world wait breathlessly to see what Prince William would be wearing? Heck, it wasn't even a secret, right? For those of you men who watched the wedding, how many of you were actually offended by some of the hats worn by audience members? And did you stay up the extra two hours to watch the royal kiss on the balcony? Total speculation on my part, but I think the answer to the last question, in a majority of cases, is no.
All I know is, the world would be a safer place if someone would find out those responsible for keeping pictures of wedding dresses from being leaked (almost the same level of secrecy for Chelsea Clinton, you'll recall) and put them in charge of the CIA and MI6.
OK, so some of the hats were a little over the top, but those women can save them to wear to the Kentucky Derby, which is coming up soon -- more bang for the buck, or the pound, in this case.
Rule Britannia! Britannia doesn't rule much anymore, but at least it "kicked some" today.
But tell me it wasn't a chick thing. Did the world wait breathlessly to see what Prince William would be wearing? Heck, it wasn't even a secret, right? For those of you men who watched the wedding, how many of you were actually offended by some of the hats worn by audience members? And did you stay up the extra two hours to watch the royal kiss on the balcony? Total speculation on my part, but I think the answer to the last question, in a majority of cases, is no.
All I know is, the world would be a safer place if someone would find out those responsible for keeping pictures of wedding dresses from being leaked (almost the same level of secrecy for Chelsea Clinton, you'll recall) and put them in charge of the CIA and MI6.
OK, so some of the hats were a little over the top, but those women can save them to wear to the Kentucky Derby, which is coming up soon -- more bang for the buck, or the pound, in this case.
Rule Britannia! Britannia doesn't rule much anymore, but at least it "kicked some" today.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Trump Isn't Funny
A few years ago, there was a popular book with a title something like "1,001 Uses for Duct Tape." The 1,002nd could easily be muzzling Donald Trump.
Perhaps some of us have enjoyed laughing at Trump's buffoonery over the past few weeks. At least buffoons are sort of like clowns -- they're funny. Trump just isn't.
We've all contributed to this unfortunate phenomenon in some way. I fault prominent Republicans for failing to denounce Trump's behavior in the strongest possible terms. I fault the media for sticking a microphone in front of this guy. I even fault the President for not releasing his "long form" birth certificate until this week. Now perhaps Republicans enjoyed seeing Trump cause Obama so much grief. Some have argued that Obama himself enjoyed dragging this out because it kept the President from having to deal with criticism over more substantive issues, while Trump blackened the GOP's eye.
But we're to blame, too. We consumed the coverage of this unfortunate affair. When you consider what's going on in the Middle East right now, especially Syria, how did this Trump business make it to the top of the news charts?
If I were a sponsor of Trump's TV show, I'd seriously reconsider my association with him. How he can have any credibility as the host of the show from this point forward is beyond me, but then again, it's not a sphere where credibility is required.
The best treatment for Mr. Trump right now is obscurity. It would be great if we could all make sure he gets it.
Perhaps some of us have enjoyed laughing at Trump's buffoonery over the past few weeks. At least buffoons are sort of like clowns -- they're funny. Trump just isn't.
We've all contributed to this unfortunate phenomenon in some way. I fault prominent Republicans for failing to denounce Trump's behavior in the strongest possible terms. I fault the media for sticking a microphone in front of this guy. I even fault the President for not releasing his "long form" birth certificate until this week. Now perhaps Republicans enjoyed seeing Trump cause Obama so much grief. Some have argued that Obama himself enjoyed dragging this out because it kept the President from having to deal with criticism over more substantive issues, while Trump blackened the GOP's eye.
But we're to blame, too. We consumed the coverage of this unfortunate affair. When you consider what's going on in the Middle East right now, especially Syria, how did this Trump business make it to the top of the news charts?
If I were a sponsor of Trump's TV show, I'd seriously reconsider my association with him. How he can have any credibility as the host of the show from this point forward is beyond me, but then again, it's not a sphere where credibility is required.
The best treatment for Mr. Trump right now is obscurity. It would be great if we could all make sure he gets it.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
It's a Chick Thing
I just don't care a jot about the Royal Wedding, convinced that it's a chick thing. Just to be sure, I asked Facebook friends about it. Most of those responding, as you might expect, were women -- some of whom said they didn't care about the Royal Wedding either. But for those who do care, there's no holding back. One friend plans to enjoy cupcakes and cucumber sandwiches early Friday morning while watching the coverage. Others are planning parties. Is it Super Bowl revenge? As for my attitude, one woman asked if I were dead inside. I think she was only half joking.
So what is it about this fascination with the British royal family? I suspect it's probably jealousy -- many Americans wish we had one. You can talk about the Kennedys and Camelot all you want, for instance, but it's just not the same thing. Our political system, on average over time, has probably produced better leaders, but none of them was a king. "Hail to the Chief" just doesn't quite cut it.
But back to the question at hand: is my attitude a guy thing, and does this event seem more important to women? Sorry for the generalization, but of course it does. It's simple, really. If the "royal" part doesn't get 'em, the "wedding" part does. Weddings, at least traditionally, are regal events for women. The bride's gown is typically many, many times more expensive than the groom's clothes, and if there's a long train, well someone has to carry that. It may be the only time in life when the commoners among women get to feel like royalty. On their wedding day, as happy as they may be, men just aren't breathing quite the same air.
Anyway, I told my friends they'd have to watch the royal wedding live without me. Those who were worried that I might miss a life-changing event reminded me I could DVR it, but I'm thinking I’ll just settle for the highlight reel.
So what is it about this fascination with the British royal family? I suspect it's probably jealousy -- many Americans wish we had one. You can talk about the Kennedys and Camelot all you want, for instance, but it's just not the same thing. Our political system, on average over time, has probably produced better leaders, but none of them was a king. "Hail to the Chief" just doesn't quite cut it.
But back to the question at hand: is my attitude a guy thing, and does this event seem more important to women? Sorry for the generalization, but of course it does. It's simple, really. If the "royal" part doesn't get 'em, the "wedding" part does. Weddings, at least traditionally, are regal events for women. The bride's gown is typically many, many times more expensive than the groom's clothes, and if there's a long train, well someone has to carry that. It may be the only time in life when the commoners among women get to feel like royalty. On their wedding day, as happy as they may be, men just aren't breathing quite the same air.
Anyway, I told my friends they'd have to watch the royal wedding live without me. Those who were worried that I might miss a life-changing event reminded me I could DVR it, but I'm thinking I’ll just settle for the highlight reel.
Monday, March 14, 2011
It's Only Fitting
I hope we do all we can to help Japan deal with its nuclear power plant emergency -- especially seeing as we caused them so much trouble with radiation in the last century.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Obama Come Lately?
The Obama administration is taking no small amount of heat for being slow to react to the Libya crisis. At least it's reacting now, and it's likely Mr. Wacko over there in Tripoli will be gone fairly soon by one means or other.
The President chose to wait until there was some kind of international consensus about what to do. Many of us would have preferred that we just send in the Marines and kick a little butt -- I felt that way, too. But if you look back in history not so very far, you can see where doing it the other way got us. You do remember Bush's "coalition of the willing" before we went to Iraq, right?
Jumping in late is kind of how we do things. How many people did Hitler and the Japanese kill in their respective marches of occupation before we got involved in World War II? It feels good, in a perverse sort of way, to have a clear villain like Gaddafi to hate -- but there are quite a few more around the world who mistreat whole populations, but manage to do it very effectively under the radar.
What's going to be very interesting is what happens after Gaddafi is removed and the finger-pointing begins. After World War II, liberated populations in Europe shaved the heads of collaborators in public -- many of them women who had slept with the enemy. There are a lot of dirty hands this time around. Just for starters, Beyonce, Mariah Carey, Usher and others have 'splainin' to do after reportedly taking big bucks to perform at private Gaddafi parties. But who rehabilitated Gaddafi in the first place and welcomed him back into the civilized world? Libya served on the U.N. Human Rights Council, for heaven's sake. Gaddafi ordered an airliner shot down and later, he wasn't such a bad guy after all? And who's been supplying his regime with weapons? The West in general would do best to stay out of the collaborator hunt. One concern for the U.S. going forward is what side the newly emerging governments in the Middle East are going to perceive we were on.
Yes, we were late getting into the game, but at least we're in it now. You can still turn things around, even after the two-minute warning.
The President chose to wait until there was some kind of international consensus about what to do. Many of us would have preferred that we just send in the Marines and kick a little butt -- I felt that way, too. But if you look back in history not so very far, you can see where doing it the other way got us. You do remember Bush's "coalition of the willing" before we went to Iraq, right?
Jumping in late is kind of how we do things. How many people did Hitler and the Japanese kill in their respective marches of occupation before we got involved in World War II? It feels good, in a perverse sort of way, to have a clear villain like Gaddafi to hate -- but there are quite a few more around the world who mistreat whole populations, but manage to do it very effectively under the radar.
What's going to be very interesting is what happens after Gaddafi is removed and the finger-pointing begins. After World War II, liberated populations in Europe shaved the heads of collaborators in public -- many of them women who had slept with the enemy. There are a lot of dirty hands this time around. Just for starters, Beyonce, Mariah Carey, Usher and others have 'splainin' to do after reportedly taking big bucks to perform at private Gaddafi parties. But who rehabilitated Gaddafi in the first place and welcomed him back into the civilized world? Libya served on the U.N. Human Rights Council, for heaven's sake. Gaddafi ordered an airliner shot down and later, he wasn't such a bad guy after all? And who's been supplying his regime with weapons? The West in general would do best to stay out of the collaborator hunt. One concern for the U.S. going forward is what side the newly emerging governments in the Middle East are going to perceive we were on.
Yes, we were late getting into the game, but at least we're in it now. You can still turn things around, even after the two-minute warning.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Insanity's Poster Boy
Mr. Gaddafi has just delivered a speech lasting more than an hour. Yesterday I hated him; today, it's more about sadness. If you need a definition of insanity, he's it. It's hard to feel hate and pity simultaneously. Libya is waking up from a nightmare -- and the first step in the healing process is to become aware that in the end, scary as it is, it's just a nightmare.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Presidential Love
I watched with interest some of the ceremonies related to what would have been Ronald Reagan's 100th birthday. Why do we love this man so much?
When I say "we," I mean this in a very general sense, because some people hated the Reagan area for various reasons. Mr. Reagan certainly wasn't perfect. Contrary to popular belief, he was not singlehandedly responsible for the fall of Communism in Europe. There was Iran-Contra, and Star Wars. But a lot of people loved him, and if you're a Republican running for office, at some point it's almost required that you invoke him. It may not get you elected, but it certainly can't do you harm.
I can't explain it; I'm not that diligent a student of history and don't have the credentials to debate this issue here, but it must be that we perceive that he made us feel good about ourselves as Americans.
I can think of a lot of Presidents who are respected for accomplishing important, even historic things during their terms, or after their terms. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter are both appreciated for what they do. LBJ turned landmark legislation into law. I don't remember what Eisenhower did, but he's associated with the good old days and a time of stability. Harry Truman was praised for his no-nonsense style. JFK faced down the Russians during the Cuban missile crisis, and said, "Ask not…" But we didn't love any of these people the way we loved Reagan.
The last President people felt this for was FDR. And before that, it was Teddy. Americans did not feel this for Woodrow Wilson or Herbert Hoover. Or Grover Cleveland. Or William Howard Taft. No -- you have to go back to Abraham Lincoln for genuine (though not universal) love. It seems we only get one of these every 30 to 50 years.
Clara Bow was the "It" girl back in the 20s. Someone tell me what actually makes an "It" President -- and how long do you think we'll have to wait before the next one comes along?
When I say "we," I mean this in a very general sense, because some people hated the Reagan area for various reasons. Mr. Reagan certainly wasn't perfect. Contrary to popular belief, he was not singlehandedly responsible for the fall of Communism in Europe. There was Iran-Contra, and Star Wars. But a lot of people loved him, and if you're a Republican running for office, at some point it's almost required that you invoke him. It may not get you elected, but it certainly can't do you harm.
I can't explain it; I'm not that diligent a student of history and don't have the credentials to debate this issue here, but it must be that we perceive that he made us feel good about ourselves as Americans.
I can think of a lot of Presidents who are respected for accomplishing important, even historic things during their terms, or after their terms. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter are both appreciated for what they do. LBJ turned landmark legislation into law. I don't remember what Eisenhower did, but he's associated with the good old days and a time of stability. Harry Truman was praised for his no-nonsense style. JFK faced down the Russians during the Cuban missile crisis, and said, "Ask not…" But we didn't love any of these people the way we loved Reagan.
The last President people felt this for was FDR. And before that, it was Teddy. Americans did not feel this for Woodrow Wilson or Herbert Hoover. Or Grover Cleveland. Or William Howard Taft. No -- you have to go back to Abraham Lincoln for genuine (though not universal) love. It seems we only get one of these every 30 to 50 years.
Clara Bow was the "It" girl back in the 20s. Someone tell me what actually makes an "It" President -- and how long do you think we'll have to wait before the next one comes along?
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Safe Speech
The shooting in Arizona has been followed by the expected discussion about right-wing talk radio, Sarah Palin and her map with crosshairs on it and the like. I agree that we'd all benefit from an infusion of civility in our discourse, but what exactly is safe?
The threat of terrorism has caused us to implement all kinds of security measures which have slowed us down and lowered our quality of life. Commercial air travel is now a thoroughly unpleasant experience, but we put up with the inconveniences and embarrassments we wouldn't ordinarily tolerate because they make us safer -- or at least, makes us feel safer. But there always seems to be someone who figures out a way to get around our carefully crafted safeguards, and we have to tighten the cinch still further.
Maybe we can keep most bad guys off airplanes, but what are we going to do about speech? It's very easy to blame the cable channel whose politics you don't agree with or the Internet for rhetoric that seems to give permission to people to do outrageous things. But do we now have to water down what we say in the course of legitimate debate to avoid sending the lowest common denominator of nut case over the edge? Do we have to start tiptoeing around verbal eggshells?
The young man who shot up that Tucson parking lot clearly had a track record of mental instability, and he sent out plenty of signals ahead of time. Is there any way to intervene earlier and more forcefully with people like this, especially before they have access to guns? Talk about "Second Amendment solutions" -- maybe there should be a solution to the Second Amendment.
All I know is, I don't want to live in a world where I have to pass through a full-body scanner before going to see my congressional representative at a public meeting. If we start restricting access to gatherings like the one in Tucson, where is it going to end?
BTW, do you notice that after every one of these shootings, we go through the same struggle trying to make sense of it? Are we going around in big circles, or are we really learning something new, and acting on the information?
The threat of terrorism has caused us to implement all kinds of security measures which have slowed us down and lowered our quality of life. Commercial air travel is now a thoroughly unpleasant experience, but we put up with the inconveniences and embarrassments we wouldn't ordinarily tolerate because they make us safer -- or at least, makes us feel safer. But there always seems to be someone who figures out a way to get around our carefully crafted safeguards, and we have to tighten the cinch still further.
Maybe we can keep most bad guys off airplanes, but what are we going to do about speech? It's very easy to blame the cable channel whose politics you don't agree with or the Internet for rhetoric that seems to give permission to people to do outrageous things. But do we now have to water down what we say in the course of legitimate debate to avoid sending the lowest common denominator of nut case over the edge? Do we have to start tiptoeing around verbal eggshells?
The young man who shot up that Tucson parking lot clearly had a track record of mental instability, and he sent out plenty of signals ahead of time. Is there any way to intervene earlier and more forcefully with people like this, especially before they have access to guns? Talk about "Second Amendment solutions" -- maybe there should be a solution to the Second Amendment.
All I know is, I don't want to live in a world where I have to pass through a full-body scanner before going to see my congressional representative at a public meeting. If we start restricting access to gatherings like the one in Tucson, where is it going to end?
BTW, do you notice that after every one of these shootings, we go through the same struggle trying to make sense of it? Are we going around in big circles, or are we really learning something new, and acting on the information?
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Is It Safe to Appear Now, Mr. Gore?
Even though climate change, misnamed "global warming" by Al Gore, has taken a beating as a theory of late (though most respected scientists still accept it), those who think it's a hoax have a little 'splainin to do.
• The Blizzard of 2010, with first snow ever in some areas of the South.
• Three hard freezes in a row in Florida, $100 million plus in crop damage.
• L.A. gets half its annual rainfall in five days.
• Airports closed by snow in the U.K. and much of Western Europe.
• Flooding on Australia's "Sunshine" Coast forces evacuation of entire town.
• Torrential rain and flooding on the Indus River displaces millions in Pakistan.
• October storm in the Midwest has among the lowest non-tropical pressure recorded in the U.S., comparable to Category 3 hurricane.
So are we just doing a better job of reporting on things that have always happened, or is something new happening?
• The Blizzard of 2010, with first snow ever in some areas of the South.
• Three hard freezes in a row in Florida, $100 million plus in crop damage.
• L.A. gets half its annual rainfall in five days.
• Airports closed by snow in the U.K. and much of Western Europe.
• Flooding on Australia's "Sunshine" Coast forces evacuation of entire town.
• Torrential rain and flooding on the Indus River displaces millions in Pakistan.
• October storm in the Midwest has among the lowest non-tropical pressure recorded in the U.S., comparable to Category 3 hurricane.
So are we just doing a better job of reporting on things that have always happened, or is something new happening?
Friday, October 15, 2010
Fantasy or Nightmare?
I recently dreamed the following: President Obama was on TV in 2011, addressing the nation. He announced that he would not seek a second term for President. A short time later, Hillary Clinton announced that she was a candidate, again.
I have gradually come to the conclusion that Obama is toast as far as 2012 is concerned. If he really wants the Democrats to put their best foot forward in '12, it would require a "sacrifice fly." The Dems would very likely have the country's first major-party female nominee for President, with the potential of energizing women the same way Obama energized minorities, young people and Bush-haters in 2008. It just might be sufficient to overcome the handicap of being Democrat.
Health care will show itself historically to be Obama's Vietnam -- the same force that caused Lyndon Johnson to tell us, "Ah shall not seek, and ah will not accept..."
This is the Democratic Party's Hail Mary pass, if you don't mind mixing sports metaphors. If Obama doesn't throw it, 2012 will go down as the first year of the Republican dynasty of the 21st century.
Guess it's time to wake up now.
I have gradually come to the conclusion that Obama is toast as far as 2012 is concerned. If he really wants the Democrats to put their best foot forward in '12, it would require a "sacrifice fly." The Dems would very likely have the country's first major-party female nominee for President, with the potential of energizing women the same way Obama energized minorities, young people and Bush-haters in 2008. It just might be sufficient to overcome the handicap of being Democrat.
Health care will show itself historically to be Obama's Vietnam -- the same force that caused Lyndon Johnson to tell us, "Ah shall not seek, and ah will not accept..."
This is the Democratic Party's Hail Mary pass, if you don't mind mixing sports metaphors. If Obama doesn't throw it, 2012 will go down as the first year of the Republican dynasty of the 21st century.
Guess it's time to wake up now.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Ordinary People?
One of the qualities that attracted Republican primary voters in Delaware to Christine O'Donnell, as one of them told CNN, was that she was "one of us." That means, an ordinary American just trying to get along in today's hard times, as opposed to those out-of-touch fat-cat politicians.
If I read my history book right, the Founding Fathers were not ordinary folks. As a rule, they were well-educated, wealthy landowners -- in other word, the elite. If you consider the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution works of genius, well, genii are a pretty rare breed. None of them was one of us.
Getting back to Ms. O'Donnell, how "one of us" is she? Setting aside her admitted dabbling in witchcraft (does that fall under "girls will be girls"?), what about this mishandling of campaign funds to make personal ends meet? Does that fall under, well, times are tough, and we all have to play a few creative money games to get by?
Campaign funds aren't exactly public money, but pretty close. The amounts that appear to have been misused by O'Donnell seem trivial in comparison to the public funds that may be wasted -- or stolen -- in Washington on a daily basis, but the Bible talks about the need to be "faithful over a few things" before an individual is made "ruler over many." And wasn't honor one of the Christian virtues touted at Glenn Beck's rally?
Do the people of Delaware -- or other states, for that matter -- really prefer candidates who see virtue in dodging legitimate questions, or flat-out walking away from cameras, when they're stumped for answers? If so, they will get exactly the representation they deserve in November -- and so will the rest of us, if we don't get out and vote.
There, now I've said it.
If I read my history book right, the Founding Fathers were not ordinary folks. As a rule, they were well-educated, wealthy landowners -- in other word, the elite. If you consider the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution works of genius, well, genii are a pretty rare breed. None of them was one of us.
Getting back to Ms. O'Donnell, how "one of us" is she? Setting aside her admitted dabbling in witchcraft (does that fall under "girls will be girls"?), what about this mishandling of campaign funds to make personal ends meet? Does that fall under, well, times are tough, and we all have to play a few creative money games to get by?
Campaign funds aren't exactly public money, but pretty close. The amounts that appear to have been misused by O'Donnell seem trivial in comparison to the public funds that may be wasted -- or stolen -- in Washington on a daily basis, but the Bible talks about the need to be "faithful over a few things" before an individual is made "ruler over many." And wasn't honor one of the Christian virtues touted at Glenn Beck's rally?
Do the people of Delaware -- or other states, for that matter -- really prefer candidates who see virtue in dodging legitimate questions, or flat-out walking away from cameras, when they're stumped for answers? If so, they will get exactly the representation they deserve in November -- and so will the rest of us, if we don't get out and vote.
There, now I've said it.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
What You Don't Know
How many of those who bought their homes in a quiet residential area of San Bruno knew that they were on top of a 30-inch natural gas transmission line that would someday blow up and obliterate much of their neighborhood? Do you know what's underneath your feet right now?
It's called infrastructure, and it makes much of what happens in our lives work. This kind of infrastructure is ugly. It's best when it's invisible, and when it's working the way it should, we don't even know it's there. We flush a toilet, and the business we just did is carried out of our lives by a system invisible to most of us. It's, uh, not our business anymore. It just disappears--unless, of course, there's a sewer backup or something. In Christchurch, New Zealand, a 7-point earthquake heavily damaged infrastructure, making toilets unflushable and water undrinkable. All of a sudden, the residents had to think about things they never spent much time thinking about before.
A number of years ago, I remember a big to-do in a Southern California city where I worked about a truck that was going to be passing through the area on a nearby freeway. As I recall, it was carrying nuclear fuel rods. Local officials were all steamed up about it. Quite frankly, I don't remember what happened, but I think the truck passed through without vaporizing any cities along the way.
A big fuss was made about that shipment, because we knew ahead of time it was coming. But how many thousand gallons of unknown unpleasantness pass through the area unannounced on the same freeway every day? And how about the railroad? I remember a train wreck in that area involving a tanker car that had some unpronounceable chemical on it. Fortunately, it didn't leak. Had it done so, 25,000 people would have had to be evacuated immediately. But freight trains carrying nasty stuff travel the same route daily, without incident. We’re surrounded by potential danger, whether we think about it or not -- but it almost always stays potential.
This doesn't relieve those who operate the trucks, trains and pipelines from maintaining them and government from seeing to it that the maintenance is done. The bottom line is, we seem to need this unpronounceable stuff somewhere in our lives, even though we don't know what it is or how we use it. But after a while, things in the system that deliver them call attention to themselves and require repair or replacement -- and more often, of course, as they age.
I guess that's why we have skin. If we didn't, we'd have to look at a lot of less-than-photogenic parts of the human body -- yucky unless you enjoyed dissecting frogs in biology class. We don't have to know what those parts are or where they are -- we just expect them to work, silently and invisibly, if at all possible.
But is there such a thing as too silent and too invisible?
It's called infrastructure, and it makes much of what happens in our lives work. This kind of infrastructure is ugly. It's best when it's invisible, and when it's working the way it should, we don't even know it's there. We flush a toilet, and the business we just did is carried out of our lives by a system invisible to most of us. It's, uh, not our business anymore. It just disappears--unless, of course, there's a sewer backup or something. In Christchurch, New Zealand, a 7-point earthquake heavily damaged infrastructure, making toilets unflushable and water undrinkable. All of a sudden, the residents had to think about things they never spent much time thinking about before.
A number of years ago, I remember a big to-do in a Southern California city where I worked about a truck that was going to be passing through the area on a nearby freeway. As I recall, it was carrying nuclear fuel rods. Local officials were all steamed up about it. Quite frankly, I don't remember what happened, but I think the truck passed through without vaporizing any cities along the way.
A big fuss was made about that shipment, because we knew ahead of time it was coming. But how many thousand gallons of unknown unpleasantness pass through the area unannounced on the same freeway every day? And how about the railroad? I remember a train wreck in that area involving a tanker car that had some unpronounceable chemical on it. Fortunately, it didn't leak. Had it done so, 25,000 people would have had to be evacuated immediately. But freight trains carrying nasty stuff travel the same route daily, without incident. We’re surrounded by potential danger, whether we think about it or not -- but it almost always stays potential.
This doesn't relieve those who operate the trucks, trains and pipelines from maintaining them and government from seeing to it that the maintenance is done. The bottom line is, we seem to need this unpronounceable stuff somewhere in our lives, even though we don't know what it is or how we use it. But after a while, things in the system that deliver them call attention to themselves and require repair or replacement -- and more often, of course, as they age.
I guess that's why we have skin. If we didn't, we'd have to look at a lot of less-than-photogenic parts of the human body -- yucky unless you enjoyed dissecting frogs in biology class. We don't have to know what those parts are or where they are -- we just expect them to work, silently and invisibly, if at all possible.
But is there such a thing as too silent and too invisible?
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
I'll Be Glad When 9/11's OVER
OK, I, too am angry about Mr. Qu'ran Burner down in Florida. Anyone with a brain -- and a heart -- knows how despicable an act this will be. But I'm tired of hearing about it, and of looking at, and listening to, him. Fine, Anderson Cooper, you sliced him and diced him in your interview. General Petraeus, I'm sure you're right about this act exposing American forces to reprisals. But as we get more and more vocal about this, we're elevating the stature of a crackpot, and giving an act far more attention than it deserves.
We're giving this screwball an enormous amount of power, telling the world that his act will endanger American troops abroad (as if they aren't in enough now). While one part of me wants to put a bag over his head labeled, "This is not a toy," I wonder what would happen if everyone just ignored him? Kinda the way we treat Pat Robertson. I think this guy's 15 minutes are now UP.
We all get sucked into debates about lofty principles, like free speech, freedom of religion, property rights, sensitivity to others, etc. -- but who are the principals (yes, I spelled it right) involved? This preacher's own daughter calls his church a "cult," according to reports, and he's been sued for mismanagement of funds. Before him, though, there's the New York imam of proposed-Islamic-center fame, whose own background is also a little questionable, for reasons having nothing to do with terrorism. At the least, he's not a very good fund-raiser -- or wasn't, until he got all this free publicity.
BTW, I wonder if there would be such a fuss about this mosque thing if, by now, there had been a real memorial at Ground Zero. That site may be hallowed, but right now it's little more than hollowed (I spelled that right, too).
Going forward, the only good news on both of these fronts will be here Sunday--when it’s finally September 12th.
There, now I've daid it.
We're giving this screwball an enormous amount of power, telling the world that his act will endanger American troops abroad (as if they aren't in enough now). While one part of me wants to put a bag over his head labeled, "This is not a toy," I wonder what would happen if everyone just ignored him? Kinda the way we treat Pat Robertson. I think this guy's 15 minutes are now UP.
We all get sucked into debates about lofty principles, like free speech, freedom of religion, property rights, sensitivity to others, etc. -- but who are the principals (yes, I spelled it right) involved? This preacher's own daughter calls his church a "cult," according to reports, and he's been sued for mismanagement of funds. Before him, though, there's the New York imam of proposed-Islamic-center fame, whose own background is also a little questionable, for reasons having nothing to do with terrorism. At the least, he's not a very good fund-raiser -- or wasn't, until he got all this free publicity.
BTW, I wonder if there would be such a fuss about this mosque thing if, by now, there had been a real memorial at Ground Zero. That site may be hallowed, but right now it's little more than hollowed (I spelled that right, too).
Going forward, the only good news on both of these fronts will be here Sunday--when it’s finally September 12th.
There, now I've daid it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)