Andy Card resigns

This morning I heard that Bush's Chief of Staff, Andy Card, resigned his post. Of course the official statement says he did so to "spend more time with the family" but that's what they always say. Many people from all over the political spectrum were calling for some sort of turnover in the administration and this is a good start but it isn't the change that is needed.

As chief of staff, he has little influence on the policy making of the administration. Not to say it isn't an important position but it isn't exactly going to make much of a difference when it comes to the direction the country is headed with W at the helm. I'd rather have seen the following get canned (in no particular order): Rumsfeld because he is terrible at his job and people are losing their lives as a result, Cheney because he is such an absolute dick who is pursuing an agenda that is bad for America, Rove because any politician who wants to maintain integrity would not keep a political advisor so close at hand when elections aren't pending, McLellan because I don't think he even knows when he's telling the truth anymore and finally, Barney because small dogs are nothing but little bastards.

This Slate piece is a must read for anyone who has grown tired of Rumsfeld's ineptitude, Congress' inability or unwillingness to do something about Iraq or in general questions the planning and oversight of the war. It was bad enough when Rumsfeld would answer questions with folksy rhetorical questions of his own but now no one seems to be asking any questions at all.

The administration is clearly not up to the task it created but nothing has changed to correct the course. Congress, for all it's worry over balance of power among the three branches is unable to hold up its end. Vietnam was lost partly because our government tried to do too much. Iraq will be lost if we don't do enough. Major policy decisions need to be made but no one seems willing or able to do it. Fire Rumsfeld already and get someone with the ability to learn from mistakes and listen to the advice of experts to take over.

Craigslist ads and interweb censorship

This article in this past Sunday's NY Times week in review brings to light recent suits brought against Craigslist for allowing discriminatory ads on their bulletin boards. The article is mainly concerned about the nature of the forum and where responsibility lies. At issue are some 200 ads identified by a housing advocate agency that in plain language suggested discriminatory practices.

One such ad stated that when looking for a roommate, "African Americans and Arabians tend to clash with me so that won't work out." I find this to be a perfectly honest assesment of what the renter is looking for. Finding a roommate is a combination of getting someone in to start paying the rent and finding compatibility so you can all live in peace together. The person who posted this ad is clearly a bigot, he/she won't get along with a black person or a muslim so the ad clearly says that to avoid anyone wasting any time. If I wanted to post an ad looking for a roommate who isn't a vegetarian, is that discrimination? (seriously, I may need to know.) Is "non-smoker" discrimination or concern for health?

I actually think that this type of ad should be encouraged, it doesn't denigrate blacks or "arabians" (was this referring to horses?) but actually identified the poster as an asshole. A prospective roommate, whether black, arab, or simply non-bigoted asshole is saved the time and trouble of responding to the ad. Everyone wins.

If this was a realtor or a property manager, the matter is different. That very clearly is illegal bias but the blame is not on craigslist but the party posting the ad. As a public message board, craigslist is in an interesting gray area. Though the offending messages can be taken down when noticed, it is a free forum that should remain open to ads of all sorts. The suit seems excessive to me and could easily do more harm to the people it wishes to protect. If it succeeds, craigslist would either have to shut down or start charging for its services. Sure, no more bigoted ads but also no more free classifieds for people looking for housing, goods, jobs or "casual encounters," services open to everyone from the reddest necked inbred to the most pimpenest gangsta.

19%

In case you've forgotten who our vice president is, read this absolutely devastating broadside at Cheney from the New Yorker. I got to it by way of Andrew Sullivan so really, this is just a post repeating his post but wow, I feel compelled to pass this along, it's just too good.

My favorite bit? Comparing Cheney's hunting accident and the weeklong media frenzy that followed vs. Clintons blow job and the yearlong, taxpayer funded investigation occupying thousands of hours of our elected officials time that that spawned. Furthermore, in the latter case, no one had to be hospitalized after getting shot in the face!

Larry Summers follow up

In the past couple of weeks since Harvard President Larry Summers left his position, I've been following the matter in the news, in op-eds, on blogs and in conversations with people in the Harvard community. Not a single thing I've read nor a single person I've talked to has been in favor of his forced resignation.

Though my poll is hardly scientific (for instance I didn't get a chance to speak with my friend the female scientist with a Harvard PhD), I think the results point out a serious flaw in the system. I was expecting conservatives to sieze this as an example of campus liberalism gone wild and they have. In either response to the right-wing or solidarity, I expected liberal voices to defend the A&S faculty who were largely responsible for pushing him out. They didn't. From the NY Times opinion pages to my liberal (Kucinich voting) friends on staff, they all expressed concern over what happened. The basic sentiment is along the lines of "well, his management style left much to be desired but he was accomplishing the things that needed to be done; it's too bad the faculty couldn't get past their ingrained points of view and recognize that."

My hope is that the University and American academia in general take note of what happened here and correct itself. The issue isn't liberalism or lack of opposing viewpoints but the inability to see past the campus walls to how things work in the world beyond. They may be responsible for teaching but there is much they can learn. As important as their work is to them, the development of future generations is more important, a fact that is lost to many who are so narrowly focused on their area of expertise that their contributions to education are diminished. As I said in the earlier post, the very presence of higher ed is a valuable asset of civilization, the trick is in maintaining its value through self correction and adaptation to changing needs in society.

Women and their boots

I was doing some clothes shopping today at a respectable store that specializes in business and business casual clothing when out of the corner of my eye I noticed this woman in the store with large, blurry feet. At closer look, she was wearing those silly white furry boots that you used to just see at ski resorts but now can be found just about anywhere. My reaction was mute disbelief that someone would willingly look so ridiculous anywhere but it turned out she was working there. I wanted to say something to the other people working there who were wearing more appropriate clothing but didn't for fear of seeming like a grumpy old bastard. (I have this blog where I can do that without bothering anyone.) A few blocks down the road, I saw some chick wearing uggs with knee length shorts which left a gap of about 6 inches of leg inbetween. I have no idea what sort of look she was going for but pirate who just had a growth spurt would have been a decent description.

Here is my free advice to chicks who want to spend money on boots like these: don't. You don't look cool, you look like you just escaped from the neanderthal exhibit at the museum. These boots are always bulky and oversized so when you pair them with slim jeans or a skirt, observers see a the nice, lean line of your leg until the shin where all of a sudden you've got lego feet. Even worse is the sweatpants and ugg look made popular but skank queen britney. A look that's fine for hanging around your house but please don't go outside wearing that, it's insulting to yourself and all the people who actually bothered to get dressed that day.

I know the response to this is going to be a variation on "they're comfortable and warm" and "how dare you to tell women what to wear." Well I don't care, I'm the grumpy bastard with this blog and my opinion of how you look wearing these pieces of questionable fashion is as valid as your decision to imitate barbarella when you go out.

Grumpily,
M