Sitting in the Aisle

We are losing Iraq

2006-09-15T11:00:00.001-07:00

I hate to sound grim but the recently "essential" part of the war on terror, Iraq, is being lost by the US. We lack the forces, the understanding and the strategy to win.

Regarding forces, see this analysis to understand why. It isn't a matter of manpower, its a matter of equipping the troops. At the current rate, we are maintaining the forces currently there at the expense of forces and stockpiles elsewhere. Were something to erupt elsewhere in the world, we'd have a lot of trouble responding effectively. Hey Rumsfeld, thanks a lot, now kick yourself out and let someone else clean up the pile of shit you left.

The understanding is, well, tough to understand. Our cultural differences and lack of bother to study mid-east culture leaves us unable to comprehend why the iraqis can in one breath say "thanks for getting rid of Saddam" and "get the fuck out" in the next. The arabic sense of honor is a peculiar thing, they need to do it themselves in order to feel worthy of it. In a way, the only steps we can take to secure the nation are the very things that will increase the bloodshed. If we leave, there will be chaos, but at least we won't be in the middle. Maybe the predictions that once we're out of there, the Iraqis will turn on the foreign insurgents will be true but more likely, the factions will use them as mercenaries.

Strategy, or lack of it, is an issue that has been a talking point during campaigns since the 2004 election. Apparently, Democrats didn't have one and it contributed to the Republican victories. What no one bothered to ask was, what was the Repub strategy? Stay the course comes close but isn't a plan, it's a mantra. Truth is, no one knows what we should do about Iraq. Until someone figures it out, we'll be stuck in that sandpit losing men and equipment for no imaginable cause.

American Greed, part 3

2006-08-28T16:29:00.000-07:00

This news story will probably go unnoticed by most americans but should be on the front page in order to provoke the most outrage and get people to start caring.

On its own, the news is not very noteworthy but in the context of Ken Lay and Enron as a cultural phenomenon, not an aberration, it is important. That his name could be cleared and he is declared innocent is not just a perversion of justice but an insult to decency. There are many people who have declared him innocent despite the conviction (see the previous post), having him officially cleared would only encourage the sort of greed that he exemplified.

In other news, I have recently taken to reading the NYT sunday business section. I scan the headlines, read Ben Stein's column and read whatever interests me. They seem to have an article every week on runaway executive compensation which is either a sign of obsession on their part or of a serious problem in our society. I think a little bit of the former, a lot of the latter is about right. This week's perp was the ceo of InfoUSA who was playing fast and loose with options and is being investigated for it. Among his "perks" was having his yacht, his various homes and luxury cars underwritten by the company. I guess if you're only a millionare but want to live like a billionare, you just get the shareholders to pick up the slack. Asshole.

American Greed, part 2

2006-07-13T12:13:00.000-07:00

This article describes the memorial service for "Kenny Boy" Lay, the former Enron exec who died last week. You may recall that he was found guilty for his part in the implosion of Enron which, among other things, cost most of the employees of the firm their retirement funds. Perhaps you'll also remember that Enron traders likely engineered the California energy crisis a few years back. When he died, Lay was on "vacation" after his conviction, awaiting his sentence.

If it wasn't for the scandal, Lay and his buddies at Enron would have been stupidly rich. as it turned out, they were only ridiculously rich. Don't you hate it when malfeasance gets in the way?

So, back to the article. The reverend giving the eulogy compared Lay to Jesus and Martin Luther King jr. adding that time will show his innocence. Umm, no. Unless these were extremely contrasting comparisons, that it utter crap. What is sad here is that not only was this man a symbol of the overboard greed we're seeing in this nation, but that there are those who apologize and glorify it, invoking the name of God to do so. What sick culture can produce these words from a Christian reverend?

global warming and wine

2006-07-12T21:34:00.000-07:00

The article linked to above concerns recent studies that indicate how the affects of global warming will render most of the finest wine producing regions in the US incapable of growing grapes. For the last 5 years I've been making a joke that I'm going to find some suitable land in Maine for a vineyard and wait for global warming to make it viable. Now my stupid joke may become a sad reality. That may be the worst result of my sense of humor since the last date I went on...

Oh, and this is the first post to be posted both on this blog and my other one. Congratulations to me for finding common ground.

soccer, futbal, footie, calcio etc.

2006-07-01T15:28:00.000-07:00

I am in the midst of world cup fever. Thought I'm usually at work during the matches (stupid time zones), I'm DVRing the important ones and trying to remain ignorant of the result until I get a chance to watch it later. Today however, I got to work and the owner was already there with the gamecast going on the internet. We tracked the England-Portugal match via the play by play update when there were no customers around and did the same for the first 60 minutes of the brasil-france match. Then he found a live video feed from espn and we watched the last 20 minutes or so on his laptop. The feed kept getting broken up but we got the gist of it from the audio and the tension was certainly building up as both of us were pulling for the French.

I've been a fan of the French team since 1998 when they won it all on their home turf. Zinedine Zidane is an amazing player so I think that's a large part of it. My most brilliant moment on the soccer field was inspired by one of his plays in the '98 final. Also, you gotta love their coach, he looks like some drunk existentialist writer on the sideline; very French, very appropriate (see attached photo). I was very happy to see le bleus win this afternoon but it could have been anyone; as much as I like any team, I hate brazil more.

So now we've got an all Europe final four teams. I think the Germans have a good shot as the home team but Italy has been shutting down opposing offenses very well and have some good forwards so they could easily make it to the finals if they score early. Portugal has played well but they seem to lack a certain something to push them over the edge. France can easily ride their momentum past them to the finals. With Zidane retiring after the tournament, you can tell he's pushing the team to wine and they are happy to oblige their capitain. I guess my two favorites would be Italy and France for purely culinary and enotecnical reasons but I'm really just happy that it won't be Brasil.

The worst is could possibly get

2006-06-29T07:25:00.000-07:00

From a newspaper report on the flooding in the mid-atlantic region:

"Then there was the house that was spotted drifting down the north branch of the Susquehanna in New York State — on fire for a while, it seemed.

"When the house was torn up, the gas was still on," said Mr. Maurer, the spokesman for the state emergency office.

"And it ignited.""

This is a serious matter, people are dying and thousands of homes are being destroyed but sheesh, at least you know things can't get any worse if your house is not only on fire, but being swept away by a flood at the same time. From that point, things can only get better.

What, that old thing?

2006-06-28T20:44:00.000-07:00

The controversy over the media coverage of the leak about the SWIFT program is out of control. Congress and the prez are hyperventilating, the press is becoming (more) indignant about their freedom and the pundits have escalated their screaming match a few decibels.

Here's the lowdown:
Someone in the gov't leaked a story about a monitoring program the feds are using to track the movement of potential financial support for terrorist organizations. Sounds like a good idea, don't it? Several news outlets, the NYT among them, ran articles on this program on the angle that it is potentially another program that without oversight could spiral into severe privacy rights violations. The republicans are now charging the paper with treason on the grounds that this information helps the terrorists. One congressman went so far as to say that it directly put our troops in danger. (the WSJ ran a similar article, also on their front page the same day, but the repub's are specifically calling for charges against the Times. Hmmm)

Here's the problem with this phony furor; the program was not a secret. Details were publicly available years ago. Even if Mr. Terror didn't have the exact details, he probably heard Bush mention just such a program in a speech back in 2002 and moved to better cover his tracks. Shit, I knew about this in a general manner and I'm an idiot. If the asshole terrorists didn't know about it already, then they aren't paying attention. If they aren't paying attention, they wouldn't have read the article and found out about it. It would have taken something like a major flipout on the part of the president and his party's elected officials yelling and screaming about it to make them notice...oh wait...

American Greed

2006-05-27T08:44:00.000-07:00

As I ponder my future and the best way to achieve the goals I have yet to clearly define, I often look at the examples of others both in my life and in the public eye. I work at a wine shop in a wealthy suburb so I see my share of folks who have the income to live a very comfortable life. On the other hand, I read about the Enron boys, Tyco, WorldCom etc. and people whose greed became so all-consuming, I can't even understand what drove them to do what they did.

My early conclusion is that it all comes down to power and a pathological greed. You can make a comfortable living doing lots of things. All it takes is fundamental intelligence, hard work and a bit of luck. You can multiply each of those factors and make a fortune to the extent that you and your family and the next generations of your family can live without fear of poverty with basic wealth management. At the next level, you can strive to make more money than God and do whatever it takes to get more.

It's at this last level that I lose track of what motivates people. I just don't understand how someone with so much money can be dumb enough to do something illegal to make more. Take Bill Gates as an example of how to properly be that rich; he made kajillions as a result of smart (and maybe a little aggressive) business practices. By the time Microsoft was in full swing, he was sitting at the top of a huge moneymaking machine and amassed a huge fortune because he created something that almost everyone needed. He retired (sort of) at an early age and spends his time donating money to worthy causes. This is admirable--he's set for the rest of his years in extreme luxury if desired as a result of his ingenuity and hard work but quit when the time was right and has donated millions to people around the world who could use some of his luck.

Contrast that to Ole Kenny Boy and you see a marked difference. Lay, Skilling, Kozlowski etc. couldn't stop themselves from taking advantage of whatever scheme they or their cohorts could think of to add a few more bucks to their already vast pile of money. Their greed ran rampant and as a group, they propose the notion that they aren't the exceptions but merely the symptoms of a perverted business culture.

Many of those indicted also felt entitled to take ridiculous perks from the companies they ran even though the boards were more than willing to pay them too much already. In other words, they didn't want to even spend any of the money that they already had too much of. Even the more admirable business leaders of the day, for instance, Jack Welch, have a large number of expenses taken care of by the company. Welch's retirement package from GE included travel on the corporate jet, an apartment in Manhattan, tickets to sporting events and full use of company resources. Okay, that's nice, he made them a lot of money, he should have access to these assets since he is a high profile dude who is still of value to them. However, the list continued and included country club membership, restaurant expense and banal items like dry cleaning. He's Jack fucking Welch! He can pay for his own goddamn dry cleaning! His speaking fees for a single engagement would easily cover his dry cleaning for 5 years!

In the 1970's, executives made an average of 25-30 times what the lowest paid employee of the same company earned. Today that figure is closer to 750 times. And guess who gets to use the company expense accounts for "business lunches" and entertainment? This element of our culture is harmful and unnecessary. I'm all in favor of capitalism but this isn't it. Rigging the system to make it this top heavy goes against what it's all about. When the board is chummy with the CEO, the shareholders suffer. When a company cuts benefits to the bulk of employees because income is down, the CEO shouldn't get a bonus. This has to stop. Enron may be put to rest now that the verdict is in but that was only a chapter. We can't let the resolution of that one instance lull us to sleep thinking that the mess is cleared up. The bright lights of the Enron affair caught our attention but now that they are off, we stand blinking in the darkness, unaware of the malfeasance in the dark corridors.

UPDATE:
Warren Buffet announced that he will donate a kajillion dollars to the Gates Foundation. Good for him. He basically gave away the amount of money he made that he, nor his heirs, will ever need. Here are his words on the topic:

"Neither [late wife] Susie nor I ever thought we should pass huge amounts of money along to our children," said Warren Buffett, who said he plans to give away his remaining stock holdings after his death but that he has "quite a bit of cash" he still plans to leave to those close to him. "Our children are great," he told Fortune. "But I would argue that when your kids have all the advantages anyway, in terms of how they grow up and the opportunities they have for education, including what they learn at home - I would say it's neither right nor rational to be flooding them with money."

Is there anyone who doesn't yet realize what's going on?

2006-05-01T14:20:00.000-07:00

This article is for anyone out there who doesn't yet realize that the administration is playing by it's own rules and that we're a bunch of saps for letting it happen.

The news that Bush feels he can ignore laws and do whatever he wants isn't exactly breaking--they've been doing it since 2001 (remember Cheney's secret energy policy meeting). This article however is an indication that more people are becoming aware of it.

I admit I don't like Bush and co. Except for a few weeks in late september, 2001 when I tolerated him, I never liked him. Despite what I think about his policies, I just never liked his smug, aristocratic air that we shouldn't worry, he'll take care of it. Like the popular, rich kid in high school who's got the student body and teaching staff in his pocket, he goes around like he can do no harm. The result is a failure to admit/learn from mistakes, unwillingness to accept advice, and an inability to adapt to changing situations. Even if he had done everything right, I'd still hate him.

The fact is, he's gotten away with so much BS, it's amazing the smell alone didn't alert everyone from Alaska to the Keys. If his approval wasn't in the toilet, I'd be worried about him running for a third term. Luckily, the errors of the administration belie the image and Americans finally realize how badly they've been hoodwinked for the past five years. I only hope that the result will be more accountibility in the upper levels of gov't and greater scrutiny of the people we elect to hold those positions.

skid, crash, sit.

2006-05-01T10:58:00.000-07:00

I was just walking down Mass Ave. in Cambridge, running an errand when I heard the tell-tale sound of a car hitting/getting hit behind me. I hear a woman gasp and when I turn around, there's a car halfway through the intersection with a man sitting on the roof. Thinking about it now, the image makes me laugh but at the time, I rushed over to make sure no one was hurt.

The man on the roof was a 20 something bike messenger type, his bike was on the ground behind the car. The driver made a left turn without bothering to notice the bike and the bike hit him full speed in the front passenger door. The bike rider hpped down wincing but seemed ok. He'll have a bruise and some road rash but should be fine. The driver leaned out and asked if he was ok and if he should stop. The biker said yes and yes so of course the car drives away. Luckily, about 5 of us who were watching got the license plate and a nearby meter maid called for a cruiser. When I left a few minutes later, the kid was still a little shaken up but able to laugh it off. He'll get revenge when the driver is hauled in to account for the hit and run. Of interest: according to bike guy, jettas are the best cars to hi: the rounded edges don't hurt so much.

Lessons from this:

For drivers: Bicycles should be treated as cars. They move as quickly as traffic in most cases, they have to obey the same rules and they get the right of way the same way other cars do.
For cyclists: If you rely on your bike to get around to work/school, wear a fricking helmet. This kid didn't have one and to top that, he was wearing headphones. The accident wasn't his fault but he isn't helping his odds with the lack of protection/awareness. As someone who used to commute by bike and still ride around town, I trust my own skill and level of alertness but don't trust drivers around here to notice me and not hit me. The helmet was to insure that if anything happened, I wouldn't end up brain-dead in the hospital. If this were to happen, on the off chance that a coma allowed me to hear but not respond, I wouldn't want to lay there while my family told me what a dumbass I was for not wearing a helmet. That said, I don't understand those who wear their helmets around when off the bike. Around here at least, it isn't unusual to see someone run into a store with the helmet on but I've actually seen people wearing them in restaurants, long after they'd gotten out of that saddle. Do you forget you're wearing it or do you like the way it looks?

Opening Day!

2006-04-11T14:17:00.000-07:00

Today is opening day for both the local red sox and my team, the Yanks. the whole foods across the street is giving out hot dogs, everyone has their caps, jerseys and even red sox sneakers on and it's a nice day. Baseball season is a week old but I'm still not in the right mood, maybe I need to eat more hot dogs...

For no particularly relevant reason, earlier today, I googled my first name and this bearded infantwith a Yanks jersey was the first thing to come up. How bizarrely poignant.

Cynthia McKinney hitting that cop

2006-04-06T10:35:00.000-07:00

This is an item I've been wanting to comment on for a while. It's funny, it's ludicrous and I haven't ripped on a democrat in a while.

Backstory: Cynthia McKinney is a democratic member of the house of reps. She is a black woman who in the past has had some scuffles with the Capitol Police when entering Congress. It seems that she doesn't like to wear the pin that identifies her as a rep which allows her to bypass the letal detector and in the past has been stopped for identification more often than other reps as a result. She didn't like this and called it racial profiling because she is a black. In response, the Police office responsible for this detail posted a picture of her so officers would be able to recognize her and avoid the ruckus. The problem was solved for the time being.

A week or two ago, Rep. McKinney got a new hairdo. When entering Congress the first time with her new 'do, the police didn't recognize her and asked her to stop. She got pushy, the cops became more stern, and she ends up "stabbing" an officer with her cell phone (he wasn't badly hurt). The latest is that charges may be filed against her.

She of course went on the talk shows to discuss the matter. She brought two lawyers along. Photos of her with the new 'do show it to be a tangled mess. One of her republican counterparts referred to it as "an explosion in a brillo pad factory." Aesthetics aside, this lady is pretty friggin' nuts but very entertaining. Today I hear she went and issued a formal apology on the floor so she finally either came to her senses or got some good advice.

Big Ole Texan Yeeha!

2006-04-03T21:38:00.000-07:00

I just read that Tom Delay won't be running for re-election and will resign in the coming months. What terrific news for all except the most partisan republicans ever.

Delay, a former bug exterminator, represents the worst in politics as far as I'm concerned. Pandering, badgering, lying and cheating for the good of his party. Not the interest of the nation or his constituents, but for the party. That was his role and that is what he did to lengths that led to a disgraceful exit. Makes you proud, don't it?

I'm very glad to see him out of the picture but I'm not naive enough to think it will put an end to the BS. Pols of his ilk still control most of what goes on on both sides of the aisle. I have a feeling we'll never completely get rid of that.

Andy Card resigns

2006-03-28T16:13:00.000-08:00

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.

2006-03-10T08:52:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-07T07:18:00.000-08:00

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%

2006-03-06T16:59:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-06T07:58:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-02T13:59:00.000-08:00

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

Larry has had enough

2006-02-21T17:07:00.000-08:00

I read today that Lawrence Summers has announced he will step down as President of Harvard. This comes a year or so since his controversial remarks regarding women and science and more recently after the Dean of the Arts & Sciences school resigned amidst charges that Summers forced him out.

Opposition faculty groups came together to demand his resignation and gave a vote of no confidence in the wake of his remarks on women. The ill will multiplied as his presidency progressed and came increasingly at odds with faculty. His real bosses however, are the board at the Harvard Corporation who approved of the way he was running the school and as far as they were concerned, he was accomplishing quite a bit of good. The University became divided on the topic with a very vocal group of profs calling for his ouster while a more quiet group either supported him or didn't care. Students on the other hand, widely support him for his charisma and active role in their affairs.

I was working at HBS when the women in science remarks were made and supported him in a quiet way because I really didn't think he did or said anything wrong. The real reason a lot of the faculty didn't like him is because he ran the place differently than they were used to. He has a very straightforward management style more typical in the private sector or Washington than an academic setting. His ideas to revamp the undergradutate curriculum was met with a fair amount of resistance. With the tenure system and a somewhat insular environment, faculty sometimes get fussy when outsiders try to tell them what to do.

I heard on the radio this morning a couple of quotes from professors involved in the matter. An opposition leader basically called him a dictator who ruled by "fiat" rather than consensus. Then Alan Dershowitz was quoted to say that a minority group of ultra liberal profs are largely the instigators while more reasonable voices are drowned out. I have to agree with the latter opinion. Larry accomplished quite a bit as far as reorganization and campus development but he never quite got along with certain brands of faculty who resented his taking a leadership role when they thought they should have more of a voice.

His job however, was to lead the school forward; he inherited a massive endowment from his predecessor and was charged with using it to make improvements both physically and philosophically. This meant butting heads with faculty at times when they were the holdouts in a system that needed change. Unfortunately, egos were bruised, conventions were bucked and he was seen as imposing values and practices that weren't compatible with Academia when the reality was more that academia wasn't willing to accept that they could do better.

The trouble with Ann coulter

2006-02-20T19:35:00.000-08:00

I imagined myself at an Ann Coulter speaking engagement and if offered a chance to ask her a question, what would I ask? I came up with something like this:

Ann, you have recently begun to frame some of your remarks in the "I'm just joking" context as a way to justify some of the more outrageous things you say. For instance, you say you were only joking when you said things like the following:
-(regarding muslims), "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. (9/12/2001)"
-"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.(8/20/2002)"
-"We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee,(1/26/2006)"

Given that you're only joking, why should anyone publish your words in serious policy journals? The National Review dropped your column after the first quote above but afterwards you've always managed to find places to publish your rantings. Do you feel that running your column makes a publication more or less reputable a source for serious political thinking?

unintentional funny of the day

2006-02-18T08:28:00.000-08:00

From an article on the Red Light District in Amsterdam:

"...said Bob de Maan, spokesman for the "Banana Bar,"

This F-ing weather

2006-02-16T11:22:00.000-08:00

Today, February 16th, in Massachussets it is 60 degrees. I just went outside my place of work and noticed that it was actually warmer out in the sunshine than it is inside.

This pisses me off. I like weather and the change of seasons so if it's February, it better be ass-freezing cold with a chance of snow. Instead, the foot or more of snow we got over the weekend is almost completely gone and cars driving by have their windows open.

I expect a little thaw each winter but this is just ridiculous. I paid for a seasons pass at the nearest ski place and I'm wondering if I'll get my money's worth.

Stupid weather.

New comments rule

2006-02-15T17:39:00.000-08:00

I changed the settings so comments can now be anonymous. Please comment away. I prefer knowing who you are but whatever it takes to get comments, I'll do it.

Cheney shooting that guy

2006-02-15T09:18:00.000-08:00

When I first heard about this, I thought it was kind of funny. Cheney seems to hunt alot but sometimes it seems that maybe he is a little too zealous a hunter. First it was hunting with Scalia, the justice who was hearing a case he was involved in, causing a bit of political fallout for both of them. Now, he's shooting his own party allies. Imagine what would happen if a democrat went along with him?

Then, the event snowballed into an overblown scandal. It turns out sneaky Dick delayed informing the press and the president of what actually happened and in the confusion in the day or so after the accident, we are reminded once again the Veep is truly playing by his own rules. I really don't like his assumption that he need not be accountable for his actions as a vice president but that attitude as a private citizen when someone gets hurt as a result of his negligence is the height of being an arrogant asshole.

The miscommunication made the event more newsworthy than it ever should have been. Attempting to smooth things over, poor Scott McLellan ends up placing blame on the man who was shot invoking the fury of experienced hunters. Public skepticism over the details of the incident are making the rounds of hunting circles and even die-hard republican hunters are unhappy with Cheney's role in the accident and attitude following it.

When an experienced hunter shoots a fellow shooter in what is a tragic but avoidable accident it is ultimately his fault (according to hunting protocol, the one doing the shooting is at fault, the exception being when the guy getting shot was wearing a deer costume). Dick however, apparently can't accept the blame for anything he does as a private citizen or a politician. The NRA is strangely silent on the issue, though they are normall all too happy to point out how guns should properly be used in such situations. If they remain silent, whatever notion of non-partisanship they can claim with a straight face would be blown away like a quail in a burst of machine gun fire.

I thought shooting your self was something the democrats excelled at. The administration was supposed to be the one with control over their communications and message, instead, they bungled it badly, allowing a simple mishap to become a major issue. My advice would be to curtail Cheney's hunting trips lest any more damage come as a result. It's all fun and games until someone loses an office.

UPDATE:
Dead-Eye Dick did finally go in front of a camera and take responsibility so good for him. However, the matter is still clouded by the weak notification and some questions about how much he had to drink that day. The initial press release by the Ranch manager stated that there was no drinking going on but Cheney himself admitted to having a beer at lunch. A popular theory I heard on the radio this morning was that he held off on the notification because he had been drinking and needed to keep that mum. Drinking and handling firearms is another huge no-no for hunters, some consider it worse than drinking and driving.

Olympics

2006-02-15T08:59:00.000-08:00

Since the Olympics began, I've been alternatively meaning to watch some events and completely forgetting to do so. I like the winter games more than summer because I like to ski and because of the novelty of many of the events (two man luge?!). However, several factors prevent me from enjoying the coverage and keeping track of what's going on.

The first factor is the over-exposure of figure skating/ice dancing/shiny outfits and bad music on ice. This crap annoys the hell out of me. I understand that these people work hard and have great skill at what they are doing but it just doesn't seem like a proper sport. Anything with a soundtrack, bizarre outfits, makeup and points for artistic merit doesn't pass my criterion for "sport". Unfortunately, it is one of the most popular events so it is on TV more often than not, or at least so it seems. If they would at least eliminate ice dancing, I'd be happy. You don't have normal dancing in the summer games do you? (No really, I'm not sure)

The second factor is the coverage itself. The events that are screened seem to be chosen by the possibility that an American will win. That's all fine and good but it eliminates so much of the action that one might get the impression that there are only a handful of competitors (whoever is in the top running and the nearest American) in the event. I guess this is largely due to the limited amount of time that the network has to cover the games which is legitimate and leads me to wonder why the coverage can't be expanded to other channels.

If the one network isn't able to provide ample coverage, why not spread the love? These are after all the Olympics, traditionally a venue where nations put aside differences in the spirit of celebrating human achievement. Is it too much to ask for the networks to do the same? Let one of the big three cover the games the way we know it, complete with award ceremonies, sappy back stories and too much figure skating while some cable channel covers the competition in a more impartial, complete fashion. Only weirdos like me will watch the second channel so ad revenues won't really be lost. Yeah, I suppose the whole lack of moneymaking will be a shortfall in that plan so...hopefully the internet will provide a solution in the future with cheaper means of broadcasting events for those who want to see them rather than dictating who sees what. Ahh, the internet, solving all of lifes problems, how did we ever do without it?

Overheard:

2006-02-14T17:22:00.000-08:00

"...gather the men, women and children, kill them all and bury them..."
-A snippet of conversation between one older man to another, chatting on a ski trail as I skied past. I don't think it was Dick Cheney but you never know, he seems to be in the killing mood lately.

Those damn cartoons, follow-up

2006-02-09T16:12:00.000-08:00

This cartoon nonsense won't go away. I feel compelled to think about it a little more. By the way, if you haven't seen them, click here (if you dare!!!)

This whole thing has certainly heated up the islamic world vs. west conflict quite a bit and its impact is varied. Many Western newspapers and reprinting the cartoons to prove that they have the right to do so and that they will not be intimidated. Others, notably the NY Times, refuses to, citing a desire not to offend and safety reasons. I understand these reasons but at a certain point, the cartoons themselves are news and are worth viewing in this light. An Egyptian paper apparently printed back in the fall with practically no scandal or notice. It wasn't until a certain oil rich monarchy and its extremist clerics riled up the muslim world that all this crap started. If the Egyptians would reprint them, how offensive can they possibly be? As for safety reasons, if a western institution were to curtail its behavior every time a group of muslim assholes threatened violence, we'd be bowing to their will. Before you know it, our women will be veiled, the men will be bearded and no more pork. If the prospect of losing bacon won't motivate you, I don't know what will.

Apart from hitting each and every protester with the mighty club of sanity until they realize what morons they are, I don't know what else we can do except pressuring our newspapers to take a stand against cultural censorship. Sensitivity is fine and proper but enough is enough, if they aren't sensitive enough to not kill innocents in the name of their God, then that god is fair game as far as mild insults go.

Screw 'em if they can't take a joke.

Bush Flip Flops

2006-02-08T11:42:00.000-08:00

June, 2002:
"Q — could the attacks have been stopped?

THE PRESIDENT: I’ve seen no evidence today that said this country could have prevented the attack."

SOTU, 2006:
"It is said that prior to the attacks of September the 11th, our government failed to connect the dots of the conspiracy. … So to prevent another attack — based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute — I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program…"

Hat tip to thinkprogress.com.

Maybe if he and his people had been paying attention and using the means available to them, they could have disrupted (if not prevented) the 9/11 attack. So now, with the over-reaching surveillance program, is he overcompensating?

Rubber ball off a brick wall: the ID/creationist movement

2006-02-06T11:37:00.000-08:00

I just came up with a regular entry theme: "Rubber ball off a brick wall," an attempt to penetrate the mind block people are often so willing to erect in order to avoid reason and rationality.

The first focus will be on the proponents of teaching crationism and intelligent design in public schools. First a quick definition of terms:
-Creationism, the scripture-based belief that the physical universe, including our earth and all its physical features and various species, in their current form, were created in 6 days by god a few thousand years ago.
-Evolution, the theory propounded by Charles Darwin in the late 19th century which, using scientific observation and experimentation, posits that life evolved over millions of years from single cell organisms to the complex organisms we are today.
-Intelligent design, the idea that a force with supreme powers (but not necessarily "god") initiated the process of evolution by providing a spark of life.

First came Creationism which objected to the theory of evolution. It was argued that the theory, though based on physical evidence and scientific method, couldn't be correct because the bible said otherwise. At first they rejected the notion of evolution and fought to prevent it from being taught at all (Scopes trial). Eventually, evolution became accepted as a legitimate theory and became a part of science curriculum in schools. So then the creationists sought to force public schools to put the creation story on par with the theory of evolution in the classroom. The courts interjected and said no, that's a violation of the church/state separation. The creationists grumled, prayed and went home.

A few years later, after having put the bibles out of sight and learned to use scientific terminology, the creationist reappeared as proponents of "intelligent design". The new argument was that the theory of evolution wasn't sound enough to be taught in the classroom without an alternative. The theory they had in mind as an alternative was that evolution was instigated by an unknown and unseen designer. It wasn't necessarily g-o-d, but something kinda like that. Life, they argued, is too complex to have occurred out of nothing, therefore it must have had help by this mysterious benefactor.

This alternative to the purely scientific theory of evolution was proposed and went to court where once again, it was denied a place in the science curriculum because, well, it isn't science, it's an attempt to attach god to evolution.

The ID theory is however taught and believed by a number of people in private schools and home-schooling communities. These are largely religious people who nevertheless are rational enough to accept the findings of science for what they are, observations of the natural world derived from careful experimentation. They are entitled to put their faith in god as a supplement to that which science cannot fully explain. I have no problem with this as long as they stick to private belief rather than try to force it into public education. These are the somewhat rational people.

Then there are the blowhard christian conservatives who read the bible literally and decry even the slightest hint of secularism in their life or anyone elses. These are the people who wish, quite literally, for a religious state to take power in the US. Knowing that the bible isn't a historical or scientific text and that "because god said so" isn't a valid argument, they seek to refute evolution with their own pseudo science which tries to exploit aspects of evolution that are unsolved or unclear. There are numerous organizations which provide resources for "arguing" with evolution. There is even a creation museum with exhibitions on how man domesticated the dinosaurs and tourguides of the grand canyon with creation-based theories on its formation. These people are not stupid, they know how to convince others to join their beliefs. Recent polls indicate that 55% of americans believe that god created man in his present form.

What gets me most worked up is that if people cannot integrate their religious belief with secular science, they probably cannot do so with secular law or life in general. The efforts to erect the ten commandments in every courtoom, re-enact school prayer and the furor over the so-called "war on christmas" are examples of their overreaching in other segments of life. They have built a wall of faith, ignorance and desire for power that isn't easy to penetrate. The rubber ball of reason bounces off it with a ping.

Advice to muslims who are planning a demonstration

2006-02-06T09:30:00.000-08:00

If you happen to be a muslim person living in any part of the world and you find yourself suddenly enraged, piqued, or moved in some way to take to the streets to demonstrate against the latest insult from the infidels, I have some advice for you.

-Before going out to the effigy shop to buy something to burn, before loading your AK and donning your mask, before grabbing your portable portrait of your favorite fanatic/cleric/dictator/martyr to hold and adore, answer this question: Will this rally improve my life or just make me and my fellow demonstrators feel better about our retched lives for a few hours?

-In adopting a stance that projects hatred and intolerance to millions of people in Israel, Europe and the Americas, will I be benefiting my society or making us look like a group of angry, self destructing imbeciles undeserving of the millions of dollars of aid that said peoples send us?

-If a group of my fellow followers of Mohammed plow airplanes into buildings full of people, killing thousands, will my celebration in the street convince those who were attacked that this was an aberration of my faith or an essential part of it?

-And finally, if the ruthless dictator/corrupt clerical regime or local thugs rally me to demonstrate against foreign enemies, is there any chance they are doing so to displace the blame for their failures as rulers?

The Nation with the (Black) Golden Arm

2006-02-03T08:48:00.000-08:00

So apparently we're addicted to oil and the solution is to eat more corn or grass or something. Old Georgie made a toothless call to eliminate our reliance on oil in the SOTU and hopes no one realizes how empty the promise is. Mere words are not policy, that requires action to compel the forces involved. In this case more extreme actions than asking pretty please will be needed to change the American auto industry's focus on the immediate future to the long term.

This is something I've been saying for years: since fossil fuels are a finite resource, now is the time to develop the next generation of energy production. When we get to the point where oil cannot fuel our economy, we better have improved our technology to the point where we won't even notice it's no longer there. Getting to that level of technology takes a hell of a lot r & d and whichever nation can accomplish it first is going to be in a position of power. That said, the US transportation industries should devote more of its resources to becoming leaders in alternative fuel technology in order to reclaim its position as leaders in the worldwide industry.

Given the relative gas prices due to direct taxes and income differences, Europe and Asia have more incentive to develop this sort of stuff before us. While we drive our SUVs around the corner to get a loaf of bread, they are driving smaller little cars when necessary and walking, taking mass transit or whatever when possible. They are the ones who are taxing petroleum use to create a demand for more efficient engines. They are the ones who will beat us to it unless we create incentives for our industries to change. Given Exxon Mobil's record profits and their cozy relations with Detroit, we are in deep doo doo.

I wrote a version of this in an opinion paper about 5 years ago when the Kyoto Protocol was the big issue of the day. Some snooty business type(it was published by a biz school student paper) wrote back that I didn't know what I was talking about, and that it's not practical due to economics, markets, blah blah blah. He tried to pass me off as some tree hugging opponent of business. He had was thinking short term, I was talking long term. Which nicely demonstrated my point, the people who are in a position to initiate this sort of development are looking at either their bottom line for the next few years or at the next election cycle.

The best thing to happen to the US auto industry was the energy crisis of the 70's when oil shortages compelled the development of more fuel efficient engines, more practical cars and a general awareness of the finite nature of petroleum. At first it sucked--the cars were very small and kinda crappy compared to the boats and muscle cars we were used to. eventually, the technology caught up and we were driving large, comfortable vehicles that were faster and more powerful as the pre-crisis models but twice as efficient. We had developed technology to maintain our standards of comfort and performance. Then we got complacent, mileage improvements hit a peak and the average national mpg declined as development of mileage imporvements gave way to giving soccer moms more room and power than they'll ever need. We had forgotten that there may not always be a cheap, plentiful supply of gas. It took 9/11, Iraq and 60 bucks a barrel to open our eyes again.

Which brings us back to the SOTU. George did good to mention the problem but it was little more than a headfake. Without real incentives to change, we won't. Without the Federal gov't providing those incentives or worse, a new energy crisis driven by external factors, we're going to continue cranking the heat up to the mid 70's, driving stupidly large cars and sooner or later we'll find ourselves a has-been world power.

Muslims worldwide react to the Danish newspaper cartoon

2006-02-02T17:11:00.000-08:00

So a Danish newspaper publishes a series of cartoons portraying the prophet Mohammed and muslims in general as terrorist boobs. The editor ran the cartoons intentionally to make the point that he can because he lives in a free society. He intentionally wanted to start a ruckus to prove the point that many muslims are as intolerant of the societies they wish to destroy because they find them intolerant of their culture.

The predictable response occured in Islamoland and in Islamic communities in Europe: riots, Danish flags being burned in the streets, tourists threatened, etc. The Danes, as a government, stand by the freedom of the press and don't bow to the ridiculous demands to apologize. In Norway and France, the cartoons are republished along with some new ones, including one where figures from all the major religions are lampooned at once under the headline: "Yes, we have the right to caricature God." Next thing you know the EU office (I have no idea what that means) in Gaza is surrounded by assholes with AKs and masks shutting down the building and writing "closed until an apology is sent to Muslims." The building at the time, and normally, is staffed mostly by Palestinians. The douchebags with guns then left a vague threat that unless apologies were issued by the offending nations in 48 hours, something was going to happen.

I'll tell you what will happen if no apology is issued, the right of free people will be preserved and the retrogression inherent in this element of Islamic society will take another giant step backwards to the dark ages. An elected official in the Hamas party in Palestine had this to say: "No one can say a bad word about our prophet." Oh yeah, Fuck him (sorry, 'Him') and the camel he rode in on. He's your prophet, not mine. Besides, if he really is (was?) a prophet of an all powerful god, he'll get over it.

Oops, Did I just intentionally badmouth a mesenger of God? Yup. Did I mean it? Not really, but then again it would take faith for it to mean anything. Is it my right as a citizen of a nation that, despite its problems has a hell of a lot more going for it than one that is recently been taken over by known criminals? Betchyerass it is.

Who do you think is the better for it, me or the woman whose government's primary goal is the elimination of it's neighbors while nearly half the population is unemployed? I say if Muslims want to get upset about the blasphemy, get upset about the very same people who are threatening to attack innocent civilians of other nations because of what was printed in a newspaper. Get upset about the blasphemers who kill innocents in the name of allah. Get upset over the distortion of the koran that fuel the hatred and self punishing policies of nations that, in the name of their sacred faith have policies aimed at the destruction of other peoples. Get upset over the fact that the more you get upset over this meaningless bullshit, the further you get from the holy message, the good works and side of your faith that cringes in embarrasment whenever crap like this occurs.

Imagine if the Islamic world noticed the cartoons and ignored it. Whatever malice and so called blasphemy existed behind them would be negated by proving them irrelevant.

UPDATE: I hadn't noticed the unusual timing of the protests vs. the release of the cartoons, for commentary on that see this.

Welcome

2006-02-02T17:06:00.000-08:00

Hello,
This is my first post in a blog that I don't think many people will ever read since there are many other blogs on this theme written by people with more knowledge on the topics and greater resources to devote to them. I have started it as a way to vent my frustrations at the world, at politics, at the stupidity and irrational nature that seems to becoming more and more prevalent in civilization.

I call this "sitting in the aisle" as a symbol of my generally centrist nature and my lack of interest in taking an active role in politics. If the nation is split into left and right factions, the aisle would be the lonely area in between. It's much better in the middle--you can take what you like from either side without having to support the lunatic fringes members of your party. By sitting in the aisle rather than in a seat on either side, I indicate my lack of active membership. The way I see it, it's much more fun to laugh, scowl and bitch than to try to make a living of it.

I have another blog that focuses on food, wine and beer that I love. It fulfils that side of me but at times I'll read the paper, watch the news or just be wandering around life when something will be screaming out for comment. That's where this will come in. I may focus on politics, entertainment or sports or maybe just rant like an old man. It's my frickin' blog, I'll do with it what I want.

That said, let's get into it shall we?