Climate change is now 90% officially occurring because of man-made environmental effects.

Now, I may have fallen asleep before the clock struck midnight last night while watching "An Inconvenient Truth," but I insist it wasn't because of any weaknesses in Al Gore's global climate change warnings; prior to the documentary I had a few sips of wine and too much rich, succulent seafood and couldn't resist the allure of sleep. But the point remains to be said that concern--not quite freakout--about global warming and US involvement is pretty much plastered all over my personal world like bumper stickers on an socially conscious activist's beat-up junker car: Greenpeace; Coexist; Impeach Bush; Somewhere in Texas a village has lost its idiot; No War in Iraq; that no W one that looks like "No Smoking." The concern is newspaper headlines, topics of conversation over dinner, Sports Illustrated features on being green in the sporting world, coffee shop hubbub, hit documentaries from formerly unfunny and unappreciated Vice Presidents of the United States, emails from Sierra Club and Environmental Alliance, your state senator and favorite actress who are teaming up to fight pollution and save the rainforests of Brazil. It's everywhere if you know how to look with the right eyes, yet the US won't join the Kyoto Protocol.

According to the New York Times, James L. Connaughton, the chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said some of the findings in the new U.N. report, particularly the prospect of intensifying coastal damage from rising seas, were “of high concern,” but noted the panel also foresaw benefits to agriculture in temperate regions as well.

Leave it to the White House. Acknowledge the threat of global catastrophe as a "high concern," but stay positive--don't let a little bit of bad news get you down. It's like turning a blind eye to more homocides or fatal car accidents on the local news--everyone does it at some point because there's only so much you can take. But this is different. And some parts are toned down because governments didn't want it to scare too many people. Which is impossible.

a good story

Here's a story published in English for the first time, last week in the New Yorker. It's by Primo Levi, and was published in a Turin newspaper over 40 years ago. In Italian, and now it's in English. Here's the link: http://www.newyorker.com/fiction/content/articles/070212fi_fiction_levi

Another good piece--"Of wildflowers and weed"--is online now. It's by David Sedaris, and it's great to see him published so often in the New Yorker because he is pretty insightful and so hysterical. That's it for now, just good reading.

Good news in the news (for a change)

Today is a good one. A rigorous workout, a (losing but well-fought) soccer match, tasty lunch (I found some plastic in my food and earned myself a free burrito!), and some heartening news. I sometimes hate loving to follow the news, a phenomenon similar to a chocoholic who wants to but cannot quit, but days like today show that it pays off.

I saw it along the scrolling ticker on CNN at the gym while pretending that I was lifting heavy weights; it was followed by a news reporter covering the breaking news:

"And that is why, in the shadow of the Old State Capitol, where Lincoln once called on a divided house to stand together, where common hopes and common dreams still live, I stand before you today to announce my candidacy for president of the United States of America."

Those last 10 words were pronounced in a measured, confident tone, each word carefully spoken so as to sink into the American collective spirit with a hopeful, self-professed audacity. And what, you may ask, does the radical approach to politics Sen. Obama represents relative to the other candidates thus far mean for America? From CNN:

Obama told the crowd he would tackle problems like poor schools, economic hardships and oil dependence, saying a "failure of leadership" is to blame for not meeting the nation's challenges. He also implored the crowd to demand that there be "universal health care in America by the end of the president's first term."

He called the Iraq war a "tragic mistake" and said, "It's time to admit that no amount of American lives can resolve the political disagreement that lies at the heart of someone else's civil war. That's why I have a plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008.

Now it may sound idealistic for the man with the "thinnest political resume" among the 2008 hopefuls, but that just may be what it takes. When devout Republicans are proposing alternatives to Pres. Bush, you know it's time to let someone else take the reigns. When the President of your country is considered approval-worthy by only about 1/3 people, you have to fold the hand you've been dealt and cross your fingers for next time.

I'm tired of hearing excuses: "We can't cut and run." "You're either with us or you're with them." "Criticizing the President is giving encouragement to the enemy." Swearword! Curses! Those kind of junkish, antagonizing phrases government officials think instill all kinds of fear into man-criticizing-Iraq War.

And the budget...Well, Hilary Clinton (D-NY) doesn't like the possibility of raised premium for Medicare. According to the NY Times, she

"cited the proposals as evidence of what she called “the president’s misplaced priorities.”

Of course, Pres. Bush's motive for doing so is so work on taming the national deficit. But is Medicare or Medicaid the place to be raising money? You'd think going through the military--defense spending as astronomical as it is--would be a viable option, through some kind of reduced spending plan (see Obama, "Withdraw Iraq troops by March 2008"). Or something, I don't know anything about Budgets or Mediare or the military.

I'm going to meditate on the following from the LA Times for a minute now.

At the same time, Bush will ask for substantial cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, the government's main healthcare programs.

The Pentagon budget, including a detailed request for war funding in 2008, will hit $623 billion, according to a senior Defense official. That total includes $481 billion for the military's normal annual budget, a 10% increase over this year's spending.

That increase is accounted for, in part, by Bush's proposal to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps by a combined 92,000 troops over the next five years.

Somehow I don't see the 10% increase in the military's normal annual budget being tied to inflation. It makes me mad that some economists go nuts trying to explain how raising the minumum wage would screw everything up in our country. Bats would be feasting on humans, public transit buses would no longer be held down by gravity, that kind of stuff. There really has to be a way to make raising the minumum wage work if we can spend $623 Billion on war funding. Last time I checked we didn't live under a militaristic dictator, and I'm not about to suggest that we do. We don't. But great Napoleon's height that's a lot of money!

Anyways, second piece of news (from CNN):

Later this year, a Canadian company, Iogen, will announce whether Idaho will get what could be the first large-scale commercial plant in the United States to produce fuel from straw. Not ethanol made from corn, as refineries in more than a hundred mostly small towns are now doing, but ethanol made from the native prairie grass, corn stalks, field waste and wood chips.

So cheers to native prairie grasses like switchgrass and lupine and turkey foot and blazing star and prairie clover!!! And to Iogen's straw refinery.

The University of Minnesota has done extensive research on the effectiveness of burning prairie grasses for fuel, and so far it seems like the best alternative to petroleum. Even better, perhaps, than ethanol, which lately has been looking somewhat like a savior. Ecologist David Tilman at the U of MN said,

"We actually get more energy from an acre of land growing prairie grasses [and] mixtures of prairie grasses and converting them into ethanol or into synthetic gas and diesel than you would by growing corn and soybeans and converting them into ethanol or biodiesel." (from NPR.org)

The best part is the abundance of this stuff--almost like the unlimited power of wind of hydro energy. There are boatloads of prairie grass, and it's (debatably) easy to grow. In any case, it's sustainable. Peace

“a house divided against itself cannot stand”-Abe Lincoln (invoked by Sen. Barack Obama in his candidacy announcement.

Limbaugh-isms

Taken from Mediamatters.org, here's one reason to direct buckets full of animosity toward Rush Limbaugh (ideally they would be full of dirty, smelly animosity and would hit him head-on):

Criticizing Sen. Obama, Limbaugh called him "Obama Osama"
Nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh repeatedly called Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) "Obama Osama" and "Osama Obama" during the July 11 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show. In criticizing a July 10 speech by Obama in Eatonville, Florida, Limbaugh added "Osama" to the senator's name seven times. Limbaugh justified his use of the phrase by explaining that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) had once done so.

As Limbaugh acknowledged on his show, Kennedy did correct himself after mistakenly saying "Osama bin" instead of "Obama" at a January 12 press conference at the National Press Club. The Associated Press reported on January 12, "Kennedy also mangled the name of the Democrats' new star, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, calling him 'Osama bin ... Osama ... Obama.' "

Limbaugh has referred to Obama as "Obama Osama" or "Osama Obama" several times since the January press conference, generally to mock Kennedy's misstatement. But on his July 11 show, Limbaugh also repeatedly used the phrase in criticizing Obama and Democrats in general.

From the July 11 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: And you've got now another memo from Stan Greenberg and James Carville and Bob Shrum suggesting that liberals are in trouble, the Democrats are in trouble, and Obama Osama Obama was in Florida over the weekend stumping for [Sen.] Bill Nelson [D-FL], and he said Democrats have got trouble. What did he say here? He said, "Democrats, at times, have lost their way. We're trying to decide what our core values are."

You don't have to decide what they are if you have them. If you have core values, it means they're part of you. You don't have to decide what they are. I'm telling you, folks, they're in trouble.

[...]

Of course, my friends, I know, I know. The left has core values. They're just not ours. But I mean, if Obama Osama -- here's the story. It's in the Orlando Sentinel. "Obama Osama Leads Star Power or Lends Star Power to Nelson. A Democratic U.S. senator campaigns for his colleague in a town hall forum in Eatonville. About 500 people rose to their feet in a standing 'O' worthy of a rock star, as U.S. Sen. Barack Obama Osama hit the stage." Grab that Ted Kennedy song. People don't know what I'm talking about here, uh, Mike, and let me know when you have it ready.

"The charismatic black politician from Chicago, who at 43 has achieved almost icon status since his wildly popular speech" -- you know, he's an icon because of a speech. He hasn't done anything. Just like [former New York Gov.] Mario Cuomo is an icon because of a speech. How long did Cuomo live off that speech? Four or five years before he was -- maybe -- well, he's not living off it anymore. He got -- he was defeated, eventually, when he ran for governor again but or, no, OK -- 12. Twelve years after, OK. All right.

So here's Osama Obama now. One speech at a convention and he's living off it. He's a rookie. He's a rookie senator. He hasn't done anything yet, now, but anyway, he went in there to try to drum up support for the fledgling and in trouble Democrat from Florida, Bill Nelson, a former astronaut, and the most provocative question he was asked was the first one. Glenn Anderson of Orlando stood up and said, "I see a Democratic Party afraid to say they're Democrats who voted for the war in Iraq and voted for tax cuts for the wealthy. Why should I remain a Democrat?"

"It was a tough question, but Nelson and Obama tried to answer it. Obama said, 'The Democrats, at times, have lost their way. We're trying to decide what our core values are.'" Now, I know, I know, I know they have core values. They're just not ours. The difference is, they don't have the courage to identify their core values publicly.

This is now the third reference in three weeks I've seen of prominent Democrats saying they're going to have to get together and figure out what they believe and that's -- when you're talking core values, that's not why you have meetings. You have meetings to plot "strategery" about how to implement your core values. You don't have meetings to figure out what they are.

And how long have these Democrats been having meetings to try to figure out what to do and who they are? It's just amazing. Now, if you're wondering why I'm calling him "Obama Osama," Ted Kennedy was at the National Press Club and made a speech and in the question-and-answer session, he got a question about Obama and actually called him, "Osama Obama," what did he call him? "Obama bin Laden" or something. He did correct himself, but it caused us -- we had no choice, folks, we had to do a parody tune out of this.

[...]

Speaking of Ben [sic] Nelson, I still have this story of Osama Obama on the front of the stack and it moved to the back. Obama Osama came down from his perch in Illinois to stump for Sen. Nelson here in Florida -- when was it? I guess it was yesterday. I can't believe they didn't cancel it. This is the Orlando Sentinel. Hurricanes are going through, and they still did the fund-raiser. Doesn't surprise me.

But nevertheless, Obama said the Democrats have at times have lost their way, we're trying to decide what our core values are, of course, and it was for the benefit of Ben [sic] Nelson.

—J.S.

Mice dance into my dungeon while the kitchen sponge suffers microwavization

This may seem very far off topic--predominantly I write on here about US politics and foreign policy, with some sporadic bursts of music and murmuring sports-related banter--but here's an interesting nugget of health information from the BBC.

Sponges and dishcloths are a common source of pathogens which cause food poisoning because the bacteria and viruses, which come from uncooked eggs, meat and vegetables, thrive in the damp conditions.

It has been estimated that a kitchen sponge may contain 10,000 bacteria, including E. coli and salmonella, per square inch.

As I sit here, my sponge at home sitting on its perch above the sink on the counter and its approximated 240,000 bacteria are hanging out. That, along with the horde of mice that parade through my house leaving little droppings in the kitchen drawers and in piles on my roommate's futon when we're not home and scamper through the walls, out of sight when we hunt for them, is worrisome. It's beyond worrisome, at least for anyone who takes the health and wellness of their body into account while living.

I'm not sick currently, as far as I know, but I'm going to take this advice:

Microwaving kitchen sponges for just two minutes can kill 99% of living pathogens, a US study in the Journal of Environmental Health claims.

Then again, I could probably stop into the convenience store that's on my way home this evening and buy a new sponge. But I can barely afford new Spanish books, or halfway decent-tasting beer, or pizza specially prepared for home freezing purposes--containing of course unsanitary amounts of sodium and other preservatives (the local Papa John's has 4.99 large one-topping Tuesdays so sometimes I give in; I'd hardly call that the healthy alternative to Tombstone).

So tonight I'm microwaving my sponge. And worrying more about germs in other areas of the house; the bathroom floor which happens to be sagging and sinking into the rafters below it that might be teeming with these microscopic creatures, or the basement with a moldy washing machine made in 1956 and all sorts of holes and cracks in the walls where I suspect the mice make spirited entrances into our duplex. I see them conga-lining in hawaiian shirts through the crumbling cinder blocks into the dusty, cobwebbed dungeon.

Tomorrow, maybe that guy who's supposed to fill in all the holes and cracks along the floors and around piping and in the walls will actually show up. Seeing mouse droppings in the pantry next to a burglarized bag of Jasmine rice is perhaps the worst that could happen to someone who tends not to like feeling they're about to puke.

Don't forget, only microwave damp sponges--and only for 2 minutes if you're doing it on high.

Democrats really are the majority now

"The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 12-9 today to approve a non-binding resolution opposing President Bush’s plan to send additional forces Iraq."

I think this sounds most logical--maybe it doesn't work politically, or militarily--

Senator Christopher Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, proposed a binding resolution that would cap the number of troops in Iraq to the number already there unless Congress approved sending more.

On the other side of the anti-Bush proposal debate, there's John Warner's proposal. I'm waiting it out to see what this new Congress decides. Either way, it's a couple straight steps in a different direction. And no one seems to be digging in their heels.

A Toast to Republicans (that's not scorn or sarcasm...keep reading)

I'm letting out a sigh of relief, thankful for my restraint in choosing sides politically on this blog over the past months. Doing so is hard, especially in these times in which people tend toward polarizing around the opposite left and right camps; at least there seems to be more people among the non-apathetic that either classify themselves as "very liberal" or "very conservative." This may be data I can produce from my own experience, at a midwestern university where I fraternize mostly with men and women aged 18-22 or so. But I think it applies to the whole country. Nothing scientific or sociological or revealed in survey or census results there. Just my personal perception of our personal politics.

What I'm getting at here is this article, "Key Republican Senator Offers Bipartisan Call to Reject Bush Plan for More Troops in Iraq" in Monday's NY Times. That guy there on the far right, yep, he's my senator: Norm Coleman, a republican whose speech is accentuated like a true New Yorker even though he now is considered a Minnesotan. Along with Senator John W. Warner (R-VA), he's proposing an alternative to President George W. Bush's recent plan for Iraq--which involves sending a "surge" of 2,500 troops or so to Iraq and spending a billion dollars on improving that country's economy.

The Times' article contains scarce traces of the Warner proposal: well, actually nothing. But the bipartisanship to me isn't disconcerting, and it's close to hopeful. The article states

Both are nonbinding but declare that United States involvement in Iraq cannot be sustained without strong public support and that the main military mission in Iraq should be ensuring the nation’s territorial integrity.

Hey, what d'ya know? Democracy in action! "Strong public support" is a phrase I wish had been used consistently over the past 4 years, but it is of extremely positive import right now, as President Bush's approval rating, according to a CNN report I saw last on TV last night, is at 36%. Even lower is the public's approval of his handling of Iraq, coming in at 29%.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), another Republican I'm starting to like (which almost hurts to say, but it's not without legitimate cause) doesn't like the idea of the "surge" because similar attempts to bolster our levels of troops in Iraq haven't worked.

We’ve had four other surges since we first went into Iraq,” Ms. Collins said. “None of them produced a long-lasting change in the situation on the ground. So I am very skeptical that this surge would produce the desired outcome.

I heard somewhere--I know, I know, that doesn't sound professional, but it's not like I'm getting paid to do this--that the amount of total US troops in Iraq as a result of Pres. Bush's "surge" would approximately equal (give or take a few) the total we had over there exactly one year ago. I like the way Ms. Collins puts it.

Please, Democrats like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), take this for what it is: it's not just a concession to Democrats' wishes now that the Republicans aren't in power. That is an interpretation, and one that indeed sounds ok. But what it also is means more, that Republicans on the White House's side don't even agree with the war strategy anymore. That they are willing to work with Democrats, instead of both parties pulling hair and biting each other's arms. That maybe bipartisanship isn't a ghost from the past or from some political fantasy.

Well, here's a toast (I have a champagne flute, it looks clean enough, of pulpy orange juice I poured from a carton I left out overnight by accident)to Republicans. To many more attempts, whether for political or ideological or morally-considered motives, to listen to what Democrats in the minority were trying to say for the last 4 years. And to not rubbing it in anyone's face or acting pompous or smug or saying, "we told you so." Here's to sincerity.

And to the guy I've never voted for and although I've always seen eye to eye with him on energy policy (he cares about stuff) I never really agreed with until now...my senator, Norm Coleman.

Opining on Beckham's move to US

Owen Hargreaves, England and Bayern Munich midfielder for BBC Sport:

"I have played with him for a number of years and one thing about him is he loves a challenge.
He showed that when he left Manchester United for Real Madrid. He went to Spain to experience how football is abroad.
I think it is commendable that people take on these new challenges rather than sticking with a comfortable situation.
Becks still wants to achieve a lot in his career and has set himself goals - this is probably one of them.

"What he brings to a league that is not that popular at the moment is a big name and he is going to be hugely influential. There is a lot of potential there, it just needs people like Becks to promote it.

He is going to be a massive figure, not only in football circles over there but the sporting world. I think he will create a lot of excitement that will be good for the league...So he is going to bring a lot more people to the games and a bigger fan base, not just the football enthusiasts or the kids but being global he will appeal for a lot of people.

"The league has a lot to offer but at the moment it cannot compete with the European leagues financially, but when that changes it will be very interesting to other players.

"Players coming to the end of their contract are allowed to sign a contract with any club in January - that is the rule.

"For Becks this is a new challenge and a new chapter. For anybody that doubts him, I predict Becks will probably have the last laugh."

My opinion is listen to these guys

This is from today's New York Times. As disheartening as it is to hear military leaders showing little hope in the new Iraq plan, this news does hit a few positive notes. Republicans are saying "enough is enough," and so are individuals deeply involved in our military. At least it's not just "unpatriotic liberals" or "supporters of terror." Name-calling like that was going on for far too long. More and more people are thinking the same of the war. P.S. This is being typed on a MacBook, so I don't have the font options I would on a PC; I won't be commenting much on this article. I'll let it speak for itself.

"Retired Generals Criticize Bush’s Plan for Iraq"

“Too little and too late,” is the way Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, a former chief of the Central Command, described the effort to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The additional troops are intended to help pacify Baghdad and a restive province, but General Hoar said American leaders had failed to understand the political forces at work in the country. “The solution is political, not military,” he said.

“A fool’s errand,” was the judgment of Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, who commanded troops in the first Gulf War. He said other countries had concluded that the effort in Iraq was not succeeding, noting that “our allies are leaving us and will be gone by summer.”

Describing the situation in Iraq as “desperate but not terminal,” he said Iraqis had to try to make political deals domestically and negotiate for stability with neighboring nations, particularly Syria and Iran.

The American effort in Iraq has gone badly because the United States did not understand the consequences of deposing Saddam Hussein, said Lt. Gen. William E. Odom, a former director of the National Security Agency. He said the principal beneficiary of the war was Iran and Al Qaeda, not the United States.

“There is no way to win a war that is not in your interests,” he said.

In statements and in questioning, senators were skeptical about the increased commitment of troops and the likely outcome of the deployment. Senator Richard Lugar, a Republican from Indiana, noted that he had raised questions about the effort in Iraq as long ago as 2003, and said, “Today, I don’t have an understanding about how it will work militarily.”

One general warned that even a plan to start withdrawing American forces from the country carried the risk that the armed Iraqi population will step up the level of attacks. “We will be shot at as we are going out.” said Gen. Jack Keane, a former vice chief of staff of the Army

black keys

I'll be watching Conan this coming Thursday, January 11 to laugh at Conan's clownish debauchery of course, but also to see and hear the Black Keys. That's since I missed their last Milwaukee show and I've never seen a live show of theirs. Someday, once they come back to the US I will. Until then, I'll be singing "Your Touch" to my girlfriend.

Neil Young, The Current, Neil Young, Black Keys

While scouring Google Images for photographs of the Drive-By Truckers (I dig the cartoon versions of themselves, but I desired to see them in the digital flesh), I came across this news blurb on the DBT homepage: "Neil Young's Living With War lists a live video of "Dress Blues" under the Protest Video section." I'd heard the album, gone through lots of Neil Young lyrics and tabs pages, known of his political activism, but the site is new to me.

By the by, "Dress Blues" isn't on the newest album "A Blessing And A Curse" but you can hear a live acoustic version through Minnesota Public Radio (MPR) on 89.3 The Current. They announced on the air the other day it's the only live recording, or the first one or something. It made the 2006 top 89 countdown--rightfully so--strumming and chanting its rock-tough unassuming war protest anthem somewhere along the top half of the list.

I suggest checking out the Current every now and then--you never know what you'll hear. Now, I'm hearing Ben Harper and the Innocent Criminals' Indian-influenced, soulful outburst "Better Way", which they closed with on Chicago's Lake Michigan shoreline amphitheater early this fall. Their playlist probably is the only one around simultaneously showcasing names like Happy Apple, Taj Mahal, Gorillaz, Bob Dylan, Psapp, The Stills, The O'Jays, Golden Smog, The Jayhawks, Bright Eyes, Neko Case and Whiskeytown; those are all selected from a 5 hour block.

But as I was saying before getting distracted by good music, Neil Young is worth listening to. Equally as a musician and a passionate political and social thinker. Maybe you value the music more, that's ok. Dans le total, I nominate him as Artist of the Day. That might mean of our era, like the phrase "Back in the Day."

As I type these very words, Mr. Young's "Looking For a Leader" from Living With War was just put on the air by The Current's Mary Lucia. Thanks for listening I think...this blogging/technology thing is getting spooky, when crosscutting like this happens and everything fits together. Next up, The Black Keys' "Your Touch."

Uh oh

Bush Plan for Iraq Requests More Troops and More Jobs!!! (Boldface and exclamation marks mine)

The news is in, the papers are running headlines--boldfaced and with exclamation marks hitting home with the newest Iraq war revelation!!! Well, not really, sort of, but the NY Times reported less than 10 minutes before this will be published that Bush is in fact going with the "surge" plan; he's deciding (or decided already?) to put 20,000 American troops into Iraq, an amount to be matched by Iraq's army. Jobs will be created for Iraq's civilians, at a cost of approximately 1 million dollars!!! Oh, umm, what? Right. That's 1 billion dollars! (Evil pinky placed on corner of mouth)

Too bad that new Congress we recently elected, consisting of a Democratic majority, is a moot point. Apparently. Nuts to Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-VT) and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who

"said in a letter to the president on Friday that the United States should move
instead toward a phased withdrawal of American troops, to begin in the next four
months."

Uh oh. More on this soon. Friends home from a trip to Arkansas are here and I must visit with them and see if the country appears the same when viewed from the Southern angle.

I'm back. And this report--same link as above--says Bush's plan would put troops on the ground in Iraq for possibly less than a year. That's positive. Some presence, authority, stability, whatever, is needed. That's truth. It's up to Congress to decide whether or not they want to curb spending in Iraq: doing so puts them at risk of bringing up the "your on our side or you're with the terrorists" argument that is sounding less eloquent these days (see Approval Ratings or the sweeping changes in political affiliation of newly elected Congress members).

Couldn't America use some sort of small-scale Works Progress/Projects Administration (WPA)? I mean, we're not in Reconstruction or a Depression or anything, but are there not homeless and poverty-strucken here? If you say no, I'll disagree vehemently. The lid of my plastic trash barrel sounds a loud thud when people look inside it for cans or bottles or any piece of junk that shows promise, as I sit and eat Frosted Flakes and drink organic, shade-grown cofee most mornings. Well, if Iraq gets a work program, I sincerely hope it works. I like to think about social justice globally as well as locally.

20,000 troops? Maybe we should have a discussion about this. It sounds grave, but if Congress agrees to continuing fund the effort, I can't complain. It's up to them now to make a name for themselves; whether they make a deep, gashed mark or a clean, successful one is yet to be seen, and I am really not one to say which is better, to send more troops (of course I support the troops, I know a few) or to just be finished with it and admit defeat--although that might lead to more conflict (if a worse mess than so many debris and body-strewn Baghdad streets over the past 5 years can, in fact, be made).

Let's hope some kind of diplomacy takes place between the executive and legislative branches.

Chevy Chase

This was in yesterday's Times, although the publishing date is stamped as today. I guess this is in the spirit of the holiday season, seeing as Mr. Chase is probably as well known as a Griswold in Christmas Vacation as for his President Ford impressions. Here's an op-ed he wrote on his relationship with the former President. It's funny, of course, but also poignant.

Mr. Ford Gets the Last Laugh
By CHEVY CHASE
Published: January 6, 2007
IN recent days, I’ve been bombarded by requests to comment on my relationship with President Gerald Ford. Until now, I’ve tried to say nothing — any remarks from me during the Ford family’s private time of grief would have been inappropriate.
The requests were understandable, I guess. You see, I made a reputation for myself 30 years ago on “Saturday Night Live” in part because of a number of sketches and “Weekend Updates” that I wrote or appeared in ridiculing Mr. Ford for his apparent “stumble-bumbling” (though he was perhaps the best athlete to have been president) and making fun of his presidency.
Luckily for me, Mr. Ford had a sense of humor.
I’ve often thought how odd it was that we became linked together. It’s not like we had a lot in common. After all, Mr. Ford had never been helped for any problems with “self-medication” in a facility that has helped so many throughout these past decades. And he had never been castigated by the press for such atrocities as “Oh! Heavenly Dog” or “Cops and Robbersons,” among other slightly awful films I had made in Hollywood.
But linked together we were. And not just in the obvious ways. If it hadn’t been for the courage of Mr. Ford’s wife, Betty, for admitting to an alcohol problem, I would never have received the help I needed in the early 1980s at the Betty Ford clinic, located not far from the Ford residence near Palm Springs. During my short stay there, I often saw Mrs. Ford personally surveying the clinic and generously offering a helping hand to those who were lucky enough to face their problems and, with the learned help of the clinic staff, appraise their behavior and their lifestyles.
One day when my wife, Jayni, came to visit me at the clinic, the Fords invited us to lunch. As it happened, Mrs. Ford had become so beloved and respected by many for her earlier openness about breast cancer and her alcoholism that a television network was in preproduction on a special bio-pic about her. Mr. Ford suggested that while we ate lunch, the four of us could view the videotape of various performances by actors being considered to play the part of the president.
Seated at a small table set for four in a simple dining room also containing a somewhat complicated videotape recorder and TV set were the former commander in chief and I making friendly small talk before lunch was brought in. And on all fours, literally on their hands and knees in front of the bulky and confusing tape machine, were Mrs. Ford and Jayni trying their best to figure out the wiring of the playback machine and the way the whole system worked, so we could watch the screen tests. Noting the effort the ladies were putting into getting the VCR to work, I suggested to Mr. Ford that perhaps we might help them out.
As I began to stand up from my chair, he took gentle hold of my arm, sat me back down and said: “No, no, Chevy. Don’t even think about it. I’ll probably get electrocuted, and you’ll be picked up and arrested for murder.”
We both laughed.
I’ll never forget that moment. My laughter was hearty and genuine.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/06/opinion/06chase.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Holocaust: Up for Debate? Really?

Read Holocaust Conference in Iran in NY Times 12/12/06

Does this sound crazy to anyone? I don't mean the intended-to-be-funny lack of poignancy kind of crazy (think The Onion), or even crazy as a loon, much less crazy in the sense of zooming head-first down an Olympic luge course . Just pure crazy. Indeed, stated the White House, crazy. And perverse. As much as I usually avoid putting my beliefs in line with this Administration, I'm glad those men and women agree with me, and that I agree with them. Almost makes you feel warm and toasty inside. Almost--then the 300-pound gorilla in the room starts sweating again, and smells real bad.

For the past few months, since I read an article citing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran's publicized disbelief in the Holocaust, that large, hairy gorilla has lurked in the shadows, noticed by many, probably laughed at by some, and generally scorned--or so my hopeful side tends to think. That's why this "conference" even happening in the first place means something: first we'll let out a deep sigh, shake our head, then pull out the history books, point to the ugly facts, the pictures, the "statistics," sobering, saddening as they may be. I hope everyone at the conference is assigned a reading list with Elie Wiesel's Night and Cynthia Oszick's The Shawl and the writings of Primo Levi. And then they better take a field trip over to the Auschwitz concentration and labor camps, then to others with names like Belzec and Chelmno and Treblinka. I can only imagine the deafening silence upon arrival of a busload of these"deniers" to western Poland's Sobidor death camp location. I think the bus driver would probably stop cracking jokes at about that point; maybe even try to put things into historical context.
"No, seriously folks," he'd say. "Not a joke. Nope, sorry Mr. Iranian President, not a myth either. Please have a seat back there, all deniers will get a photo op in a moment."'

I'm all for investigating the US-led coalition's true motives for going to Iraq, and on that subject it remains to be told why the US, and Britain, have been involved in colonialization of the Middle East, not to mention political and military interference there, for decades. But bringing in who the New York Times refers to as "discredited scholars and white supremacists" to debunk history doesn't do much to resolve the situtiation for me or for America--or Jews around the world for that matter. Sure, one theory is the one of Zionism--giving Israel its own nation after WW2 might discriminate against Palestinians--but attacking the Holocaust as a historical fact is just plain crazy, and not the way to argue against the US and Britain's middle east policies.

Certainly an inquiry into the Holocaust sounds legitimate; it's tough, important work to determine why and by what means it happened, and how many were killed and displaced and emotionally abused by it. But it's not a brand new phenomenon we need to verify; it happened over 60 years ago! That deserves another exclamation point! And another! Tony Blair, British Prime Minister, agrees: the conference is "shocking beyond belief." The facts are set in stone--have been for 60 years. Rather than debate the Holocaust's existence, let's discuss its essence and the form of evil it took. Show those "disbelievers"--who I suspect know better--the books, the people, the places that show the devastation caused by the Nazis during the 1940s. The gorilla of denial--of history, of suffering, of religious and racial intolerance--needs to leave. The odor is getting unbearable.

WMD

The Star Tribune cites a new Harris Poll that reports half of our country still thinks Iraq had nuclear arms in 2003. Do they not trust our government, which spent 16 months and $900 million only to come up empty-handed? The majority of these people are republican, according to the study. The Star Trib reports that perhaps the main reason why people refuse to trust the experts, in addition to extreme partisanship, is "a need to believe in WMD." It really makes no sense to me how you can trust our government to invade a country, then dismantle their government and attempt to build a new one, but you don't trust the Pentagon, Iraq Survey Group or U.N.'s information. Maybe it's called partisan-induced blindness.

Oh, and the article reinforces the Pentagon's view that the 500 chemical munitions found in Iraq were not the ones we were looking for. They were used long before Iraq was supposed to dismantle, 15 years or longer, and were not hidden by Iraq. People are crazy, I'll stick to that until some actual weapons are found, then I'll call these believers people of amazing faith. For now they are just crazy for not accepting public information based on millions of dollars of research.

Religion and Politics

This post is in response to an article in the NY Times about a pastor at an Evangelical church here in the Twin Cities going against the conservative grain.

“More and more people are saying this has gone too far — the dominance of the evangelical identity by the religious right,” Mr. McLaren said. “You cannot say the word ‘Jesus’ in 2006 without having an awful lot of baggage going along with it. You can’t say the word ‘Christian,’ and you certainly can’t say the word ‘evangelical’ without it now raising connotations and a certain cringe factor in people."

This is very true. My friend and I were weeding through the fuzz on the radio while driving home from another friend's cabin, trying to find something good, music or talk. We came to a talk station, but it ended up sounding like what's now known as the Religious Right. "Ahh, its a bunch of crazy Jesus talk, turn it," my friend said. Very true. And the associations the above article cites were brought on with those few warbling words of religious lingo. This had nothing to do with our religious beliefs, we realized, and everything to do with the outrageous political messages the so-called Religious Right now inherently stands for. It's a political brand of Christianity, which is something that religions never should strive to consist of. Religion is about spirituality, personal morality, about faith. Not about stances on abortion, homosexuality or national and military pride. Those material concerns cheapen religion. The article goes on.

“When we joined years ago, Greg was a conservative speaker,” said William Berggren, a lawyer who joined the church with his wife six years ago. “But we totally disagreed with him on this. You can’t be a Christian and ignore actions that you feel are wrong. A case in point is the abortion issue. If the church were awake when abortion was passed in the 70’s, it wouldn’t have happened. But the church was asleep.”

Alright, I don't know this William Berggren, and I probably shouldn't analyze his opinion and try to attack his comments on the church. The thing is, isn't the church asleep in that sense today? Where has it acted on its criticism of the war in Iraq? Some of us are Christians who don't support the notion that America is a Christian nation that must spread its ideas of freedom and democracy to all other nations of the world. Yes, those ideas are good, but must they be subscribed to at the expense of human life and with intolerance of anything outside of their realm, which does not seem right to me.

I say this: If the church were awake when resolution 114 was passed in 2002, the war wouldn't have happened. Yes, a bold claim. Actually a stupid claim because it's not completely true. But it nails home the same point as Berggren tries to make, which is: Christianity must take action against issues it disagrees with. The only difference is, I'm making presumptive statements in jest. I do so in order to demonstrate that going to church in one of those mega-churches shouldn't be about conservative politics. It should be about conservative political beliefs and liberal political beliefs, side by side, perhaps bored, during a long hot service. Personally, Christian beliefs have made me into a liberal-leaning individual, and I believe most people should see it the same way. But they don't, because people are free and that's ok. It's good to see that Rev. Gregory A. Boyd is with me on that.

environmental activism by Larry David

Funny funny funny and good for the environment...Larry David

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TcrzC_T_XOs&mode=related&search=curb%20your%20enthusiasm

Jeremy Piven as Ari Gold on Entourage

Hilarious.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=TGTJSorTQvw&mode=related&search=ari%20gold

science in society

This is the beginning of my attempt to corral popular opinions regarding scientific issues like global warming and evolution and put them to the test. They play out into politics so often these days, and I think its time I put my mark on the field of debate. Not as an expert or someone who knows anything, but someone who wants to slice some piece of truth out of the monstrous pie the left and right sides of the political spectrum have baking in the oven.

j5

here's my plug for MVRemix.com, an online music magazine with articles, interviews, and all that good stuff. i interviewed Zaakir, aka Soup from Jurassic 5. check it out, dude was awesome.

http://www.mvremix.com/urban/interviews/soup_jurassic_5.shtml