Saturday, June 30, 2007
I Was Right
As I predicted Thursday, Michelle Wie did not finish her second round in the Women's U.S. Open, withdrawing after making six bogies in her first nine holes. Karrie Webb, on the other hand, who I predicted would bear down and recover, is even after 17 holes -- one of the best rounds of the day. I'm not doing quite as well on some other predictions I made earlier in the year. (Though a few are turning out as expected.)
A Small Bit of Cultural Progress
Though laws can't change culture, I still find it heartening that Egypt is getting serious about ending female genital mutilation.
Christopher Hitchens also made an intereting point about FGM (and MGM, or circumcision) in his recent book, "god is not great: how religion poisons everything": "As to immoral practice, it is hard to imagine anything more grotesque than the mutilation of infant genitalia. Nor is it easy to imagine anything more incompatible with the argument from design. We must assume that a designer god would pay especial attention to the reproductive organs of his creatures, which are so essential for the continuation of the species. But religious ritual since the dawn of time has insisted on snatching children from the cradle and taking stones or knives to their pudenda."
One of my favorite stories about FGM (if there is such a thing), came from Eve Ensler's "The Vagina Monologues." Ms. Ensler, who had interviewed hundreds of women about the intimate matters surrounding their genitalia, spoke to a woman in an Islamic African country who was responsible for performing the clitoridectomy required by their custom. What she told Ensler was the most heartening, uplifting thing I heard that night in the theater: instead of performing the procedure, she simply pinched each girl's clitoris really hard, so the men outside the tent would hear her scream in agony and be satisfied. Think of the dozens of girls who were not mutilated because of this one woman's bravery and willingness to fight mindless tradition.
Christopher Hitchens also made an intereting point about FGM (and MGM, or circumcision) in his recent book, "god is not great: how religion poisons everything": "As to immoral practice, it is hard to imagine anything more grotesque than the mutilation of infant genitalia. Nor is it easy to imagine anything more incompatible with the argument from design. We must assume that a designer god would pay especial attention to the reproductive organs of his creatures, which are so essential for the continuation of the species. But religious ritual since the dawn of time has insisted on snatching children from the cradle and taking stones or knives to their pudenda."
One of my favorite stories about FGM (if there is such a thing), came from Eve Ensler's "The Vagina Monologues." Ms. Ensler, who had interviewed hundreds of women about the intimate matters surrounding their genitalia, spoke to a woman in an Islamic African country who was responsible for performing the clitoridectomy required by their custom. What she told Ensler was the most heartening, uplifting thing I heard that night in the theater: instead of performing the procedure, she simply pinched each girl's clitoris really hard, so the men outside the tent would hear her scream in agony and be satisfied. Think of the dozens of girls who were not mutilated because of this one woman's bravery and willingness to fight mindless tradition.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Pixar's Newest is their Best Ever
"Ratatouille," Pixar's latest, that opened today, is their best film ever. It's smart, funny, touching, big-hearted, filled with brilliant visual imagery, great comic moments, and is perhaps the best-written film of the past few years. The final voice-over from Peter O'Toole's restaurant critic character Anton Ego alone is worth the price of admission. As is the scene when Remy (the rat chef) first communicates with Linguini (the restaurant domestique who becomes Remy's way of achieveing his culinary vision).
Go. Have fun. Trust me.
Equality Above All
In this New York Times editorial, Juan Williams makes a good case for why yesterday's SCOTUS decision to limit affirmative action in education is not the blow to the legacy of Brown v. Board of Education some think it is. America has changed, Williams argues, and the landscape of public education is far different than it was in 1954. Schools are failing not because they are segregated; they are failing because they are poorly funded or poorly managed.
Although I disagree with several of the Court's decisions of the past two days, this one is, I think, in line with American values. As Chief Justice Roberts said yesterday, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." We must do all we can to make sure we live up to the 14th Amendment principle of equal treatment under the law. And race-based preferential treatment does the opposite of that.
Although I disagree with several of the Court's decisions of the past two days, this one is, I think, in line with American values. As Chief Justice Roberts said yesterday, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." We must do all we can to make sure we live up to the 14th Amendment principle of equal treatment under the law. And race-based preferential treatment does the opposite of that.
An Approach to Acquisitiveness
On the release day for iPhone (something I was coveting but have now decided I can do without -- I have a phone, I have an iPod, all I'm missing is the mobile Net access, and with my vision being what it is these days, the chances I could actually use the iPhone for that purpose without the assistance of a scanning electron microscope are far slimmer than Apple's sleek new toy), Salon has a piece on how people deal with coveting.
Money quote: "What do I do when I want something that I know I don't need? I'll often go to the store and put it in my cart and push it around for 10 minutes. At the end of that time, I realize that I've "owned" it and I ask myself if I still want it and if my life has changed because of it. Often, the answer to both questions is "No." The item finds its home on the store shelf and I go home with one less thing."
Money quote: "What do I do when I want something that I know I don't need? I'll often go to the store and put it in my cart and push it around for 10 minutes. At the end of that time, I realize that I've "owned" it and I ask myself if I still want it and if my life has changed because of it. Often, the answer to both questions is "No." The item finds its home on the store shelf and I go home with one less thing."
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Spam -- but to what purpose?
On one level, I can understand the spam touting Viagara and penile enlargement (though I never seem to get those -- wonder why?), but I'm completely at a loss as to what this mail is trying to accomplish:
"That square—Oh, 56 x 56
Clear-voiced despite its years, strong, eloquent—
IX. After the Great Northern Expedition
He never even dreams, being sheer snow;trainer flips young alligators over on their backs,
The surge of swirling wind definesI've drifted somewhat from the distant heart
In dense bare branches, or the ubiquitousWith my foot the supple ball, for perhaps
and the Splendid Splinter. For a few dreamy dollars,Among us, only Alberti, then Sangallo,
My keyhole blows a galeIn the sound of the snow. What the countless
Swaying in unison beneath the snow,His sightless eyes horribly watch the air;
V. The Dutch in the Arcticat balls hit again and again toward her offspring"
The subject line was "Autodesk AutoCad 2008 download"
What does it all mean?
"That square—Oh, 56 x 56
Clear-voiced despite its years, strong, eloquent—
IX. After the Great Northern Expedition
He never even dreams, being sheer snow;trainer flips young alligators over on their backs,
The surge of swirling wind definesI've drifted somewhat from the distant heart
In dense bare branches, or the ubiquitousWith my foot the supple ball, for perhaps
and the Splendid Splinter. For a few dreamy dollars,Among us, only Alberti, then Sangallo,
My keyhole blows a galeIn the sound of the snow. What the countless
Swaying in unison beneath the snow,His sightless eyes horribly watch the air;
V. The Dutch in the Arcticat balls hit again and again toward her offspring"
The subject line was "Autodesk AutoCad 2008 download"
What does it all mean?
Tomorrow Will Be Interesting
At the first round of the U.S. Women's Open, easily the most prestigious of any women's golf tournament, teen phenom Michelle Wie, who hasn't had an under par round in any tournament this year, shot an opening 11 over 82. However, one of the other top players, Karrie Webb, a woman with several major wins under her belt, shot an 83.
What will be interesting is to see how both of these players rebound tomorrow. My prediction? Michelle will fade and maybe even withdraw, Karrie will buckle down, shoot a decent round, but still miss the cut. Michelle Wie is now deeply in Anna Kournikova territory.
What will be interesting is to see how both of these players rebound tomorrow. My prediction? Michelle will fade and maybe even withdraw, Karrie will buckle down, shoot a decent round, but still miss the cut. Michelle Wie is now deeply in Anna Kournikova territory.
"The Decider's Decider"
I haven't yet read the Washington Post series on Cheney, but I did read this piece in Slate. Both describe a man committed to expanding the power of the executive beyond what the founders intended, a man so committed to secrecy that he kept much of his paperwork in a "man-size" safe and even marked talking points for the press as "top secret," a man who enabled and encouraged the President to order the torture of detainees...see, now I've got to stop because my blood pressure is getting up. What the hell has happened to this country?
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
How Important is "Marriage"?
The California Supreme Court is currently considering a case that will decide whether denying same-sex couples the right to marry is a violation of the state's constitution. Last week, the Court sent both sides in the case a set of questions it wanted answered.
From the questions, it seems the Court is trying to determine whether or not the state's domestic partnership law provides all the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage, thereby making the extension of equal "marriage" rights a moot point. The reasoning seems to be that if gay couples in a domestic partnership get the same legal rights (on a state level) as straight married couples, is there a need to allow same-sex couples to marry?
It all seems to hinge on the word "marriage": just how important is that word? The Court asked the two sides four questions. Number three reads, in part: "Do the terms "marriage" or "marry" themselves have constitutional significance under the California Constitution?" If the state decided to change the name of the legal relationship we now call "marriage" to something else, what would that mean for couples within the state?
What seems more important to me is what that would that mean for couples in the state in terms of their legal standing on a federal level? Obviously marriage delivers important federal benefits, the most vital being Social Security survivor benefits and the ability to grant a partner permanent resident status through marriage. I've advocated in the past for a requirement that all couples who want the legal benefits of marriage, no matter their gender mix, would need to enter into a new legal arrangement that could be called "civil union" or some other term. Those who want to "marry" could then go to whatever church would have them to enter into that spiritual union.
The challenge is, can you get recognition of civil unions on a federal level without the term "marriage" being applied to them? That's a question for which I don't yet have an answer. But it's one that could have tremendous consequences should California decide to create a legal couples relationship that is not called "marriage." Would same-sex couples who entered into a fully-equivalent legal relationship be denied federal benefits of marriage? Would opposite-sex couples be denied these same rights if California's new legal "marriage" was not in fact called "marriage"? More questions for which I lack answers!
From the questions, it seems the Court is trying to determine whether or not the state's domestic partnership law provides all the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage, thereby making the extension of equal "marriage" rights a moot point. The reasoning seems to be that if gay couples in a domestic partnership get the same legal rights (on a state level) as straight married couples, is there a need to allow same-sex couples to marry?
It all seems to hinge on the word "marriage": just how important is that word? The Court asked the two sides four questions. Number three reads, in part: "Do the terms "marriage" or "marry" themselves have constitutional significance under the California Constitution?" If the state decided to change the name of the legal relationship we now call "marriage" to something else, what would that mean for couples within the state?
What seems more important to me is what that would that mean for couples in the state in terms of their legal standing on a federal level? Obviously marriage delivers important federal benefits, the most vital being Social Security survivor benefits and the ability to grant a partner permanent resident status through marriage. I've advocated in the past for a requirement that all couples who want the legal benefits of marriage, no matter their gender mix, would need to enter into a new legal arrangement that could be called "civil union" or some other term. Those who want to "marry" could then go to whatever church would have them to enter into that spiritual union.
The challenge is, can you get recognition of civil unions on a federal level without the term "marriage" being applied to them? That's a question for which I don't yet have an answer. But it's one that could have tremendous consequences should California decide to create a legal couples relationship that is not called "marriage." Would same-sex couples who entered into a fully-equivalent legal relationship be denied federal benefits of marriage? Would opposite-sex couples be denied these same rights if California's new legal "marriage" was not in fact called "marriage"? More questions for which I lack answers!
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Queue Management
You've had this experience -- you go into a grocery store or a pharmacy or Costco (or any retail outlet with multiple cash registers) and try to choose the shortest line. Then one of the customers in front of you turns out to have an expired credit card, or they forgot to get Metamucil, or they decide to wait until everything is rung up and bagged before even beginning to search for their checkbook. Doesn't it seem like forming one line to wait for the next available cashier would be the smartest way to manage the queue? I always have. And, it turns out, we're right.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Harry Potter and the Angry Christianist
The Christianists (as opposed to Christians) never cease to amaze me. There are quite a few of them who are upset over the success of the Harry Potter books because they "support" witchcraft. Of course, they've missed the point entirely: the books are about loyalty, courage, friendship, hard work -- all good Christian values, I would think. Now a hacker, trying to attack the books for their "neo-paganism" has apparently hacked a secure site, read the book and posted its secret ending -- all to try and limit sales.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Time to Try Rumsfeld for War Crimes?
Accorsing to a very credible source, Rummy knew long ago about the Abu Ghraib abuses, limited investigation of the case and lied about its findings and his knowledge of the case.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
A Prediction
Despite being the leader going in to the final round, Aaron Baddeley will NOT be able to hold on to his two-stroke lead and win the U.S. Open today. I just saw an interview with Baddeley and he looked very nervous and anxious. He just doesn't have the solid look you need to face the pressure of the final round of golf's biggest major.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Fanning the Flames
After watching "The Daily Show" (Thursday night, which featured this cryptic video from Mike Gravel), I went to Mike Gravel's website to see if I could learn more. Once on the site, I was surprised to see Gravel come out in full support of equal marriage rights. I thought it was pretty brave of him to speak out so openly on an issue that has been so divisive and seems to strike people at such a deep level. So I decided to see if any other Democratic candidates were willing to address the issue directly, and how much play Republican candidates would give the issue on their websites. (Virtually every candidate has an "issues" button where they list their stands on a variety of key issues of their choosing. Dennis Kucinich's site lists dozens of issues, where
Unfortunately, the results were just about what I expected. Only two of the eight Democratic candidates would even touch the issue, though both (Gravel and Kucinich) were in favor of civil marriage equality. Of the ten Republican candidates, all but Ron Paul mention the issue, and all of them are against marriage equality. Giuliani, while reiterating that marriage is between a man and a woman, "supports domestic partnerships that provide stability for committed partners in important legal and personal matters." That's more than any other Republican candidate will do, but note it's not "ALL legal and personal matters," but only "IMPORTANT legal and personal matters." So I think we have to mark Giuliani as still standing for inequality.
Some Republicans went even farther. Three called for the U.S. Constitution to be amended to define marriage as one man and one woman. Four mentioned (though not necessarily in conjunction with same-sex marriage) that judges should not legislate from the bench. Personally, I think the Constitution does a pretty good job of defining who gets to make the law and who gets to interpret the law, and all the talk of "activist judges" is nothing more than inflaming the passion of their base.
Again, if only we could get our politicians (on all sides) to focus on reason and the common good, instead of fanning the flames of partisanship, we'd all be a lot better off.
Friday, June 15, 2007
More Good News!
This story led to this story -- Massachusetts has defeated a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. In a related bit, Columbia becomes the first Latin American country to extend something like equal rights to same-sex couples.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Minds Change
A positive sign. Money quote: "For me, what all this comes down to is this: Same gendered couples are taxpaying, law-abiding citizens, who are important community contributors, well-loved and well-respected by their families, friends, neighbors and employers. They deserve and are entitled to the same legal protections enjoyed by all others citizens of our state. Despite dire predictions, there has been no adverse societal impact from this decision and most people now express little concern about same gender marriage." Gale Candaras, a Massachusetts state representative, in explaining why she no longer supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage as limited only to opposite-gender couples.
I'm NOT rooting for...
Vijay Singh (never liked what he said about Annika), currently even
Phil Mickelson (can't say why, but I just don't like him), currently +4
Zach Johnson (he thinks God is on his side), currently +6
Phil Mickelson (can't say why, but I just don't like him), currently +4
Zach Johnson (he thinks God is on his side), currently +6
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)