On Saturday mornings I tool into town in Lola LeSabre and stop at the Orange Ave Starbucks on my way to Frontrunners. Today was a special treat.
1. The parking lot was full, drive through was slammed and a guy in a giant SUVwas blocking all access to any parking or the drive through line. I asked him to pull aside and let me by to more parking. His reply was "I'm waiting for someone." and he did not move. I insisted, he shrugged and did not move. I then told him my 43 year old car had plenty of scrapes and dings, and wouldn't mind a few more as edged it toward him. He muttered something under his breath and backed up just enough for me to get by.
2. As walked toward the store a woman was pulling up to the drive thru squawk box. Her head was hanging out reading the menu with cell phone in her ear. As I walked by she shouted. "Will you just shut up a minute Jeeze", then in a softer voice into her phone she just said, "God, when they want your order, they want your order."
3. As I went inside, the line was uncharacteristically very long. OK, I had a few minutes. But after a minute or two, I realized that the customer at the counter was in the middle of placing a giant order of complicated coffees (I take mine, black, no sugar, thank you). The barista was reading back - "OK the first 10 are; One - a half-caff-lo-fat frappicino with...." With at least 5 people ahead of me, I decided I did not have that much time and left.
4. As I walked back to Lola LeSabre, SUV guy had repositioned himself to again block all access, and was having yet another argument with someone who just wanted to park.
You know, I like Starbucks from time to time, but just don't want to be around the self absorbed jerks that simply must go there and nowhere else. I went across the street to McDonalds. Perfectly fine coffee and not a hint of snotty customers.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Monday, June 11, 2007
Immigration: Reform or an Excuse to Codify Xenophobia?
I am mystified at the widespread opposition to the current immigration reform proposal. While not perfect, it addresses the problem of illegal immigration by better securing the borders and allowing more workers in legally.
It also attempts to soften the impact of reform for the immigrants, their families, their employers and our economy by allowing employed illegal immigrants to stay, albeit at some penalty.
The bottom line is that we need immigration. Our economy can not be sustained on the home grown workforce. Inadequate immigration policy and inadequate border control, lead to an ‘illegal’ supplemental work force. But we still need that work force, so it seems to me that correcting the problem rather than throwing them out is the right thing to do.
But all I hear from those against this is that we are giving amnesty to law breakers when we should be throwing them out. I also notice that few of these same critics have much to say about the law-breaking American businesses that employed these illegal workers. I have to wonder if this is about the immigrants’ legal status and responsibilities or is it just a wedge to cleanse the ethnicity of the United States.
Be that as it may, I can’t help but have a bit of sympathy for those on the right vehemently opposed to this reform. Those of us left of center know all too well what it’s like to have the President make up his mind and not listen to anything you have to say. We feel your pain, with just a tinge of enjoyment.
It also attempts to soften the impact of reform for the immigrants, their families, their employers and our economy by allowing employed illegal immigrants to stay, albeit at some penalty.
The bottom line is that we need immigration. Our economy can not be sustained on the home grown workforce. Inadequate immigration policy and inadequate border control, lead to an ‘illegal’ supplemental work force. But we still need that work force, so it seems to me that correcting the problem rather than throwing them out is the right thing to do.
But all I hear from those against this is that we are giving amnesty to law breakers when we should be throwing them out. I also notice that few of these same critics have much to say about the law-breaking American businesses that employed these illegal workers. I have to wonder if this is about the immigrants’ legal status and responsibilities or is it just a wedge to cleanse the ethnicity of the United States.
Be that as it may, I can’t help but have a bit of sympathy for those on the right vehemently opposed to this reform. Those of us left of center know all too well what it’s like to have the President make up his mind and not listen to anything you have to say. We feel your pain, with just a tinge of enjoyment.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Would Jesus be a Conservative?
In America today we see the term ‘Christian Conservative’ as a redundancy. If you are Christian, you must be conservative. If you are conservative you are most likely Christian. That’s too bad because one has little to do with the other.
As I see it, the very essence of the teachings of Jesus sounds like a liberal manifesto.
In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus teaches us the golden rule, to turn the other cheek, love our enemies, to not sit in judgment of others, and to eschew material things over more important matters. Yet some so-called ‘Christian leaders’ support war, call for retribution, advocate hatred, violence, even death for those they do not like, incessantly express disdain, derision and displeasure with those they disagree with, and all the while living lavishly.
A person who goes through life striving to do right by others, going the extra mile, meeting violence with love, forgiving his enemies, keeping his judgments to himself, and quietly, generously sharing his wealth with those in need would be seen by the right as a classic bleeding heart liberal. Yet it is precisely the life that imperfect Christians are taught to strive for.
So how is it that people who call themselves Christian have aligned themselves with the kind of conservatives who sit in judgment of others, foster hate and derision, prefer to start wars over oil rather than intervene in an on-going genocide, and would gut every program designed to help those in need?
I would ask every Christian who believes the current leadership of this country is taking us in the right direction to go back to the gospels. Think, pray then ask “What would Jesus do?”
And for those that would turn to people like the late Rev. Fallwell, or Robertson, Swaggart, or Phelps for their political guidance, pay special attention to Mathew 7:15-16: “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits.” On second thought, never mind. No sense casting pearls before swine.
As I see it, the very essence of the teachings of Jesus sounds like a liberal manifesto.
In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus teaches us the golden rule, to turn the other cheek, love our enemies, to not sit in judgment of others, and to eschew material things over more important matters. Yet some so-called ‘Christian leaders’ support war, call for retribution, advocate hatred, violence, even death for those they do not like, incessantly express disdain, derision and displeasure with those they disagree with, and all the while living lavishly.
A person who goes through life striving to do right by others, going the extra mile, meeting violence with love, forgiving his enemies, keeping his judgments to himself, and quietly, generously sharing his wealth with those in need would be seen by the right as a classic bleeding heart liberal. Yet it is precisely the life that imperfect Christians are taught to strive for.
So how is it that people who call themselves Christian have aligned themselves with the kind of conservatives who sit in judgment of others, foster hate and derision, prefer to start wars over oil rather than intervene in an on-going genocide, and would gut every program designed to help those in need?
I would ask every Christian who believes the current leadership of this country is taking us in the right direction to go back to the gospels. Think, pray then ask “What would Jesus do?”
And for those that would turn to people like the late Rev. Fallwell, or Robertson, Swaggart, or Phelps for their political guidance, pay special attention to Mathew 7:15-16: “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits.” On second thought, never mind. No sense casting pearls before swine.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Steaming Pile of Ideology and Spin
There was a time when the United States was the responsible adult on the global playground. We counseled nations; we policed disputes; we provided comfort and care to those in need; we protected the weak from bullies. As a last resort we sometimes had to punish troublemakers. But we are no longer acting as a responsible adult. Instead we are acting like a wild-eyed ideological evangelist out to remake the world in our own image. Whoever does not fit that image is at risk of our wrath.
So here we have Iran, an unrepentant troublemaker, exacerbating the chaos we unleashed in Iraq and pursuing dreams of wiping out its enemies with nuclear weapons. Clearly something needs to be done.
The old United States would have had the clout and credibility to step up and deal with this diplomatically. The new United States does not and, even worse, apparently does not care to. The old United States would use the force of war only when the threat was immediate, severe, actual and indisputable. The new United States will use the force of war based on a spin campaign, and the spin has begun.
The best thing that we can do about Iran is to dig deep into the steaming pile of ideology and spin and find the old United States.
So here we have Iran, an unrepentant troublemaker, exacerbating the chaos we unleashed in Iraq and pursuing dreams of wiping out its enemies with nuclear weapons. Clearly something needs to be done.
The old United States would have had the clout and credibility to step up and deal with this diplomatically. The new United States does not and, even worse, apparently does not care to. The old United States would use the force of war only when the threat was immediate, severe, actual and indisputable. The new United States will use the force of war based on a spin campaign, and the spin has begun.
The best thing that we can do about Iran is to dig deep into the steaming pile of ideology and spin and find the old United States.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Answers to Rhetorical Questions
When I was in second grade my teacher was holding an impromptu spelling bee. She was providing the words from her desk and calling on students to spell the words aloud. When she called on me, the word to spell was "from". So I very carefully spelled it, "f-r-o-m-e".
She let out an exaggerated 'tsk', and asked, "Why would anyone spell 'from' with an 'e' on the end?"
I responded, "Because it rhymes with come and come is spelled c-o-m-e". The class giggled at my obvious logic, to which my teacher did not take kindly. I was sent to the Principal's office.
And so it began, my lifelong need to answer rhetorical questions...
Can you cry under water?
Yes, but your mascara does not run quite so dramatically so it's not as effective.
How important does a person have to be before they are considered assassinated instead of just murdered?
If he is killed because WHAT he is, he is assassinated .
Why do you have to "put your two cents in".. . but it's only a "penny for your thoughts"? Where's that extra penny going to?
People who are willing to pay you a penny when they want your thoughts will actually charge you 2 cents to take the time out of their day to hear your unsolicited advice.
Once you're in heaven, do you get stuck wearing the clothes you were buried in for eternity?
Only if its polyester.
Why does a round pizza come in a square box?
The paradigm is shifting. Since its easier to make square pizzas than round boxes, more and more pizzas are square.
What disease did cured ham actually have?
Life.
How is it that we put man on the moon before we figured out it would be a good idea to put wheels on luggage?
Because those little wheels on luggage are 'Space Age' wheels and we had to wait for the space age.
Why is it that people say they "slept like a baby" when babies wake up like every two hours?
Because they could not hear themselves snoring, so they thought they slept like a baby.
If a deaf person has to go to court, is it still called a hearing?
No. To be politically correct its now called a "Meeting of persons litigating before a judicial authority to offer testimony to resolve matters or find facts" or MOPLBAJATOTTRMOFF for short.
Why do people pay to go up tall buildings and then put money in binoculars to look at things on the ground?
To feel like Leona Helmsley and look down on all the little people.
Why do doctors leave the room while you change? They're going to see you naked anyway?
To protect themselves in case anything you have on too tight goes flying across the room when you undo it.
Why is "bra" singular and "panties" plural?
And Panty Liner is singular. Hmmmm Which panty does one line?
Why do toasters always have a setting that burns the toast to a horrible crisp, which no decent human being would eat?
Well, clearly the world is full of indecent human beings who like burnt toast.
If Jimmy cracks corn and no one cares, why is there a stupid song about him?
All you ever wanted to know about "Blue Tail Fly" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Tail_Fly
Can a hearse carrying a corpse drive in the carpool lane?
No. The car pool lane requires two passengers. The corpse is cargo.
If the professor on Gilligan's Island can make a radio out of a coconut, why can't he fix a hole in a boat?
Trick question! They had a radio.
Why does Goofy stand erect while Pluto remains on all fours? They're both dogs!
Because Goofy is an anthropomorphic dog and Pluto is just a regular dog. This is allowed in cartoon world.
If Wiley E. Coyote had enough money to buy all that ACME crap, why didn't he just buy dinner?
For the same reason that we spend $25,000 on an old car worth $3,000. It's the obsession.
If corn oil is made from corn, and vegetable oil is made from vegetables, what is baby oil made from?
Yeah, Yeah and motor oil is made from motors.
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Only selective morality where it's OK to cheat on your wife and your taxes, while going to church every Sunday and condemning gay marriage.
Do the Alphabet song and Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star have the same tune?
Yes
Why did you just try singing the two songs above?
To answer the question above.
Why do they call it an asteroid when it's outside the hemisphere, but call it a hemorrhoid when it's in your butt?
For the same reason we drive on a parkway and park in a driveway.
Did you ever notice that when you blow in a dog's face, he gets mad at you, but when you take him for a car ride; he sticks his head out the window?
Um, have you smelled your breath lately?
Do you ever wonder why the blogsphere is full of crap like this?
Because the Internet is actually a set of vacuum tubes and nature abhors a vacuum.
She let out an exaggerated 'tsk', and asked, "Why would anyone spell 'from' with an 'e' on the end?"
I responded, "Because it rhymes with come and come is spelled c-o-m-e". The class giggled at my obvious logic, to which my teacher did not take kindly. I was sent to the Principal's office.
And so it began, my lifelong need to answer rhetorical questions...
Can you cry under water?
Yes, but your mascara does not run quite so dramatically so it's not as effective.
How important does a person have to be before they are considered assassinated instead of just murdered?
If he is killed because WHAT he is, he is assassinated .
Why do you have to "put your two cents in".. . but it's only a "penny for your thoughts"? Where's that extra penny going to?
People who are willing to pay you a penny when they want your thoughts will actually charge you 2 cents to take the time out of their day to hear your unsolicited advice.
Once you're in heaven, do you get stuck wearing the clothes you were buried in for eternity?
Only if its polyester.
Why does a round pizza come in a square box?
The paradigm is shifting. Since its easier to make square pizzas than round boxes, more and more pizzas are square.
What disease did cured ham actually have?
Life.
How is it that we put man on the moon before we figured out it would be a good idea to put wheels on luggage?
Because those little wheels on luggage are 'Space Age' wheels and we had to wait for the space age.
Why is it that people say they "slept like a baby" when babies wake up like every two hours?
Because they could not hear themselves snoring, so they thought they slept like a baby.
If a deaf person has to go to court, is it still called a hearing?
No. To be politically correct its now called a "Meeting of persons litigating before a judicial authority to offer testimony to resolve matters or find facts" or MOPLBAJATOTTRMOFF for short.
Why do people pay to go up tall buildings and then put money in binoculars to look at things on the ground?
To feel like Leona Helmsley and look down on all the little people.
Why do doctors leave the room while you change? They're going to see you naked anyway?
To protect themselves in case anything you have on too tight goes flying across the room when you undo it.
Why is "bra" singular and "panties" plural?
And Panty Liner is singular. Hmmmm Which panty does one line?
Why do toasters always have a setting that burns the toast to a horrible crisp, which no decent human being would eat?
Well, clearly the world is full of indecent human beings who like burnt toast.
If Jimmy cracks corn and no one cares, why is there a stupid song about him?
All you ever wanted to know about "Blue Tail Fly" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Tail_Fly
Can a hearse carrying a corpse drive in the carpool lane?
No. The car pool lane requires two passengers. The corpse is cargo.
If the professor on Gilligan's Island can make a radio out of a coconut, why can't he fix a hole in a boat?
Trick question! They had a radio.
Why does Goofy stand erect while Pluto remains on all fours? They're both dogs!
Because Goofy is an anthropomorphic dog and Pluto is just a regular dog. This is allowed in cartoon world.
If Wiley E. Coyote had enough money to buy all that ACME crap, why didn't he just buy dinner?
For the same reason that we spend $25,000 on an old car worth $3,000. It's the obsession.
If corn oil is made from corn, and vegetable oil is made from vegetables, what is baby oil made from?
Yeah, Yeah and motor oil is made from motors.
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Only selective morality where it's OK to cheat on your wife and your taxes, while going to church every Sunday and condemning gay marriage.
Do the Alphabet song and Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star have the same tune?
Yes
Why did you just try singing the two songs above?
To answer the question above.
Why do they call it an asteroid when it's outside the hemisphere, but call it a hemorrhoid when it's in your butt?
For the same reason we drive on a parkway and park in a driveway.
Did you ever notice that when you blow in a dog's face, he gets mad at you, but when you take him for a car ride; he sticks his head out the window?
Um, have you smelled your breath lately?
Do you ever wonder why the blogsphere is full of crap like this?
Because the Internet is actually a set of vacuum tubes and nature abhors a vacuum.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Social Action Homework
A questionaire was passed out in church one recent Sunday. It asked four questions. The questions and my answers below.
To what extent do I believe that working for social justice is in keeping with the Christian faith?
I believe that working toward social justice is at the very core of Christianity. The Sermon on the Mount instructs us to be fair and loving to our friends and enemies, it teaches us that there are no lesser people in God’s kingdom. In John:8 Jesus questions the unjust law of stoning for adultery, forever blowing the cover of ‘just following the law’ or ‘just following orders’ for those that seek to do others harm or in acting without empathy.
In what ways have I been affected by the social actions of others?
So-called social conservatives have succeeded in expanding and extending the second class citizenship of GLBT people in America, despite the discomfort the vast majority feel at the injustice. The social conservatives have succeeding by overriding that discomfort with fear and hate. On the other hand I have benefited immeasurably by the long line of social activists that set out to right injustice, in small and big ways. Despite setbacks, I am encouraged. Beginning with the Declaration of Independence, movements to correct injustice always prevail over movements to preserve injustice.
In what ways have I participated in social action?
At first I thought my answer was ‘not much’ other than knowing Michael Slaymaker. I do not live and breathe activism. But on reflection, many opportunities have come my way over the years and I have not spent it all on the sidelines. I have marched or rallied in Washington, Tampa, Miami, and Orlando. I have written my Government Representatives on big and small issues. I have written letters to the editor on a number of social topics including immigration, the federal marriage amendment, gay adoption, taxes, religious and cultural tolerance, and education. Many of my letters have been published. I have campaigned for socially responsible candidates. I have signed petitions, I have collected petition signatures. I have given some of my money and some of my time to organizations out to make the world better. Additionally I live my life honestly and openly as a Christian gay man, striving to do right by others (but not always succeeding) . I figure they can’t hate me if they know me and that might make it harder for them to hate the rest of us.
What are some ways that I might participate in social action in the future?
I will continue to write. I will step up to be one of the small forces that drive big movements when the opportunity arises, be it writing a letter, writing a check, helping with the logistics of activism, or just being there when needed. I will continue to post my essays on social and political issues from time to time in my online blog, and try to increase the traffic that sees that content.
To what extent do I believe that working for social justice is in keeping with the Christian faith?
I believe that working toward social justice is at the very core of Christianity. The Sermon on the Mount instructs us to be fair and loving to our friends and enemies, it teaches us that there are no lesser people in God’s kingdom. In John:8 Jesus questions the unjust law of stoning for adultery, forever blowing the cover of ‘just following the law’ or ‘just following orders’ for those that seek to do others harm or in acting without empathy.
In what ways have I been affected by the social actions of others?
So-called social conservatives have succeeded in expanding and extending the second class citizenship of GLBT people in America, despite the discomfort the vast majority feel at the injustice. The social conservatives have succeeding by overriding that discomfort with fear and hate. On the other hand I have benefited immeasurably by the long line of social activists that set out to right injustice, in small and big ways. Despite setbacks, I am encouraged. Beginning with the Declaration of Independence, movements to correct injustice always prevail over movements to preserve injustice.
In what ways have I participated in social action?
At first I thought my answer was ‘not much’ other than knowing Michael Slaymaker. I do not live and breathe activism. But on reflection, many opportunities have come my way over the years and I have not spent it all on the sidelines. I have marched or rallied in Washington, Tampa, Miami, and Orlando. I have written my Government Representatives on big and small issues. I have written letters to the editor on a number of social topics including immigration, the federal marriage amendment, gay adoption, taxes, religious and cultural tolerance, and education. Many of my letters have been published. I have campaigned for socially responsible candidates. I have signed petitions, I have collected petition signatures. I have given some of my money and some of my time to organizations out to make the world better. Additionally I live my life honestly and openly as a Christian gay man, striving to do right by others (but not always succeeding) . I figure they can’t hate me if they know me and that might make it harder for them to hate the rest of us.
What are some ways that I might participate in social action in the future?
I will continue to write. I will step up to be one of the small forces that drive big movements when the opportunity arises, be it writing a letter, writing a check, helping with the logistics of activism, or just being there when needed. I will continue to post my essays on social and political issues from time to time in my online blog, and try to increase the traffic that sees that content.
Monday, January 08, 2007
Advice for Governor Charlie
I squeaked one more published letter to the editor in in 2006. This one was published on Dec 29, 2006. The friday forum subject was "Priorities for Governor Elect Crist"
Dear Gov Charlie,
First, my advice for being a good governor is to be just like Jeb, only without devious plans, without laws to undo court decisions in a private family matter, and by not embracing reforms that are more about an ideology than solving problems.
As for priorities:
More energy, less carbon: We have abundant sunshine and wind to be harnessed. Consider the ‘nuclear option’. Sugar to ethanol perhaps?
Cuba: As governor of Florida you will have center stage in what comes next. Don’t help those who would screw it up to do so.
Insurance: Reform must make sense. Insurance companies won’t do business here if they think they can’t make money. People won’t live here if they can’t get insurance. Affordability is a factor of the weather, which we can’t immediately change.
Taxes. We have government coffers flush with cash and some folks paying twice the tax on their homes as their neighbors. This means taxes are too high and unfair. If our taxes are equitable and our elected officials have to make a few hard choices on where to spend, then we have it about right.
Education: Everything that leads to more kids graduating should be on the table, not just an ideological measuring stick we use to punish schools that come up short.
Immigration: People from Puerto Rico are not Immigrants. People from Cuba are not illegal. I know you know these things, but please do not listen to anyone who does not.
Dear Gov Charlie,
First, my advice for being a good governor is to be just like Jeb, only without devious plans, without laws to undo court decisions in a private family matter, and by not embracing reforms that are more about an ideology than solving problems.
As for priorities:
More energy, less carbon: We have abundant sunshine and wind to be harnessed. Consider the ‘nuclear option’. Sugar to ethanol perhaps?
Cuba: As governor of Florida you will have center stage in what comes next. Don’t help those who would screw it up to do so.
Insurance: Reform must make sense. Insurance companies won’t do business here if they think they can’t make money. People won’t live here if they can’t get insurance. Affordability is a factor of the weather, which we can’t immediately change.
Taxes. We have government coffers flush with cash and some folks paying twice the tax on their homes as their neighbors. This means taxes are too high and unfair. If our taxes are equitable and our elected officials have to make a few hard choices on where to spend, then we have it about right.
Education: Everything that leads to more kids graduating should be on the table, not just an ideological measuring stick we use to punish schools that come up short.
Immigration: People from Puerto Rico are not Immigrants. People from Cuba are not illegal. I know you know these things, but please do not listen to anyone who does not.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Nobody Reads my Blog
No one reads my blog much, but they do read my words. So far this year the Orlando Sentinel has printed 6 of my Letters to the Editor.
The Sentinel daily circulation is about 250,000. I figure at least 10% read the Op-Ed page, so that means that 25,000 people have read my epistles. If my Blog could get 150 ,000 hits in a span of a few months I could buy a cup of coffee with the ad revenue.
I sometimes cross post my Letters to the Editor here, but have not done so recently. So for those that missed my missives in print, here is a recap of this year’s published letters:
Published 10/13/06
I must confess to a certain Schadenfruede at the GOP’s predicament concerning the Foley affair. But that is overshadowed by my sadness at the further implications. Social conservatives won’t see this as one of their own with feet of clay, but proof that all gay men are depraved sexual predators. They, and the Mark Foley’s that court their support, don’t understand that living an honest, open, and yes, morally upright life as an out gay man, enjoying the full rights and privileges of society, is less likely to drive a person to climb into the bottom of a bottle while cruising teens in internet chat rooms.
Jeff Henderson
Published 10/4/06
I liked the sentiment in George Diaz’s recent column suggesting those on the political left and right tone down their insults and rhetoric. However, I was taken aback when Diaz made Bill O’Riley and Jon Stewart the right-left poster children for the problem.
O’Riley offers himself as a serious journalist delivering truth without spin, Stewart offers himself as a comedian delivering parody on politics and the media. I expect journalists to be measured, careful, truthful, and informative. I expect comedians to be funny and outrageous. Be that as it may, I offer a solution to at least part of the problem: The best way for those on the right to help stem the tide of outrageous comments from comedians on the left, is to stop providing such good material.
Jeff Henderson
Published 9/15/06
The Constitution is in pretty good shape just as it is. It does not need much in the way of change. But it may need some protection against those that do not understand what it is for, what it says or how it works. The constitution defines our nation’s basic system of government and guarantees the rights of its citizens. It is a masterpiece at defining effective but limited government vis-à-vis separation of powers, checks and balances and specific enumerated rights of the people listed in the bill of rights and later amendments.
But so many claiming to be true Americans want to tear apart the fabric of our fundamental freedoms by assaulting, even insulting, the Constitution. The president want to be free to ignore the 4th and 5th amendments, he and others want an amendment to deny the right of marriage for some, but not all citizens. (Why would we use the Constitution to ever deny a right?) Others want an amendment that would protect a symbol (the American Flag) at the expense of the right of free expression guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. How about a school prayer amendment? How about a 10 Commandments amendment? Never mind that several of the Commandments are about the practice of a religion, and therefore specifically prohibited as law by the 1st amendment. Come to think of it, it might be easier to just repeal that pesky 1st amendment. How about a right to life amendment? But be sure to carefully limit that one to stem cells and fetuses because too broad an amendment might cut into capital punishment or the 30,000 gun deaths per year and we wouldn’t want that.
Perhaps there is room for legitimate change. Term limits on Congress? A Balanced Budget amendment? Neither a slam dunk both but worthy of debate, unlike the proposals designed to actually undo the protections of our Constitution.
Jeff Henderson
Publshed 6/13/06
We have amended our Constitution twenty-seven times. Six of the amendments were changes on how our government functions. Two dealt with prohibition. One permitted income tax. The remaining eighteen were about establishing, expanding or clarifying the rights of citizens. Not one amendment exists for the purpose of denying any rights to a class of people or reserving a right for only some of the people. To put something like that in the Constitution is, well, unconstitutional. I am saddened that the President of the United States and the leadership of the Senate would think it proper to do so. But I am down right ashamed that they made the attempt, not to succeed, but to win the support of people who don’t know any better.
Jeff Henderson
Published May 2006
Arch conservative George Will’s op-ed piece on bilingual ballots was flawed.
First he said that Attorney General Gonzales needs a refresher course in the law. Will pointed out that the law requires a person to be proficient in English to become a citizen. Therefore if someone needs a bi-lingual ballot it is proof that the law on citizenship was ignored.
But it seems to me that George Will needs a lesson on demographics. Who does he think bi-lingual ballots are for? Non-citizens (either legal or illegal) cannot vote. Nearly all naturalized citizens are proficient in English, as the law requires. But millions of native-born citizens of this country speak Spanish as their first language and may not be proficient in English. As to the rule of law, no citizen needs English-language proficiency to vote. The voting rights act banned literacy requirements for voting in federal elections. So the use of bi-lingual ballots is indeed rooted in the law, not evidence of ignoring the law.
Will goes on to say that people not proficient in English cannot participate in the “nation’s political conversation.” Has George Will not heard of Spanish Language Newspapers, television, or radio, which is growing by leaps and bounds within this country? Of course he has, but I guess since he cannot understand what is being said in the Spanish language media, then in his mind there is no insight, intellect, or meaningful political conversation going on.
By the way, I speak, read and write only the English language. I think people living here should be proficient in English. I think the advantages of English fluency speak for themselves. But the last time I checked, it was still a free country. Americans are entitled to define the American way of life as they see fit, even when it is not the same as how I define it or George Will defines it.
Jeff Henderson
Published May 2006
In a recent my word column, Dr. Stan Sujka equated adoption by gay parents to the infamous Tuskegee Syphilis study where poor blacks infected with syphilis were unwittingly left untreated so that long-term results of the disease could be studied. This ugly episode in American medical science is of course abhorrent. Dr. Sujka thinks that because children may be unwittingly placed in gay homes either through foster care or adoption that it amounts to the same thing, an abhorrent experiment on children.
Where to begin? First, while syphilis is serious sexually transmitted disease that needs to be treated, being gay is a simply a human trait. It no more identifies a person’s moral character, parenting skills, or ability to love than being left-handed does. It is not something to be hidden, corrected, or ashamed of. The only influence a gay parent has over the adult sexuality of their children is in instilling a sense of healthy acceptance for the small number of their children who will grow up to be gay. Compare that with the influence homophobic, intolerant straight parents have on their children who turn out gay. Many children are homeless on the streets or in the foster care system because such parents threw them out. I can assure you that there is no chance, that any child of a gay parent will be cast out of the house for being straight.
So which is the more abhorrent experiment on children? The one that would leave them on the streets, in institutions or with a series of strangers for lack of stable, loving homes, or the one that might put a child in a stable, loving, church going, soccer mom/dad gay household?
Jeff Henderson
The Sentinel daily circulation is about 250,000. I figure at least 10% read the Op-Ed page, so that means that 25,000 people have read my epistles. If my Blog could get 150 ,000 hits in a span of a few months I could buy a cup of coffee with the ad revenue.
I sometimes cross post my Letters to the Editor here, but have not done so recently. So for those that missed my missives in print, here is a recap of this year’s published letters:
Published 10/13/06
I must confess to a certain Schadenfruede at the GOP’s predicament concerning the Foley affair. But that is overshadowed by my sadness at the further implications. Social conservatives won’t see this as one of their own with feet of clay, but proof that all gay men are depraved sexual predators. They, and the Mark Foley’s that court their support, don’t understand that living an honest, open, and yes, morally upright life as an out gay man, enjoying the full rights and privileges of society, is less likely to drive a person to climb into the bottom of a bottle while cruising teens in internet chat rooms.
Jeff Henderson
Published 10/4/06
I liked the sentiment in George Diaz’s recent column suggesting those on the political left and right tone down their insults and rhetoric. However, I was taken aback when Diaz made Bill O’Riley and Jon Stewart the right-left poster children for the problem.
O’Riley offers himself as a serious journalist delivering truth without spin, Stewart offers himself as a comedian delivering parody on politics and the media. I expect journalists to be measured, careful, truthful, and informative. I expect comedians to be funny and outrageous. Be that as it may, I offer a solution to at least part of the problem: The best way for those on the right to help stem the tide of outrageous comments from comedians on the left, is to stop providing such good material.
Jeff Henderson
Published 9/15/06
The Constitution is in pretty good shape just as it is. It does not need much in the way of change. But it may need some protection against those that do not understand what it is for, what it says or how it works. The constitution defines our nation’s basic system of government and guarantees the rights of its citizens. It is a masterpiece at defining effective but limited government vis-à-vis separation of powers, checks and balances and specific enumerated rights of the people listed in the bill of rights and later amendments.
But so many claiming to be true Americans want to tear apart the fabric of our fundamental freedoms by assaulting, even insulting, the Constitution. The president want to be free to ignore the 4th and 5th amendments, he and others want an amendment to deny the right of marriage for some, but not all citizens. (Why would we use the Constitution to ever deny a right?) Others want an amendment that would protect a symbol (the American Flag) at the expense of the right of free expression guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. How about a school prayer amendment? How about a 10 Commandments amendment? Never mind that several of the Commandments are about the practice of a religion, and therefore specifically prohibited as law by the 1st amendment. Come to think of it, it might be easier to just repeal that pesky 1st amendment. How about a right to life amendment? But be sure to carefully limit that one to stem cells and fetuses because too broad an amendment might cut into capital punishment or the 30,000 gun deaths per year and we wouldn’t want that.
Perhaps there is room for legitimate change. Term limits on Congress? A Balanced Budget amendment? Neither a slam dunk both but worthy of debate, unlike the proposals designed to actually undo the protections of our Constitution.
Jeff Henderson
Publshed 6/13/06
We have amended our Constitution twenty-seven times. Six of the amendments were changes on how our government functions. Two dealt with prohibition. One permitted income tax. The remaining eighteen were about establishing, expanding or clarifying the rights of citizens. Not one amendment exists for the purpose of denying any rights to a class of people or reserving a right for only some of the people. To put something like that in the Constitution is, well, unconstitutional. I am saddened that the President of the United States and the leadership of the Senate would think it proper to do so. But I am down right ashamed that they made the attempt, not to succeed, but to win the support of people who don’t know any better.
Jeff Henderson
Published May 2006
Arch conservative George Will’s op-ed piece on bilingual ballots was flawed.
First he said that Attorney General Gonzales needs a refresher course in the law. Will pointed out that the law requires a person to be proficient in English to become a citizen. Therefore if someone needs a bi-lingual ballot it is proof that the law on citizenship was ignored.
But it seems to me that George Will needs a lesson on demographics. Who does he think bi-lingual ballots are for? Non-citizens (either legal or illegal) cannot vote. Nearly all naturalized citizens are proficient in English, as the law requires. But millions of native-born citizens of this country speak Spanish as their first language and may not be proficient in English. As to the rule of law, no citizen needs English-language proficiency to vote. The voting rights act banned literacy requirements for voting in federal elections. So the use of bi-lingual ballots is indeed rooted in the law, not evidence of ignoring the law.
Will goes on to say that people not proficient in English cannot participate in the “nation’s political conversation.” Has George Will not heard of Spanish Language Newspapers, television, or radio, which is growing by leaps and bounds within this country? Of course he has, but I guess since he cannot understand what is being said in the Spanish language media, then in his mind there is no insight, intellect, or meaningful political conversation going on.
By the way, I speak, read and write only the English language. I think people living here should be proficient in English. I think the advantages of English fluency speak for themselves. But the last time I checked, it was still a free country. Americans are entitled to define the American way of life as they see fit, even when it is not the same as how I define it or George Will defines it.
Jeff Henderson
Published May 2006
In a recent my word column, Dr. Stan Sujka equated adoption by gay parents to the infamous Tuskegee Syphilis study where poor blacks infected with syphilis were unwittingly left untreated so that long-term results of the disease could be studied. This ugly episode in American medical science is of course abhorrent. Dr. Sujka thinks that because children may be unwittingly placed in gay homes either through foster care or adoption that it amounts to the same thing, an abhorrent experiment on children.
Where to begin? First, while syphilis is serious sexually transmitted disease that needs to be treated, being gay is a simply a human trait. It no more identifies a person’s moral character, parenting skills, or ability to love than being left-handed does. It is not something to be hidden, corrected, or ashamed of. The only influence a gay parent has over the adult sexuality of their children is in instilling a sense of healthy acceptance for the small number of their children who will grow up to be gay. Compare that with the influence homophobic, intolerant straight parents have on their children who turn out gay. Many children are homeless on the streets or in the foster care system because such parents threw them out. I can assure you that there is no chance, that any child of a gay parent will be cast out of the house for being straight.
So which is the more abhorrent experiment on children? The one that would leave them on the streets, in institutions or with a series of strangers for lack of stable, loving homes, or the one that might put a child in a stable, loving, church going, soccer mom/dad gay household?
Jeff Henderson
Monday, August 21, 2006
What Happened to the Future?
This year marked 25 years since the first Space Shuttle Flight.
Wow! While there will be a few more flights in the near future, the Shuttle Program is ending in 4 years. The three remaining shuttles will become museum pieces, and in its place, will be a bold, sophisticated, new technology taking us to the next level in space travel. Or not.
The shuttle replacement, called the Crew Exploration Vehicle or CEV, is a rocket and capsule system just like Apollo that last flew more than 30 years ago, and just like the Russian Soyuz system that has been operating for the last 30 years. No space plane, no runway landings, no big cargo bay, not a thing to inspire our faith in technology and innovation.
The CEV Above
The Old Apollo Capsule Below
The past that looks like the future: We used to have men on the moon, supersonic transport, space stations large enough to run in, and atomic powered merchant ships.
First man on the moon: 1969. Last Man on the Moon: 1972
Concorde SST - Retired 2003
SkyLab - Abandoned 1979. Interior 22 ft in diamter
NS Savannah - Civilian Nuclear Power Proved Impractical
Today, we have none of that. But I can take picture of a bear in the woods with my telephone. Progress! – What will they think of next?
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
In the Loop
Did you ever notice that those who complain about not being in the loop only want to be in the loop at their convenience?
Friday, March 17, 2006
The New American Fascism
Fascism: A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
Before the Warren court, the fascists were largely in control of this country. Although American fascism was not and never has been defined in our country’s guiding documents, it was practiced and institutionalized in Jim Crow policies and laws like poll taxes. All designed to keep the ruling elite in power and to suppress, through oppression, the lesser masses. Every time the idea that freedom, fairness, and the rule of law applied equally to all was brought to bear, those in power were able to dismissed it.
But for most of the last 50 years, we have been embarked on a movement away from fascism; a great correction to better align the practice of our society to the ideals of the guiding documents. The fascists have never gone away, they have just been on the losing side for most of the last 50 years. Quite frankly, they are tired of it and think they have gathered enough power to move the country back their way. They are not about ‘running the country’ they are about ‘making a point’.
They have partially succeeded.
1. We have a sitting president who has openly endorsed amending the constitution, not to expand or guarantee rights, but to specifically deny rights to an entire class of Americans.
2. We have no shortage of elected officials thinking the same way.
3. There is a bill in the house and senate that would make it a crime to feed the hungry if they happened to be undocumented (It will never pass, because then the companies that employ these people will have to pay them enough for them to buy their own food, instead of getting it for free from soup kitchens).
4. The 1st, 4th, 5th & 9th amendments are under full assault, while the 2nd is sacrosanct.
5. No matter what the ideology, a government’s prime purpose is to protect citizens, property and infrastructure. All of that is now secondary to making ideological points.
6. Our President has the power to wiretap dangerous terrorists within the laws meant to provide checks and balances to protect our civil liberties. He has chosen quite deliberately to do so outside the law. Not because he could not accomplish his goals within the law, but to make a point and change the rules giving him more power.
7. The fascist base is not composed of great thinkers. They have been bought off with pandering rhetoric on God, Guns & Gays and bellicose nationalism. Meanwhile the power-fascists have been raping the base (and everyone else not in their club) with irresponsible fiscal policy.
8. Many business people do not like the idea of legal mandates covering responsibility to workers, the environment, fair competition, and corporate citizenship, They like the idea of corporate welfare. They are only too happy to see the power-fascists (who will give them what they want) running the show. What the power-fascists do on the social/civil liberties front is of no concern to the business people who help put and keep them in office.
How serious must the damage get before this new American Fascism runs its course? Soldiers will die, Miners will die, the glaciers will melt, the oceans will warm and produce more frequent and powerful hurricanes, the hungry will get hungrier, the humanitarians that fed them will be in jail, we will be isolated, the world will hate us, our economy will collapse under the weight of national and personal debt. We will all be very depressed about it all but won’t be able to get or afford the health care to get better.
The 50 years from 1950 to 2000 were incredible. We improved education, we improved access to health care, we lifted millions out of poverty, we made the environment cleaner, we made industry safer, we made transportation safer, we made products safer, we improved housing standards at every socio-economic level, we expanded rights to millions, we won the cold war without firing a nuke, we went to the moon, we lowered crime, we improved life expectancy, we addressed past injustices, we embraced fairness, we raised awareness of and fostered tolerance of those not like ourselves. We invested in our children, in science, in the arts. We set out to do the world some good – The Marshall Plan, the Peace Corp. We did all of this accumulating a debt of just under $6 trillion. That’s a high price to be sure, but it is nothing compared to the $3 trillion added to the debt in the last 5 years while attempting to undo the accomplishments of the last 50.
The fascists will tell you that our government’s forays into the problems of society and the world at large was wrong-headed, costly and that we are far worse off for having done it. But we did it even as we advanced the world’s most envied economy and freedoms in ways that could not even be contemplated in the first half of the 20th century. We did none of it by being conservative. I don’t see anyone pining for the good old days of Jim Crow, robber barons, world wars, depressions, air unfit to breathe, and cars unsafe at any speed. Leave the new American Fascists in power, and that is where we are headed.
Monday, February 13, 2006
Scotty & Me
You’ve had those dreams. The kind of nightmare where you are trying to run, but cant move. Trying to scream out but can only mouth the words and no sound comes out. No matter what you do or say, you are powerless to influence anything and all you can do is watch events unfold. The other day, I had such a dream, sort of. I was alone in the Whitehouse press room. It was just me and W-House press secretary Scott McClellan.
Oh boy! This is a great dream. I get to ask all of the questions! Scotty cannot escape my best journalistic probing. (Well in the dream, of course, I am a respected journalist). But, dreams never end like they start. It went something like this…
ME: On the Subject of Valerie Plame (PlameGate), who Leaked her identity?
SCOTTY: Puh-leaze, I can’t comment on an ongoing investigation.
ME: Is this not a breach of national security?
SCOTTY: She was no longer a field operative and was not going to be in the future so there was no harm to our national security.
ME: But she was still covered by the statute. Doesn’t revealing her identity put the people she dealt with at risk, as well as put at risk our ability to conduct national security and diplomatic business with people in similar sensitive posts? Isn’t that why this information remains classified even after the end of a posting or program?
SCOTTY: As I have said over and over, no comment on an ongoing investigation.
ME: Has there been an assessment of the actual or potential damage to National Security as a result of leaking Plame’s identity?
SCOTTY: What damage? if you mean the distraction it has caused for senior administration officials who would be better at protecting Americans from terrorists if they did not have to deal with this trumped issue, then it is grave, very grave indeed.
ME: Well, didn’t they bring this distraction onto themselves by breaking the law for a petty vendetta?
SCOTTY: No comment on an ongoing investigation.
ME: On the Subject the electronic surveillance conducted without the over sight of the FISA court (FISAGate) who leaked the existence of the program?
SCOTTY: We don’t know. The NY Times irresponsibly betrayed America and emboldened the terrorists by making it public. We will get to the bottom of this egregious breach and punish the leaker. Our very lives depend on it.
ME: Given that the NY Times knew about the program for over a year and sat on it at the Administration’s request, wouldn’t national Security have been better served by either bringing the program into alignment with FISA or getting a specific authorization from congress to conduct the surveillance?
SCOTTY: Look, the President is trying to protect you from the terrorists. The press and the leaker don’t care about your safety.
ME: So you are saying that we are safer with illegally conducted surveillance as opposed to the same surveillance done within the law? With all due respect, would there not have been a leak or story if FISA had been respected?
SCOTTY: We respect all laws, unlike the person who leaked this program and the NY times who irresponsibly published it. Congress authorized this program as part of the resolution to use all force necessary. It’s black letter law.
ME: Most members of congress (including many Republicans), and most legal scholars disagree that the resolution for war authorized such surveillance outside the FISA statue. Your attorney General’s stated legal position is tortuous if not absurd. Isn’t this about an imperial presidency rather than national security?
SCOTTY: Congress gave us all of the necessary authorization. If congress or the courts now say otherwise, then we did not even need their authority for this President to protect the American People from the terrorists.
ME: Could you answer, just once, a legitimate question with a thoughtful, meaningful response rather than a talking point or non sequitur?
SCOTTY: This administration is responsive. To the threat of terrorism and to the American people who want to be protected from the terrorists. Why do you love terrorists and hate freedom?
Then the dream took an odd turn, as dreams are wont to do. I found myself in a courtroom, telling it to the judge.
“ …and then, you honor, after Scotty’s, er, Press Secretary McClellan’s last response, I started to feel nauseous. My lunch from the Whitehouse cafeteria started to come back on me. The next thing I knew I regurgitated my lunch of a Freedom Dip hoagie with Freedom Fries (with Hunts, not Heinz ketchup), and Ice Cream with Red, White and Blue Freedom Sprinkles.
I couldn’t help it, I projectile vomited all over him. He looked so stunned, standing there wearing all that Freedom in Red, White and Blue. (And a few other not so glorious colors) I remember thinking that Freedom never looked so good, but it smelled awful.”
Oh boy! This is a great dream. I get to ask all of the questions! Scotty cannot escape my best journalistic probing. (Well in the dream, of course, I am a respected journalist). But, dreams never end like they start. It went something like this…
ME: On the Subject of Valerie Plame (PlameGate), who Leaked her identity?
SCOTTY: Puh-leaze, I can’t comment on an ongoing investigation.
ME: Is this not a breach of national security?
SCOTTY: She was no longer a field operative and was not going to be in the future so there was no harm to our national security.
ME: But she was still covered by the statute. Doesn’t revealing her identity put the people she dealt with at risk, as well as put at risk our ability to conduct national security and diplomatic business with people in similar sensitive posts? Isn’t that why this information remains classified even after the end of a posting or program?
SCOTTY: As I have said over and over, no comment on an ongoing investigation.
ME: Has there been an assessment of the actual or potential damage to National Security as a result of leaking Plame’s identity?
SCOTTY: What damage? if you mean the distraction it has caused for senior administration officials who would be better at protecting Americans from terrorists if they did not have to deal with this trumped issue, then it is grave, very grave indeed.
ME: Well, didn’t they bring this distraction onto themselves by breaking the law for a petty vendetta?
SCOTTY: No comment on an ongoing investigation.
ME: On the Subject the electronic surveillance conducted without the over sight of the FISA court (FISAGate) who leaked the existence of the program?
SCOTTY: We don’t know. The NY Times irresponsibly betrayed America and emboldened the terrorists by making it public. We will get to the bottom of this egregious breach and punish the leaker. Our very lives depend on it.
ME: Given that the NY Times knew about the program for over a year and sat on it at the Administration’s request, wouldn’t national Security have been better served by either bringing the program into alignment with FISA or getting a specific authorization from congress to conduct the surveillance?
SCOTTY: Look, the President is trying to protect you from the terrorists. The press and the leaker don’t care about your safety.
ME: So you are saying that we are safer with illegally conducted surveillance as opposed to the same surveillance done within the law? With all due respect, would there not have been a leak or story if FISA had been respected?
SCOTTY: We respect all laws, unlike the person who leaked this program and the NY times who irresponsibly published it. Congress authorized this program as part of the resolution to use all force necessary. It’s black letter law.
ME: Most members of congress (including many Republicans), and most legal scholars disagree that the resolution for war authorized such surveillance outside the FISA statue. Your attorney General’s stated legal position is tortuous if not absurd. Isn’t this about an imperial presidency rather than national security?
SCOTTY: Congress gave us all of the necessary authorization. If congress or the courts now say otherwise, then we did not even need their authority for this President to protect the American People from the terrorists.
ME: Could you answer, just once, a legitimate question with a thoughtful, meaningful response rather than a talking point or non sequitur?
SCOTTY: This administration is responsive. To the threat of terrorism and to the American people who want to be protected from the terrorists. Why do you love terrorists and hate freedom?
Then the dream took an odd turn, as dreams are wont to do. I found myself in a courtroom, telling it to the judge.
“ …and then, you honor, after Scotty’s, er, Press Secretary McClellan’s last response, I started to feel nauseous. My lunch from the Whitehouse cafeteria started to come back on me. The next thing I knew I regurgitated my lunch of a Freedom Dip hoagie with Freedom Fries (with Hunts, not Heinz ketchup), and Ice Cream with Red, White and Blue Freedom Sprinkles.
I couldn’t help it, I projectile vomited all over him. He looked so stunned, standing there wearing all that Freedom in Red, White and Blue. (And a few other not so glorious colors) I remember thinking that Freedom never looked so good, but it smelled awful.”
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
The Earth as Pocket Change
Most people think the solar system looks like this, All the planets visible and neatly lined up in a row.
Well, that picture is good at showing the relative size of the planets, but it hardly describe the solar system very well. Distances are vast compared to the size of the objects in the solar system. Most people do not perceive just how big those heavenly bodies are relative to one another and how far apart they are. But we can create a ‘virtual’ scale model of the solar system to help us understand the scale of things.
Lets start by pretending the Earth is sphere with a diameter the same as a nickel.
The moon’s relative size is represented by the dot. With an Earth the size of a nickel, the Sun would be a sphere 8 feet in diameter. Imagine the size difference between a circle that is as big as a nickel and a circle as tall as the average room in your house. That is how much bigger the Sun is than the Earth.
So how far apart would the nickel sized earth and room sized sun be? 859 Feet! Imagine looking down on a vast blacktop parking lot. In the center is a bright, 8 foot circle. Somewhere, 859 ft from the 8 foot circle lies a shiny nickel. Would you even notice it?
Keeping that scale lets look at the rest of the Solar system:
Mercury 0.3 inches – The size of a push-pin, 333 ft from the Sun.
Venus 0.83 Inches – A nickel, Earth and Venus are about the same size, 621 ft from the Sun.
Earth 0.87 Inches – Your average 5 cent piece, 859 Ft
Moon 0.21 Inches – Roughly a quarter the diameter of the Earth, 2 Ft away from the Earth.
Mars 0.47 Inches – Just under one half inch, 1,309 Ft from the Sun.
Jupiter 9.6 Inches – A Basketball, 4,422 Ft (0.83 miles) from the Sun.
Saturn 8 Inches – A bowling Ball, 8,201 Ft (1.55 Miles) from the Sun.
Uranus 3.2 Inches – A little bigger than a baseball, 16,497 Ft (3.12 miles) from the Sun.
Neptune 3.1 Inches - A little bigger than a baseball, 25,863 (4.9 Miles) from the Sun.
Pluto 0.15 inches – the ‘zero’ on your keyboard, 33,985 (6.4 Miles) from the Sun.
So to make a scale model of the solar system with the Earth the diameter of a nickel, you would need a circle 13 miles across. The biggest thing in it is the 8ft Sun at the center. The next biggest thing in it is a 9 inch basketball and is more than three quarters of a mile from the center.
Well, that picture is good at showing the relative size of the planets, but it hardly describe the solar system very well. Distances are vast compared to the size of the objects in the solar system. Most people do not perceive just how big those heavenly bodies are relative to one another and how far apart they are. But we can create a ‘virtual’ scale model of the solar system to help us understand the scale of things.
Lets start by pretending the Earth is sphere with a diameter the same as a nickel.
The moon’s relative size is represented by the dot. With an Earth the size of a nickel, the Sun would be a sphere 8 feet in diameter. Imagine the size difference between a circle that is as big as a nickel and a circle as tall as the average room in your house. That is how much bigger the Sun is than the Earth.
So how far apart would the nickel sized earth and room sized sun be? 859 Feet! Imagine looking down on a vast blacktop parking lot. In the center is a bright, 8 foot circle. Somewhere, 859 ft from the 8 foot circle lies a shiny nickel. Would you even notice it?
Keeping that scale lets look at the rest of the Solar system:
Mercury 0.3 inches – The size of a push-pin, 333 ft from the Sun.
Venus 0.83 Inches – A nickel, Earth and Venus are about the same size, 621 ft from the Sun.
Earth 0.87 Inches – Your average 5 cent piece, 859 Ft
Moon 0.21 Inches – Roughly a quarter the diameter of the Earth, 2 Ft away from the Earth.
Mars 0.47 Inches – Just under one half inch, 1,309 Ft from the Sun.
Jupiter 9.6 Inches – A Basketball, 4,422 Ft (0.83 miles) from the Sun.
Saturn 8 Inches – A bowling Ball, 8,201 Ft (1.55 Miles) from the Sun.
Uranus 3.2 Inches – A little bigger than a baseball, 16,497 Ft (3.12 miles) from the Sun.
Neptune 3.1 Inches - A little bigger than a baseball, 25,863 (4.9 Miles) from the Sun.
Pluto 0.15 inches – the ‘zero’ on your keyboard, 33,985 (6.4 Miles) from the Sun.
So to make a scale model of the solar system with the Earth the diameter of a nickel, you would need a circle 13 miles across. The biggest thing in it is the 8ft Sun at the center. The next biggest thing in it is a 9 inch basketball and is more than three quarters of a mile from the center.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
I aint' afraid of no stinkin' diversity program
I’m a middle aged white man working in a large corporation with a diversity program. Does that make me an endangered species? Should I be resentful? After all isn’t my future limited by that set of circumstances? Many of my white, middle aged, male coworkers think so.
But I am not resentful because whatever “limits” may be placed on my future because of some diversity initiative, I still figure I’ve got it pretty good. The easiest path to take in this life is the one of the American white male, and it’s only yours by birth (not counting Michael Jackson.) So it seems like sour grapes to complain about attempts to improve the paths that others are on.
The kind of preeminence enjoyed by white men for the first 200 years of this nation has certainly eroded. After all, when Thomas Jefferson wrote the self evident truth that “All men are created equal”, most people of the day understood that to mean white, able-bodied, Christian men of means, not their lessers; women, people of non-European descent, people of color, slaves and the indentured, the disabled, Native Americans, and the ordinary guy with no education or property. By some accounts this preeminence has not merely eroded but is in full retreat, leaving white men at an actual disadvantage. Bullshit Lets put this another way. About 37% of adults in the U.S. are white men. A typical diversity program may target 50% of new hires or leadership positions to be women or minorities. Looks like a pretty good deal to me. 37% of the population get 50% of the jobs. Oh for the good old days when we got 90% of the jobs.
Everyone who loses a job or promotion to someone else thinks they were the better choice. Except that now white men can join ethnic minorities, women, gays, and the disabled and blame discrimination (at least the ‘reverse’ kind) for their plight. Yes, discrimination still exists, and reverse discrimination is an occasional reality. But if any white man feels that the deck has been stacked against them they need to re-examine the deck. We’re still holding most of the cards. And just in case I ever feel really threatened by reverse discrimination, I can always try playing the gay card.
But I am not resentful because whatever “limits” may be placed on my future because of some diversity initiative, I still figure I’ve got it pretty good. The easiest path to take in this life is the one of the American white male, and it’s only yours by birth (not counting Michael Jackson.) So it seems like sour grapes to complain about attempts to improve the paths that others are on.
The kind of preeminence enjoyed by white men for the first 200 years of this nation has certainly eroded. After all, when Thomas Jefferson wrote the self evident truth that “All men are created equal”, most people of the day understood that to mean white, able-bodied, Christian men of means, not their lessers; women, people of non-European descent, people of color, slaves and the indentured, the disabled, Native Americans, and the ordinary guy with no education or property. By some accounts this preeminence has not merely eroded but is in full retreat, leaving white men at an actual disadvantage. Bullshit Lets put this another way. About 37% of adults in the U.S. are white men. A typical diversity program may target 50% of new hires or leadership positions to be women or minorities. Looks like a pretty good deal to me. 37% of the population get 50% of the jobs. Oh for the good old days when we got 90% of the jobs.
Everyone who loses a job or promotion to someone else thinks they were the better choice. Except that now white men can join ethnic minorities, women, gays, and the disabled and blame discrimination (at least the ‘reverse’ kind) for their plight. Yes, discrimination still exists, and reverse discrimination is an occasional reality. But if any white man feels that the deck has been stacked against them they need to re-examine the deck. We’re still holding most of the cards. And just in case I ever feel really threatened by reverse discrimination, I can always try playing the gay card.
Saturday, August 27, 2005
My 30th High School Reunion
I went to my high school reunion. It was the first one I had been to and it was the 30th. I was just a face in the crowd at the large suburban high school I attended, Kecoughtan H.S. (pronounced “KICK-uh-tan”, really!) in Hampton, VA. We moved to Hampton the summer before 10th grade and moved away soon after I graduated in 1975. I had never been back. So, my connections were temporal and fell away as the years passed.
So why did I attend this reunion? Because of reality shows. High School reunions are the ultimate personal reality show (so much so an actual reality show was based on the premise). Where else can you throw 300 middle-aged people into a situation where the last effective dynamic was as 18 year olds, and be a participant?
At any such event the topics of discussion are biographical: College, careers, migrations, marriage, family, kids. And nostalgic: misdeeds, pranks, angst, and glories of our adolescence. But what everybody is thinking about is hair, weight, success, and how they look compared to others. Of course I was focused on another issue, not entertained by the vast majority: Who might be gay?. I had a mental list of those I thought might be or those that I hoped would be, but none seemed to be. (It’s a military town in Virginia, the very model of conservative). When the subject came up, I explained my life-long unmarried status honestly. In high school I knew I was gay, but certainly was not out. I think a few had suspected back then and none seem too surprised about it now. A few went so far as to ask if I had a partner. (the answer is no)
But I do have a few observations:
The “A” list is till the “A” list. While subject to the indignities of middle age like everyone else, there was still a measure of confidence and ease in those that were on top and had stayed there.
Geeks rule. The math and science geeks, not the jocks and prom queens run the world.
It’s impossible to picture exactly how someone might look at 48 when you last saw them at 18, but once you do see them, their 30-years-older look makes perfect sense.
A few men and women look stunningly better at 48 than at 18.
1975 was a really, really bad hair year for men, and one or two had yet to get over it by 2005.
Somewhere in the intervening 30 years, stoners, clowns, nerds, jocks, and cheerleaders, became spouses, parents, grandparents, lawyers, business people, engineers, writers, airline pilots, shopkeepers, and college professors. Boys into men, Girls into women. But I am still trying to figure out what I want to be when I grow up. Maybe I’ll have that figured out by the 50th reunion in 2025.
Pictures from the Reunion
So why did I attend this reunion? Because of reality shows. High School reunions are the ultimate personal reality show (so much so an actual reality show was based on the premise). Where else can you throw 300 middle-aged people into a situation where the last effective dynamic was as 18 year olds, and be a participant?
At any such event the topics of discussion are biographical: College, careers, migrations, marriage, family, kids. And nostalgic: misdeeds, pranks, angst, and glories of our adolescence. But what everybody is thinking about is hair, weight, success, and how they look compared to others. Of course I was focused on another issue, not entertained by the vast majority: Who might be gay?. I had a mental list of those I thought might be or those that I hoped would be, but none seemed to be. (It’s a military town in Virginia, the very model of conservative). When the subject came up, I explained my life-long unmarried status honestly. In high school I knew I was gay, but certainly was not out. I think a few had suspected back then and none seem too surprised about it now. A few went so far as to ask if I had a partner. (the answer is no)
But I do have a few observations:
The “A” list is till the “A” list. While subject to the indignities of middle age like everyone else, there was still a measure of confidence and ease in those that were on top and had stayed there.
Geeks rule. The math and science geeks, not the jocks and prom queens run the world.
It’s impossible to picture exactly how someone might look at 48 when you last saw them at 18, but once you do see them, their 30-years-older look makes perfect sense.
A few men and women look stunningly better at 48 than at 18.
1975 was a really, really bad hair year for men, and one or two had yet to get over it by 2005.
Somewhere in the intervening 30 years, stoners, clowns, nerds, jocks, and cheerleaders, became spouses, parents, grandparents, lawyers, business people, engineers, writers, airline pilots, shopkeepers, and college professors. Boys into men, Girls into women. But I am still trying to figure out what I want to be when I grow up. Maybe I’ll have that figured out by the 50th reunion in 2025.
Pictures from the Reunion
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Erring on the Side of Life
We have a moral obligation to let go of the ones hopelessly lost to this world. To keep their bodies alive through heroic or artificial measures does nothing for them in this life and most certainly delays their entry into the next life.
The problem comes in defining who is hopeless and what measures meet the definition of heroic and artificial. This problem played out on the public stage in the Terry Schaivo case.
I am satisfied that Mrs. Schaivo’s brain injury rendered her hopelessly lost to this world, and that a feeding tube surgically implanted in her abdomen meets the definition of artificial life support. But I understand that others might see it differently and there is certainly room to be on the fence in this case.
So, why not err on the side of life? Should her tube have been removed? That question is worthy of debate. Now that Terry has passed it is of course academic. But even while she was still alive the question was academic because we have no say in this matter. We have laws that value life, and recognize that personal, private and limited end of life decisions must be made from time to time. In this case, these carefully crafted laws were followed with scrupulous adherence to their intent of establishing the prognosis of the patient, honoring the wishes of the patient, and honoring the wishes of the family. 27 court decisions at the state and federal level have said so.
Erring on the side of life is prudent when there is uncertainty as to the integrity of the process or the merits of the situation. But neither case existed here. All those legislators, governors and the president knew that or should have known that before they acted so improperly and trampled the constitution they are sworn to protect. A law can be wrong, or have unintended consequences that need to be addressed. That’s handled by passing new legitimate laws that apply to everyone, not private bills that take court established rights away from specific individuals after the fact.
But was G.W. Bush erring on the side of life? He had 152 chances to do so while governor of Texas. That is the number put to death during his 6 years as governor. In all that time he commuted only one death sentence, that of serial Killer Henry Lee Lucas. He allowed to die several people who had troubling due process issues or where there was evidence of innocence. He let die a woman who committed a murder in drug-induced state as a young woman but had dedicated her life to Christ throughout her years in prison writing books, counseling others. His excuse for not considering any of these issues was he was bound to follow the law. But the law in Texas permitted him to intervene. He could have intervened, but chose not to intervene except in the case of Henry Lee Lucas.
The law was right then, but not now? Is he bound by the laws of Texas (which allows for the state to withdraw life support against the wishes of the family making Texas law even more anti-life than Florida law) but not the Laws of Florida? Or just bound by the laws he agrees with?
There is a saying that we are a nation of laws not men. That means that those in authority are bound by the law and checks and balances of our system. They are not free to ignore the law to have their way. They are not free to usurp the separation of powers to have their way. To do so turns elected constitutional officers into dictators.
There is plenty of room to argue this unfortunate case on the merits and from a position of belief. Perhaps the law will even be changed. But the events as they have unfolded, unconstitutional legislative interference in a private matter properly adjudicated within the law is beyond outrageous.
So G.W. Bush and his brother Jeb are disengenuous when they claim they were erring on the side of life. They were trying to score points by erring on the side of their political base. I think it backfired.
The problem comes in defining who is hopeless and what measures meet the definition of heroic and artificial. This problem played out on the public stage in the Terry Schaivo case.
I am satisfied that Mrs. Schaivo’s brain injury rendered her hopelessly lost to this world, and that a feeding tube surgically implanted in her abdomen meets the definition of artificial life support. But I understand that others might see it differently and there is certainly room to be on the fence in this case.
So, why not err on the side of life? Should her tube have been removed? That question is worthy of debate. Now that Terry has passed it is of course academic. But even while she was still alive the question was academic because we have no say in this matter. We have laws that value life, and recognize that personal, private and limited end of life decisions must be made from time to time. In this case, these carefully crafted laws were followed with scrupulous adherence to their intent of establishing the prognosis of the patient, honoring the wishes of the patient, and honoring the wishes of the family. 27 court decisions at the state and federal level have said so.
Erring on the side of life is prudent when there is uncertainty as to the integrity of the process or the merits of the situation. But neither case existed here. All those legislators, governors and the president knew that or should have known that before they acted so improperly and trampled the constitution they are sworn to protect. A law can be wrong, or have unintended consequences that need to be addressed. That’s handled by passing new legitimate laws that apply to everyone, not private bills that take court established rights away from specific individuals after the fact.
But was G.W. Bush erring on the side of life? He had 152 chances to do so while governor of Texas. That is the number put to death during his 6 years as governor. In all that time he commuted only one death sentence, that of serial Killer Henry Lee Lucas. He allowed to die several people who had troubling due process issues or where there was evidence of innocence. He let die a woman who committed a murder in drug-induced state as a young woman but had dedicated her life to Christ throughout her years in prison writing books, counseling others. His excuse for not considering any of these issues was he was bound to follow the law. But the law in Texas permitted him to intervene. He could have intervened, but chose not to intervene except in the case of Henry Lee Lucas.
The law was right then, but not now? Is he bound by the laws of Texas (which allows for the state to withdraw life support against the wishes of the family making Texas law even more anti-life than Florida law) but not the Laws of Florida? Or just bound by the laws he agrees with?
There is a saying that we are a nation of laws not men. That means that those in authority are bound by the law and checks and balances of our system. They are not free to ignore the law to have their way. They are not free to usurp the separation of powers to have their way. To do so turns elected constitutional officers into dictators.
There is plenty of room to argue this unfortunate case on the merits and from a position of belief. Perhaps the law will even be changed. But the events as they have unfolded, unconstitutional legislative interference in a private matter properly adjudicated within the law is beyond outrageous.
So G.W. Bush and his brother Jeb are disengenuous when they claim they were erring on the side of life. They were trying to score points by erring on the side of their political base. I think it backfired.
Sunday, January 16, 2005
My Horrible, Miraculous Year
It’s a New Year. All things are possible once again. I will lose weight, find a lover, clean the garage, make out my will, get the 300 sq ft of holes in my roof from Hurricane Charley fixed, travel, win the lottery, blah, blah, blah...
Heavy Sigh...
The stuff you plan happens or it doesn’t. It’s the stuff you don’t plan that is more interesting. This time last year I did not imagine being slammed by 3 out of 4 hurricanes and having 3 rooms of my house destroyed. I did not envision winning a signed Picasso print in a charity raffle or winning a cruise in a church raffle. I did not imagine that 10 years after leaving a job, I would find my self back in that company, in the same department, working for the same person. I did not expect to see my brother-in-law’s cousin on the cover of The Advocate, or to see a good friend profiled in another issue. I did not expect to have 4 letters to the editor published in the Orlando Sentinel. I did not expect to see good friends cope with cancer or good folks to pass away. I did not expect the president to be re-elected, or 150,000 to die in the boxing day tsunamis. And lastly, I did not expect the break-up of Jenn & Brad or me having anything to do with it. Yes, 2004 was my Annus Horribilis and my Annus Mirabilis. What will 2005 have in store?
Heavy Sigh...
The stuff you plan happens or it doesn’t. It’s the stuff you don’t plan that is more interesting. This time last year I did not imagine being slammed by 3 out of 4 hurricanes and having 3 rooms of my house destroyed. I did not envision winning a signed Picasso print in a charity raffle or winning a cruise in a church raffle. I did not imagine that 10 years after leaving a job, I would find my self back in that company, in the same department, working for the same person. I did not expect to see my brother-in-law’s cousin on the cover of The Advocate, or to see a good friend profiled in another issue. I did not expect to have 4 letters to the editor published in the Orlando Sentinel. I did not expect to see good friends cope with cancer or good folks to pass away. I did not expect the president to be re-elected, or 150,000 to die in the boxing day tsunamis. And lastly, I did not expect the break-up of Jenn & Brad or me having anything to do with it. Yes, 2004 was my Annus Horribilis and my Annus Mirabilis. What will 2005 have in store?
Thursday, December 09, 2004
Bathtub in the Road
No, I am not making this up. In traffic reports one recent morning there was word of a rush hour delay because a bathtub was in the road. I've been thinking about it all day. What does it mean to be blocked on your way by a bathtub in the road? It's a powerful metaphor for something. I just don't know what.
This slice of real life comes on the morning after a dream I had. I was digging up a broken sprinkler valve in the front yard. Because the water had been flowing freely it had carved an underground chamber. I was peering into the hole trying to decide how big it was when I saw a light. I looked deeper and saw that the hole expanded into a large cave with smooth concrete floor that ran from my yard to somewhere under the street. Then I saw a man, kind of Mexican looking. I yelled (or tied to yell in that dream-paralyzed state) at him to get out of there and he ran off deeper into the cave. I suddenly knew how they were getting access to my house! Then I woke up.
Perhaps the Mexican living under my street had something to do with the bathtub in the road.
This slice of real life comes on the morning after a dream I had. I was digging up a broken sprinkler valve in the front yard. Because the water had been flowing freely it had carved an underground chamber. I was peering into the hole trying to decide how big it was when I saw a light. I looked deeper and saw that the hole expanded into a large cave with smooth concrete floor that ran from my yard to somewhere under the street. Then I saw a man, kind of Mexican looking. I yelled (or tied to yell in that dream-paralyzed state) at him to get out of there and he ran off deeper into the cave. I suddenly knew how they were getting access to my house! Then I woke up.
Perhaps the Mexican living under my street had something to do with the bathtub in the road.
Friday, December 03, 2004
It’s the ideology, Stupid.
It’s the ideology, Stupid. The Republicans have one. The Democrats don’t.
I know what the Republican Ideology is: Smaller Government, Lower Taxes, Fiscal Discipline, Lower Taxes, limited-entitlements, Lower Taxes, Personal Freedom, Lower Taxes, Military Might, Lower Taxes, Higher Security, Lower Taxes, Domination over Consensus in International affairs, Lower Taxes, Good Business Climate, Lower Taxes, Pro Gun, Lower Taxes, Pro Life, Lower Taxes, Anti-Gay, Lower Taxes, Moral Values, Conservative Good, Liberal bad, and Lower Taxes.
Now in practice, the Republicans have completely abandoned any semblance of smaller government and fiscal responsibility. They have embraced costly entitlements, and would sacrifice more personal freedom in the name of security and ‘moral values’ than anything since Jim Crow and Grandfather clauses. So it’s not that they strictly follow the ideology, it’s that they have one.
I can take a stab at the Democrat’s apparent Ideology. Lets see – how about “We’re sort of the same as the Republicans just not as extreme or mean spirited and we most definitely are not Liberal.” Yeah, that’s how to build a base, and formulate a message.
Given that we were not running for anything, but against Bush, without articulating a clear new direction is it any wonder more than half of American voters decided to stay the course? If we had to lose, we should have lost on what we stand for, because we are never going to win by pointing out how far to the right the republicans are and then saying were not that far right.
We need to stop defining ourselves in terms of the Republican’s Ideology, and define ourselves by what we really stand for. We need to reclaim the term ‘liberal’ from the ash heap of political pejoratives and restore is as a proud tradition. A tradition that stands for:
Stewardship of our environment and resources.
Helping those in need of basic human services.
Defending basic human rights.
Preserving rights for the minority.
Expanding rights for the oppressed and disenfranchised.
Investing in sound science for the betterment of all.
Leading the world, not bullying it.
Making America a better place to live and prosper.
I know what the Republican Ideology is: Smaller Government, Lower Taxes, Fiscal Discipline, Lower Taxes, limited-entitlements, Lower Taxes, Personal Freedom, Lower Taxes, Military Might, Lower Taxes, Higher Security, Lower Taxes, Domination over Consensus in International affairs, Lower Taxes, Good Business Climate, Lower Taxes, Pro Gun, Lower Taxes, Pro Life, Lower Taxes, Anti-Gay, Lower Taxes, Moral Values, Conservative Good, Liberal bad, and Lower Taxes.
Now in practice, the Republicans have completely abandoned any semblance of smaller government and fiscal responsibility. They have embraced costly entitlements, and would sacrifice more personal freedom in the name of security and ‘moral values’ than anything since Jim Crow and Grandfather clauses. So it’s not that they strictly follow the ideology, it’s that they have one.
I can take a stab at the Democrat’s apparent Ideology. Lets see – how about “We’re sort of the same as the Republicans just not as extreme or mean spirited and we most definitely are not Liberal.” Yeah, that’s how to build a base, and formulate a message.
Given that we were not running for anything, but against Bush, without articulating a clear new direction is it any wonder more than half of American voters decided to stay the course? If we had to lose, we should have lost on what we stand for, because we are never going to win by pointing out how far to the right the republicans are and then saying were not that far right.
We need to stop defining ourselves in terms of the Republican’s Ideology, and define ourselves by what we really stand for. We need to reclaim the term ‘liberal’ from the ash heap of political pejoratives and restore is as a proud tradition. A tradition that stands for:
Stewardship of our environment and resources.
Helping those in need of basic human services.
Defending basic human rights.
Preserving rights for the minority.
Expanding rights for the oppressed and disenfranchised.
Investing in sound science for the betterment of all.
Leading the world, not bullying it.
Making America a better place to live and prosper.
Moral Values?
In the Election post mortem, many stated that their biggest reason for voting for George W. Bush was moral values. Moral values? That is just code for outlawing abortion and seeking legal ways to treat gays and lesbians as second class citizens.
What we need is moral courage. Courage to recognize that safe, legal but rarely chosen abortion is the only acceptable balance between the tragic loss of the unborn and the horrific specter of state control over reproductive and health choices. Courage to understand that there are no second class citizens of this country and to stand against any law, policy, or group that says otherwise. Courage to hold dear the separation of Church & State so that we may worship without fear and suffer civil consequences only when we break man's law and not someone's
idea of God's law. Courage to disagree without hate. Courage to act
on principal with understanding rather than on fear with ignorance.
I wonder if anyone claiming to have voted on 'moral values' ever stood
up for anyone other than themselves and those just like them?
What we need is moral courage. Courage to recognize that safe, legal but rarely chosen abortion is the only acceptable balance between the tragic loss of the unborn and the horrific specter of state control over reproductive and health choices. Courage to understand that there are no second class citizens of this country and to stand against any law, policy, or group that says otherwise. Courage to hold dear the separation of Church & State so that we may worship without fear and suffer civil consequences only when we break man's law and not someone's
idea of God's law. Courage to disagree without hate. Courage to act
on principal with understanding rather than on fear with ignorance.
I wonder if anyone claiming to have voted on 'moral values' ever stood
up for anyone other than themselves and those just like them?
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
Fear
“…the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Those reassuring words from FDR were to calm a nation in the throes of an economic depression so deep and so severe that we have no modern day comparison. As much as anything, FDR wanted the optimism and resourcefulness of the people to lift the country out of the mess it was in.
How times have changed. Now our government sponsors fear as a tool to get what it wants over the better judgment of the people. To be sure, there is plenty to be afraid of. But is nursing that fear to support a war or as a pretext to limit our civil liberties really good leadership?
Our most immediate enemy before and after September 11 was terrorism. Secondary to that were the rouge states that could wreck havoc in their corner of the world, and cause all manner of misery, but not likely to cause us much misery directly. Dealing with rogue states requires diplomacy and international consensus. Dealing with terrorism requires resolve, cunning, imagination and an honest look at the root causes. But the current administration has chosen fear. Be so afraid of terrorists, that we disrupt our lives and liberties, be so afraid of rogue states that we start wars.
And while we’ve got the fear thing going, let’s use fear as an instrument of policy advocacy:
Be AFRAID – Allowing gays to marry will destroy your family.
Be AFRAID – Cleaner air and water will cost you your job.
Be AFRAID – Stem cell research will promote abortions.
Please catagorize your fear according to the helpful scale below:
Now the only thing we have to fear, is the use of fear.
How times have changed. Now our government sponsors fear as a tool to get what it wants over the better judgment of the people. To be sure, there is plenty to be afraid of. But is nursing that fear to support a war or as a pretext to limit our civil liberties really good leadership?
Our most immediate enemy before and after September 11 was terrorism. Secondary to that were the rouge states that could wreck havoc in their corner of the world, and cause all manner of misery, but not likely to cause us much misery directly. Dealing with rogue states requires diplomacy and international consensus. Dealing with terrorism requires resolve, cunning, imagination and an honest look at the root causes. But the current administration has chosen fear. Be so afraid of terrorists, that we disrupt our lives and liberties, be so afraid of rogue states that we start wars.
And while we’ve got the fear thing going, let’s use fear as an instrument of policy advocacy:
Be AFRAID – Allowing gays to marry will destroy your family.
Be AFRAID – Cleaner air and water will cost you your job.
Be AFRAID – Stem cell research will promote abortions.
Please catagorize your fear according to the helpful scale below:
Now the only thing we have to fear, is the use of fear.
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
Girlie men
Heavy sigh... Could there be a less offensive mock pejorative that someone actually took offense to then “Girlie Men”?.
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
The Quantum Physics of Fat
Obesity is at an epidemic level and there seems to be no end to the blame. Is it the food industry pushing lucrative but unhealthy choices? Is it the entertainment industry that has provided too many sedentary choices? Is it our service based economy that requires physical labor from so few? Is it pie? And dare I ask: does the fault lie within us?
No, it’s none of those things. After slap-dash research I have stumbled upon the source of the obesity epidemic. It’s Physics. Did you know that we are accelerating? Our planet, sun, solar system and galaxy are moving away from everything else in the universe at an ever faster rate. Did you know that acceleration increases mass? The more an object accelerates the more massive the object becomes. So even though you have parked your massive butt in a chair and it seems to be doing no accelerating at all, it never-the-less gets more massive. Your mass is increasing because everything in the Universe (including your butt and the chair it’s parked in) is flying apart at an ever increasing rate of speed. So it’s not your fault. It’s a fundamental law of physics. Have some more pie.
No, it’s none of those things. After slap-dash research I have stumbled upon the source of the obesity epidemic. It’s Physics. Did you know that we are accelerating? Our planet, sun, solar system and galaxy are moving away from everything else in the universe at an ever faster rate. Did you know that acceleration increases mass? The more an object accelerates the more massive the object becomes. So even though you have parked your massive butt in a chair and it seems to be doing no accelerating at all, it never-the-less gets more massive. Your mass is increasing because everything in the Universe (including your butt and the chair it’s parked in) is flying apart at an ever increasing rate of speed. So it’s not your fault. It’s a fundamental law of physics. Have some more pie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
