IntelligentStandards.com

I just watched the relevant part of the video where Hillary references RFK's assassination.

Now, if everyone could stop hyperventilating - for a moment - and watch the interview, there's a nugget of context there. The context is simply this:

Hillary was making the point that the democratic nomination in past election cycles was sometimes still not wrapped up until June. She referenced two Democratic campaigns where the things really weren't decided until the June time frame... Bill Clinton's in 92 and Robert Kennedy's in 1968. Of course, RFK's campaign ended horribly, in June, in his assassination, leaving Hubert Humphrey to ultimately go up against (and lose) to Richard Nixon.

What's Hillary's central point here? Other primaries went into June... Bill Clinton's did, and so did RFK's. In fact, it's particularly easy to remember that for RFK because of the impact his assassination had on the nation. And for her, it's only May, so there's time for her to figure out her next steps. That's about it.

In watching Hillary's interview it's clear to me that:

She was most certainly not covertly suggesting anyone should vote for her over Obama because Obama might somehow be more likely to be a victim of assassination.

She wasn't comparing herself to Robert Kennedy.

She was in no way dis-respecting the family or the memory of Robert Kennedy.

... and she absolutely should not have to apologize to anyone for the comment.

Really - this is all just silly and smacks of the "gotcha" style of politics that has soooo watered down the discourse in this country. We as Americans really ought to be outraged by this. We really should. Don't we hate it when we ask a question of our leaders in Washington and all we get is a talking-points, focus-group, committee-prepared response? I do.

So how on earth do we expect candidates to open up and speak freely and articulately (am I allowed to suggest Hillary was articulate on this point?) when people start freakin' out over a non-issue like this? I am just astounded. Hillary even tried to apologize to anyone who might have been offended and did everything she could to make it clear she wasn't trying to offend anyone - but our friends (her friends?) at the NY Times weren't having that either.

Really Folks - we can all do better than this.

We saw this nonsense (from Hillary herself, ironically) when Obama stated that he believed that "Ronald Reagan was a transformative political figure..." Whatever your opinion of Ronald Reagan, of his policies, of his presidency, etc., he was transformational, and Obama was only pointing that out as part of a response to a question in a radio interview. But somehow we got a lotta folks hyperventilating that Obama was somehow comparing himself to Ronald Reagan, Obama was somehow not conservative enough to do that, or not truly liberal if he was comparing himself to Reagan, blah blah blah.

So, please, everyone - take a deep breath. Go back and watch the video (again). Search for the actual context and remember:

Context is everything.

I've seen both of these before - way more than once.

They still get me every time.

This one is about Jason McElwain - an autistic special ed student at Greece Athena High School in New York. I won't spoil it for you - just watch.

The next one is a car-phone salesguy from Great Britain named Paul Potts - if you haven't heard him sing, you'll be blown away. Even if you don't like opera. You will be blown away. The following is from Britain's Got Talent - the obviously British version of America's Got Talent and brainchild of American Idol's Simon Cowell... (or maybe it's Simon Cowell's American Idol)... anyway - watch and listen. You will not be disappointed.

Simon's expressions are priceless - as he goes from "Yeah? opera? whatever..." to "just a sec.." to "WHOA!"

No matter how many times I see these clips, they blow me away. If you're having a bad day, if you're feeling down about any situation in life, if you're just tired...watch these clips - they're stunning and they'll make you forget all that's wrong with humanity and remember all that's right. There's really nothing more to say.

 

Alright - I don't get motivated to write about things like this much, but I just caught Joss Whedon's Serenity movie on DVD.

My wife and I got hooked on the Firefly series a couple of months back and are now fans.

If you're familiar with the series, you may be thinking- "Dave, as usual, you're late to the party! Why bring this up now?" IF you're not, you probably think I should get a life.

Well now.

All I can say is, "busted" on both counts. But I guess it's better late than never.

If you haven't checked out the series, you should. It's that good. Firefly is literally the best tv series I've seen since Star Trek - The Next Generation. And not because it's some kind of space drama... because it's good.

Now - for what I do not understand. WHY would anyone in their right mind cancel the show? Fox executives - can you hear me? There's an untapped market here.

There are many imponderables in this world... from the "war" on terror, the "war" on drugs, panic - sheer panic - over perceived threats of illegal immigration, "political correctness" run amok, down to the idiots on the school board in my county. I don't mean to digress or minimize any of these other "issues" - but canceling Firefly? What are these people smoking?

Ah well. I guess I shall have to be content with the DVD set and the movie... And the hope...that maybe... just maybe... someone will awaken and realize what a gem they had in Firefly. Seriously - humanity needs more of the quality storytelling like we see in Firefly and again in Serenity and less - a lot less of the dumb stuff that will ultimate rot our brains and turn us all into Reavers.

D

PS - spend some time on the fansites out there Google knows where they are. Here's a few to get you going.

• http://fireflyfans.net
• http://bigdamnsequel.com/
• http://www.canadianbrowncoats.com/

 

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." -- Thomas Jefferson

I read the following post on another blog today. It started with a quote attributed to Barack Obama:

"And if that child should ever get the chance to travel the world and someone should ask her where is she from, we believe that she should always be able to hold her head high with pride in her voice when she answers, "I am an American." That is the course we seek. That is the change we are calling for."

The blogger then goes on to say,

So to Obama, it would be a change for an American child to be proud of her country? This guy is not only unfit to be President, he's a disgrace to the Senate and a poor excuse for an American.

Excuse me? In no way can I make the jump that Obama's quote (which appears to be accurately attributed) somehow makes him either unfit to be President, a disgrace to the Senate, or a poor excuse for an American. Do the folks at rightwingnews really believe they've got the corner on who can criticize our government and still be patriotic?

In fact, I would say that it is very patriotic for Senator Obama, or anyone, for that matter, to wish and yearn for a better America. I don't think it's the least bit unpatriotic to criticize things we see wrong with our country and call upon the citizenry to work to address them. Throughout this country's history, America has done many things of which we would and should not be proud.

And Americans have certainly done things in the name of "keeping us safe" during President Bush's time in office that many reasonable and patriotic individuals across this country would find "un-pride-worthy." But it isn't limited to President Bush - we have had lapses in our National morality dating back to the founding of the republic - everything from the treatment of the native Americans, to slavery, to segregation and Jim Crow, to the interment of Japanese Americans, to the more recent practices of "torture" and extraordinary rendition. There's plenty out there for us as a nation to be ashamed of.

So, SPARE ME.

SPARE ME the faux patriotism.

SPARE ME the puffing about who isn't patriotic because he isn't wearing a flag on his lapel, or doesn't have his hand over his heart.

Just SPARE ME.

Thomas Jefferson's statement that he 'trembles for [his] country when reflecting that God is just,' must mean that he sees an imperfect country. Perhaps even an unjust country. Perhaps... just perhaps ... a country that has done downright evil things. Otherwise, why might he tremble? We can only speculate. But he did seem to recognize there are things wrong with America that we must be vigilant against.

Thomas Jefferson's words were right when he said them, and they still hold true today.

Perhaps the folks at rightwingnews don't consider Thomas Jefferson to be a true patriot after he dissed his ... OUR ... country - that I do not know.

But I do know that it is the height of patriotism to look for that which is wrong with our country -

It is the height of patriotism to point out that which is wrong with our country -

And it is the absolute height of patriotism to aspire to improve that which is wrong with our country.

Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

D

Today, a very respected colleague of mine forwarded me an email entitled, "Military Deaths for Twenty Years". I've posted a snippet below.

I don't know who the original author is, but the author goes on to state that there were more deaths in the active military during President Clinton's term than during that of the current administration. After inviting the reader to check out the source at www.fas.org, the article goes on to chastise "the media" for not promoting these 'statistics' and suggested that the media "hates the war". The writer even manages to back-hand Jimmy Carter - because the there were so many fatalities during his "reign."

Puffery and politics aside, there is a big problem here - and it's one of analysis.

Even without looking at the source of the data, you can see right away that the the originator of this email doesn't account for the fact that the military is a different size today than it was in 2000, than it was in 1990, than it was in 1980. Obviously, the larger the pool of active duty military personnel, the larger the raw number of deaths of those personnel.

So looking at the raw number of deaths is not the right way to analyze this.

Turns out there was.

The Census.Gov website, whom I presume to be pretty-much non-partisan, has a handy list going up through 2005 of all the same data - that is, Military Deaths by year.

http://www.census.gov/comp...irs/military_personnel_and_expenditures.html http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2007/tables/07s0502.xls

I pulled up the spreadsheet at the census.gov website and made some simple graphs of the data - which go thru 2005:  

Clearly, the numbers in this article are 'just wrong' during the Clinton years, although in non-Clinton years, they're (mostly) in agreement with the Census figures. How very odd.

A far better metric to look at for this kind of analysis is the deaths per 100,000 - or rate of deaths. Fortunately, the bean counters at the census bureau are already all over this. I created the following chart from the census bureau's spreadsheet:  

From the charts, there is an increase in (a) overall military deaths, and (b) military deaths due to to Hostile Action... At least up thru 2005.

Which leads to the next logical question: I wonder why the media hasn't covered this?

D

---

By the way, I did some googling later this evening. It seems that this article has been making the rounds on some right-wing and pro-veteran sites since at least the January 2008 time frame. Anyway, one such link appears here should you wish to read the whole thing.

If you read the article, you'll see they invite the reader to go visit fas.org's website for a pdf and analysis. Interestingly, the quoted deaths in the pdf at fas.org match very closely with census reports and not so well with claims the author puts forth in his own post.

Alarm bells should go off in your head WHENEVER someone says, "we need to do [insert action] to protect OUR [insert noun]." When a candidate says anything that fits that pattern, it's time to find another candidate.

Here's some examples to make this more specific:

• "We need to boycott some movie to protect OUR children."
• "We need to prohibit flag desecration to protect OUR freedoms."
• "We need to create a "zero tolerance" policy to protect OUR schools.
• "We need to build a giant fence to protect OUR culture and very way of life."
• "We need to pass huge tariffs to protect OUR jobs."
• "We need to add an anti-gay amendment to the Constitution to protect OUR institution of marriage."

See how this works?
 
A well-intentioned (or perhaps over-reaching) politician can posit virtually any ridiculous notion and, by appealing to a perceived common interest (Our Freedoms, Our institution of marriage, Our way of life, Our Children, and so on), makes the argument not only seem plausible, but something we must act on now!
 

As if somehow there is a connection between the ridiculous notion and the proposed antidote! But there it is - all laid out for you in one neat little sound bite: OF COURSE we all want to protect our culture and way of life, so I guess we do need to build a big friggin' fence. No other choice about it. Nevermind trying to address or even understand the real issues... too hard. Let's just build a big friggin' fence. After all - we DO want to protect our culture and way of life, don't we?
 

This is the source of Group-Think - and we know now it gets folks into trouble. Let me suggest, if I may, that we see this principle at work every time someone says, "We've got to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here." Once people begin thinking this way, they become closed to other possibilities.
 

Today, more than ever, we need leaders in our workplaces, in our churches, in our schools, in our communities, in our homes, and in our government that comprehend nuance. Our planet, our world, the fabric of our society is too complex and simply cannot be reduced to a pure "black and white" proposition.
 

So the next time the politicians step up and say, oh, for example, "We've got to eavesdrop on our own citizens (without any real reason) - for OUR protection" - you'll be right to wonder whether they're more concerned about their OWN protection - than OURS.

• You can support the troups and still disagree with the administration's policies.
• You can support catching "the terrorists" while maintaining constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.
• You can support the ideas and candidates from more than one political party without being sympathetic to "the terrorists".
• You can be a truly patriotic American and be conservative.
• You can be a truly patriotic American and be liberal.

Turning the corner...

One of the things that annoys me about the Bush administration: We are forever "almost there" - whether it's the turning point in the war in Iraq, the economy, or - you name it. I drew this up back in 2004 when the economy and the job market were at best a mixed bag of indicators. Today in 2007, the market is reeling from defaults on mortgages in the sub-prime sector. Brought on no doubt in part by over-selling of ARMs and other perhaps unscrupulous lending practices, but also in part because the improving economy isn't reaching everyone. I'm sorry, but the rising tide just doesn't lift all boats.