Thoughts of my brother, on hearing Romeo and Juliet

This morning, as I drove home from errands, music from the soundtrack to Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet came up on my iPod. I suspect that many people get teary when they hear this music: because of the sad story with which it is associated, because of their own lost loves, or because the music is intrinsically poignant. I have another reason: I hear the music and think of my brother.

David was a brilliant pianist. When he was young, when people still expected achievement from him, many thought he would have a career in music. He did some composing, mostly freeform and improvisational, but it was the way he played that hit people hardest. He was always unabashedly emotional, a thorough romantic, and his music was that in spades. I especially loved to hear him play Romeo and Juliet. It was the perfect marriage of music and musician. One of many tragedies concerning my brother is that there are no good recordings of his playing. The only one ever made was destroyed in a fire, about two months before he died.

I expected to outlive my brother. He was older. He was mentally ill for most of his life. He sometimes cut off all contact with me or our parents or both, for months or years at a time. He was often unable to work; he lived largely on disability and assistance from our parents. His judgment of other people was unreliable and led him into strange and potentially perilous associations. In his youth, he used many recreational drugs in various combinations; later, he took psychotropic prescription drugs whose side effects needed close monitoring. I would not have been surprised if he died of those side effects, or were found dead on the street, or simply disappeared without word or return.

What I didn't expect was that he would die of lung cancer. It shouldn't have surprised me: he was a heavy smoker for decades, almost a chain smoker. I would have had more warning if he had told me, when his beloved cat died, that she died of lung cancer.

We were close as children. Our relationship changed forever when, in his days as an evangelist for drug use, he gave me an "Alice B. Toklas" brownie and lied to me about its contents. I ate little of the brownie, and it had no effect on me, but the lie destroyed something between us. As he grew older and stranger, I learned to distance myself from him and from his troubles. When he jumped off a building in case he could fly, and broke his neck, I visited the hospital and wrote a poem about the leaves in his hair, but I was neither desolate nor terrified. I was relieved at his full recovery, but not deeply thankful. I followed subsequent hospitalizations, relocations and adventures with little emotion or engagement.

David was a paradoxical combination of generosity and need, egoism and selflessness. He was a wonderful friend to some; he was a heartbreaking disappointment to others, including the woman to whom he was briefly engaged. He escaped his own problems by helping others with theirs. I, by contrast, became cautious in exposing myself to the needs of others. When David had money, he lent it to near-strangers or gave away the things he had bought with it; then he would need rescuing to pay the rent or buy his medicines. My parents did the rescuing, often with strings attached that twisted and almost strangled their relationship. To avoid such unintended consequences, and to protect myself and later my own family, I made a vow never to lend him money. He only asked once.

After I moved from California to Indiana, he came for one visit. He met my older daughter when she was two or three. It was the only time he saw her.

We spoke on the phone rarely. In his latter years, he suffered from chronic fatigue syndrome. I never knew when he would be resting. It was a good excuse not to call. If I called, I never knew whether he would be irrational, or hard to understand, or querulous, or demanding -- or my loving big brother, my only sibling, sharer of my childhood. Often, I didn't take the chance of finding out.

After his diagnosis, we spoke more often. I thought of addressing the unfinished business between us, the old hurts, and decided against it. There was no ongoing problem to solve, little to gain. We chatted about little things; we talked about my children. I am no singer, but sometimes I sang to him over the phone -- lullabies, folk songs, anything soothing. He was lavishly appreciative.

My younger daughter wanted to meet her uncle while she could. She and I went to visit him in Palo Alto, California in April 2005, just after she turned nine. They bonded immediately. She doesn't play the piano, but they played duets together. They made silly noises together. She is a dancer, and she danced for him, and he delighted in her. On this same visit, I read him some of my picture book manuscripts; he praised them. We dredged up memories from the years we had lived together. Just before we left, we celebrated Passover, in the lovely little yard outside his small cluttered apartment. And we heard him play Romeo and Juliet -- the first time for my daughter, the last time for me.

We planned to come again in June. But before we could, a fire in his apartment -- possibly from a cigarette, possibly from bad wiring -- destroyed the apartment and most of his possessions. He was found wandering in the street, incoherent. His health declined rapidly from that day on, and he died in June, hours after my daughter graduated from 3rd grade. My parents, both my daughters, and I came to Palo Alto in June for a memorial service with his friends.

We got our first dog that September. We named her Davida, which not everyone in the family thought appropriate. It turned out to make sense, in a way. David and I had both liked walking at night; we were less awkward, most relaxed and loving with each other, on such walks. Now, I had a reason to walk at night, every night.

Sometimes I talk to Davida about my brother as we walk and pause and walk again through our quiet neighborhood.

And every time I hear the music from Romeo and Juliet, I tear up, and I cherish every note.

The author as problem-solver

The women in my family tend to be good problem-solvers. Give us a problem -- at least, one that doesn't have to be solved within seconds to avoid mayhem -- and much of the time, we'll come up with a creative yet practical solution.

After a decades-long detour, I am back to writing fiction, and I've discovered how much of it is my old friend, problem-solving. The problem may be how to reveal key facts without a boring info-dump, or how to keep the reader's sympathies for a character despite her dismaying behavior. Whatever it is, if I park it on the mental stovetop for a bit, it doesn't take long before the pot starts bubbling. Well, it may take a day or three. Problem: how to find a better metaphor for problem-solving?...

Republican stump speech for the taking

In the extremely unlikely event that anyone working on Rick Perry's, or some other Republican candidate's, campaign should stumble across this blog:

One of y'all needs a stump speech, and/or some campaign commercials, on the theme of "What Would the Founders Say." Collect egregious instances of regulatory interference and overreach, and recite them with proper indignation, following each with "What would the Founders say about that?"

You're welcome.

If they let themselves be bulldozed, it's their fault

The latest proposal for the debt ceiling impasse is a committee of members of the House and Senate -- presumably senior and powerful members -- that would come up with a plan to be voted on, but not debated, in both chambers. Some bloggers are screaming that this would be unconstitutional. Nope -- just undemocratic. If the members of Congress follow their internal rules, they can inflict this on themselves. But why would any of the freshfolk supported by the Tea Party, or any members devoted to budgetary restraint, vote for such a proposal?

Cute Couple of the Year

I'm sure I'm one of many, many people smiling at the photos of the first couple to wed in New York, Phyllis Sifel and Connie Kopelov, aged 77 and 85 respectively. The cynical might also note that these ladies are a good symbolic choice for first couple, as they're less likely than most others to get divorced.

And the Mean-Spirited Gesture of the Year award goes to the diehards who are seeking to get these first marriages annulled because the clerks waived the 24-hour waiting period. Ahem. Excuse me, I believe it's a good bet that these ladies have been waiting a while already....

Adults not armed, tragedy not averted

I am horrified, shocked, sickened, shaken, by the deaths of so many young people at the Swedish camp. I am also waiting for someone to mention that during the 90 minutes or so after the shooting began, armed adult staff members could have stopped the carnage. But of course, they weren't armed. Perhaps this kind of attack was unimaginable -- before. Now?

The devil and the deep blue sea of publishing

As I ponder whether to self-publish my SF novel or seek an agent and/or a traditional publisher, I hear discouraging news about both options.

According to one industry blogger, Barnes & Noble is responding to the death of Borders not by increasing its space for books, but by allocating less space for books and more for games. Another blogger reports that books will be given only 45 days, rather than the current 90 days, to sell before they're returned to publishers.

On the other hand, there is allegedly so much mediocre (or worse) self-published SF on Amazon nowadays that shoppers are supposedly avoiding the SF category.

Oy vey!

I'm baaack...

I've been planning to start up a separate "author" blog. Now comes this post suggesting why I might be better off staying right here.

When I next take a breather from revising a SF novel, I'll catch up on politics, etc....

If I Wrote a Singles Ad

Just walked the dog in the rain. Neither of us enjoyed it. Trudging along, I imagined the singles ad I would post if I needed one: "I do NOT love walking in the rain. I loathe it. I do like walking in the snow, if it isn't windy and Jack Frost isn't gnawing on my extremities."

link to a blog on website for writers and readers

Here's a link to my first blog entry on the Red Room, a website for writers and readers (as I am now both).

Expect to hear more about my first novel -- well, my second, if you count the one I wrote when I was 10. Which I try to forget about.

This Jewish lawyer's take on the Mount Soledad cross

For what it's worth, this Jewish lawyer and civil libertarian thinks it's kind of a shame to make, so to speak, a federal case over the Mount Soledad Memorial. Aka the Mount Soledad cross.

If someone sees the cross and knows nothing about it, then they won't know it's on federal land, and thus won't have a reason to read it as a government endorsement of religion. If they see it and know it's a war memorial, then what follows? American military cemeteries are full of crosses. This is because they are full of dead American soldiers, most of whom were Christians. Seeing a plain giant cross used as a war memorial is more likely to call up memories of military cemeteries than of churches.

In the article I just read, the attorney who fought against the cross for 15 years (!) says it's "a great day for religious tolerance." I would hardly call it a great day, or a great devotion of 15 years, for any kind of tolerance.

Genuine, Not Modest, Legislative Proposal re the TSA

I have a suggestion. It is a serious one, not a "modest proposal," although some might view it as a trifle wholesale. Here goes. This bill, or something equivalent, needs to be introduced in the next Congressional session. Todd Young (my soon-to-be-Congressman): how about it?

------------

(a) All legislation establishing the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), defining its duties, funding it, or empowering it in any way is repealed as regards the TSA, effective immediately, except as set forth below.

(b) No other agency, whether currently in existence or subsequently established, may take on any function previously exercised by the TSA.

(c) All regulations and rules of any kind promulgated by the TSA or pursuant to its authority directly or indirectly are nullified and of no future effect. This subsection is effective 30 days from the date this statute is enacted.

(d) Nothing in this or any other federal statute or regulation shall be construed to prohibit individual airports or airlines from adopting rules for the protection of airline passengers and crew. If applied to passengers or crew on interstate or international flights or to airlines conducting such flights, such rules must be posted prominently in any airport where the rule is to be applied, as well as on a website easily reached by inputting either the official name or any commonly used name of the airport or airline in a readily available Internet search engine.

(e) The TSA continues to exist in order to perform the following functions, and only those functions:

(1) Studying possible methods by which airports and/or airlines may protect passengers and crew from terrorist or other intentional destructive acts or from negligent or reckless behavior.

(2) Publicizing the results of the studies described in subsection (e)(1) of this statute.

(3) Receiving complaints from passengers, crew or others as to the security operations of any airport or airline and offering assistance in the resolution of the concerns prompting those complaints. No complainant, airport or airline will be compelled to utilize such assistance, and the use of such assistance shall not be a prerequisite to any other civil or administrative action.

(4) Testing the security at airports within the United States, in any reasonable manner that does not involve direct interaction with passengers or crew. Testing procedures that may result in indirect impacts on passengers or crew, by causing delays if security screening identifies the testing personnel as a threat to airport or airline security, are permitted.

(5) Publicizing the results of the testing described in subsection (e)(5) of this statute. A summary of any such result must be published on the TSA website within seven (7) calendar days of its completion, unless the TSA obtains a court order stating that publication of such a summary would compromise national security or airport or airline security. Any such order must limit the withheld material to the smallest amount consistent with the basis of the order.

---------

How's that sound?

Global Warming, Skepticism, and the Liberal Mindset

I was recently part of a sadly predictable exchange in the comments of a friend's Facebook. She had posted a link to a New York Times article titled, "Climate Change Doubt is Tea Party Article of Faith." I found this phrasing ironic, since it is my experience that many liberals treat anthropogenic and dangerous global warming (AGW) as an important tenet in an environmentalist religion. (What distinguishes political faith is that the believers don't acknowledge that they rely on faith rather than proof. There are, of course, religious people who do feel the need for supporting argument, or at least are adept at producing it -- e.g. C.S. Lewis, a great Christian apologist -- but a great many believe in faith without proof as a virtue or a religious necessity.)

The New York Times article gave short shrift to the disagreement in the scientific community about the extent, causes and dangers of global warming. I ventured to say as much. It wasn't long before another commenter asked me if I had been "following the 'scientific debates' over evolution and whether or not the earth revolves around the sun, too?" (I would link to this and the following exchanges, so that readers could check context, but I don't believe it's feasible or permissible to link to Facebook posts.)

I got a bit testy, and suggested he "look in the mirror and see the elitist snobbery that keeps you from recognizing the intelligence and humanity of those who disagree with you." He replied, "I guess if I'm adamant in my deeply-held beliefs that the sky is blue, the grass is green and 2+2=4 then that's arrogant, elitist snobbery." Apparently the extremely complex and multidisciplinary subject of global climate change may be equated with the simplest of arithmetic. It speaks volumes about this mindset that its adherents can imply such an equation and feel smugly intellectual while doing so.

Below are a number of links demonstrating the ongoing scientific debate about global climate change, as well as the developing cracks in the AGW edifice. I'll preface them with a summary by my husband, the Hoosier Gadfly, a computer scientist with deep and broad knowledge in many scientific and technical areas. (He doesn't typically use all-cap words, but he's kind of exasperated where AGW is concerned.)

------------------

Here is what SCIENCE really says about anthropogenic CO2:

(1) Satellites possess the only instrumentation sensitive and accurate enough to show a measurable CO2 effect on temperature today.
(2) Those temperatures are LESS than the predicted (from 1895 by Svante Arrhenius and still used up until the late 1980's) 1.1 C (2 F) [degrees] from doubling CO2 (we are only about halfway to the doubling).
(3) The IPCC and alarmists claim 4 and 5 degree C from a doubling based upon their models -- models such as the one developed by CRU [see links for info re the limitations of computer modeling, problems with CRU's software, etc.].
(4) The relationship of CO2 to temperature is NOT linear, it is logarithmic, which means that with around 1/2 of the CO2 increase having occurred, MOST of the effect should have already occurred. In other words, the satellites should be showing much, much higher temperatures [if the IPCC-etc. predictions are correct].
(5) There is evidence of a variety of NEGATIVE feedbacks that explain the satellite data. The IPCC, etc., posit only POSITIVE feedbacks and the data do not support that.
(6) I suppose I should throw in that ice core data that [in the early '80's] I said was "dispositive" of the CO2-temperature connection, upon further analysis showed that CO2 concentration LAGGED temperature changes by 800 to 1000 years. Causes do not follow events.

So, the fact is that, although there is no disagreement concerning [some] CO2 effect on temperature, the skeptical position is that the other side has not only exaggerated the effect way beyond what the data support, the other side has in some cases engaged in scientific fraud to make their case. (I should note that I never assumed actual fraud prior to "Climategate" - I attributed everything to bureacratic groupthink and cognitive dissonance. Scientific fraud on the scale I've seen [in "Climategate" and related events] has been a profoundly disillusioning experience for me.)

-------------

Thanks, hon!

Here are the promised links:

100 Scientists' Letter to the United Nations on Global Warming, December 13, 2007

Letter of Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, October 6, 2010, resigning from the American Physical Society

U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Minority Staff Report, updated 2009 (supported by more than 700 identified scientists)

"Heretical Thoughts about Science and Society," Freeman Dyson, August 8, 2007

International Climate Science Coalition website (check, among other links, the "Who We Are" link, including the advisory boards, and "Climate Change 101")

"Empirical Evidence for a Celestial Origin of the Climate Oscillations and its Implications," Nicola Scafetta, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 2010

Czech President Vaclav Klaus' inaugural Global Warming Policy Foundation lecture, October 21, 2010 (hot off the presses!)

Links to research articles by Dr. Roy Spencer, climatologist, author and former NASA scientist

Middleburg Community Network primer on global warming titled "Editorial: The Great Global Warming Hoax?" -- long, very detailed exploration of AGW claims, with an informal, irreverent tone combined with an enormous amount of information

Re "Climategate":

--"Open science and Climategate: the IPCC/CRU needs to take a leaf out of CERN's Book," Gary Richmond at Free Software Magazine, December 16, 2009

--"Climategate Computer Codes are the Real Story," Charlie Martin, Pajamas Media, November 24, 2009

--"Climate Change Data Dumped," Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor, Sunday Times, November 29, 2009

--"Climategate Stunner: NASA Heads Knew NASA Data was Poor, Then Used Data from CRU," Charlie Martin, Pajamas Media, March 10, 2010

--"Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995," Jonathan Petre, Mail Online, February 14, 2010

Another shot in the foot

The Obama administration is pretty hard on feet these days -- either putting them in mouths or just shooting them. Latest example: AG Holder's declaration that the feds will "vigorously" enforce federal laws against marijuana possession and use, even if California legalizes same.

Let's see, now. What big state has hard-fought races for Senator and Governor, this election cycle?

And how important will GOTV be for the parties in those races?

And what issue might bring otherwise-apolitical, but Democrat-leaning, voters to the polls?

Just how much sense does it make to discourage those potential voters by claiming that even if they show up to vote for pot legalization, it won't make as much difference as they're hoping?

Sheesh.

Those Pesky Quotations

Mark Twain apparently said, "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble, it's what you know for sure that just ain't so." But if I were going to put that quotation on the White House rug, I'd verify it first....

Leaving the parents

My oldest daughter is heading for college in a few days. I'll be driving her there -- well, we'll be taking turns at the wheel, switching back and forth between her and my "road trip" playlists. A couple of days later, I'll be driving back alone.

I remember being on the other side. I remember coming home on college vacations, talking a mile a minute to my mother in the kitchen, still feeling pretty much at home. I remember later visits, and the gradual shift in my relationship with my parents. I remember realizing that what had been effortless and natural was, at times, more awkward and uncertain. I remember realizing that when I needed comforting, my mother wasn't always the one who could.

All of which makes the coming transition somewhat terrifying.

Before having children, I was not especially comfortable with children -- especially small children and babies. My first child's birth -- or more precisely, the period from her birth to a few weeks afterward -- transformed me in a fundamental way. In becoming a mother, I became a very different being. I have other interests, and in a modest way other goals, unrelated to my role as parent -- but they are secondary.

I'm pining in advance for the particular things I'll be losing -- my daughter's daily presence, the knowledge that if she isn't around the house now, she will be in a few hours; our quick and cautious hugs. Thanks to Live Journal and Twitter, I'll still get to enjoy her quirky creativity and sense of humor on a maybe-daily basis, but diluted by the absence of tone of voice, gesture, body language. But the feeling of impending loss goes beyond that, in some way I haven't put my finger on.

I have a different perspective now on what it's like for my parents, making do with frequent phone calls and very infrequent cross-country visits. And it could be, and for many has been, so much more drastic a deprivation. This country of immigrants was founded on the grief of parents left behind. I can hardly conceive of how many parents had to say such a final and thorough goodbye. I cannot imagine what it was like to go on with life after such an amputation.

I will have, I hope, a better chance now of remembering to cherish my younger daughter's remaining time at home, despite all the sound and fury, the angst, the turmoil of the high school years. I wish she didn't have to bear her own loss, the loss of her sister's presence and everyday support, the vacuum Liana will leave behind.

And now, time to start packing. Time for roadside breakfasts, motels, hotels, confusion, orientation, disorientation. Time to get my daughter launched on her way. I'll be the one wearing waterproof mascara.

First, and One Hopes, the Last

I was musing about our current president the other night. I wondered how many other people had thought of him as an example of the "Peter Principle": ""In a Hierarchy Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence." Turns out many people have (google it), although the heap he's atop of isn't exactly the type of hierarchy Dr. Peter was talking about. My husband suggests that Obama exemplified the Peter Principle back when he was a law professor. Could be.

More seriously, it occurred to me that Obama is the first president we've managed to elect who is more or less hostile towards this country. I can't think of another who had anything like his mixture of anger, contempt and embarrassment about being an American and representing the United States before the world.

Obama's presidency has been a wake-up call and learning experience for a great many people, in various respects. I hope that includes making damned sure, in the future, that a president at least likes his country, and possibly even loves it and shows the world that s/he is proud of it, imperfections notwithstanding.

(One of Spider Robinson's characters, Russell Walker, with whom I don't entirely agree on matters political, said something I rather like: "[I]t must be admitted that so far, the United States of America has the most magnificent set of ideals any nation ever failed to live up to." That is the minimum we should expect of a president where admiration of this country is concerned.)

What the Supreme Court is Waiting For

I've taken a first quick look at how the McDonald opinions deal with the Privileges and Immunities Clause. As has been widely reported, only Justice Thomas was ready to revive the PIC and use it to incorporate the 2nd Amendment, while Justice Alito's opinion (joined by three other Justices on this point) "decline[d] to disturb" the current minimalist interpretation. However, the Alito opinion did quote and paraphrase some pretty strong statements about the scholarly consensus opposing that interpretation.

Alito et al.'s refusal to reopen the debate on the PIC seems to be based on two factors:
--The many decades of "substantive due process" precedent offer a usable framework; and
--Neither the petitioners in McDonald nor the scholars who have pointed out the flaws in the minimalist interpretation have provided a coherent explanation of how far the PIC would reach.

Justice Thomas describes the substantive due process approach as "rest[ing] on such tenuous footing" that he cannot endorse it. I suspect he would have more company in this view if it were not for the undefined scope of the PIC. Should some future litigant (or amicus curiae) come forward with an intelligible and historically supported definition of what the PIC should cover, we might see some interest from Justice Alito and/or from one or more of the Justices who joined his opinion.

The problem is related to the problem of how to interpret -- and, some hope, resuscitate -- the 9th Amendment. If the PIC covers more than the first eight amendments to the Constitution, it arguably covers the same rights that are protected from federal infringement by the 9th Amendment.

How to Stump a RNC Fundraising Caller

Just got a call from someone raising money for the Republican National Committee. I told him we were not giving money to the RNC at this time, but rather, were assessing and supporting individual candidates. He asked why; I said it was partly some of the candidates the RNC had supported, and partly an overall impression that the Republican national leadership had less spine than our preferred candidates. He replied, "Well, I'll accept that criticism -- but keep in mind that these conservative candidates absolutely depend on the RNC for various crucial support systems like polling, ..."

(Approximate dialogue:)
KAW: "As soon as the candidates ask us to send our money to the RNC instead of to them directly, we'll certainly heed that request."
RNC: "Whoa, good comeback! Did you write that down? Were you thinking about that ahead of time?"
KAW: "No. I'm a lawyer -- we're supposed to have good comebacks."
RNC: "Good one! I'll have to think about how to answer that one!"
KAW: "OK, why don't you do that on the way to calling the next name on your list."
RNC: "You're bad, Mrs. Wyle!"

(Very satisfying.)

Now There's a Title

A book I may have to read:

Whiny Little Bitch: The Excuse-Filled Presidency of Barack Obama....

The Hell He Will

The headline: "Obama Begins 'Lifestyle Health Modification' Program, Mandating Behavioural Changes Within US Society"

I need a less vulgar and far more emphatic way of saying, "Up yours." Any suggestions?

Obvious and Less Obvious Remedies

Well, Dan Coats, former Senator, Republican establishment pick, won the Indiana Republican primary for Bayh's former seat. No surprise there, with four more conservative opponents in the race splitting the vote, three of them relatively fresh faces.

Coats won by slightly more than the combined vote totals of the two last-place finishers. In hindsight, it appears that the only way any of the challengers could have won was for all of them to get together and decide who should continue. I can see why neither Hostettler nor Stutzman wanted to make that move, but for weeks now, Behning and Bates must have known they had no chance whatsoever -- zero, nada, zilch -- of getting the nomination. Why didn't either of them withdraw and throw support to one of the stronger candidates? They couldn't know that would be insufficient -- and who knows, such a move by both of them might have changed the dynamics of the race enough that it would have sufficed.

Meanwhile, there's a relatively simple solution to this perennial problem. In multi-candidate races, the way to avoid splitting of the vote is a voting system that allows voters to choose more than one candidate. By far the simplest such system to understand and to implement is approval voting. In approval voting, each voter votes for as many candidates as s/he finds acceptable, and the one with the highest vote total wins. Voters who wanted a candidate with no Congressional experience could have voted for Bates, Behning and Stutzman; voters who wanted a strong candidate with small-government credibility could have voted for Stutzman and Hostettler. In two other Indiana races, State House District 60 and U.S. Congressional District 9, better-known politicos lost to relative newcomers (although in the latter, another split-vote situation almost gave former Congressman Mike Sodrel the victory). With approval voting, Coats might have gone down as well.

Sorta Like a Published Author

Well, one of my picture book manuscripts made the first cut at smories.com, a site that has children reading picture book MSS aloud. Follow this link to hear it:

http://www.smories.com/watch/where_do_fireflies_sleep/

Still learning after 20 years

My husband and I have been married for over 20 years. For all that time, we’ve shared a king-sized bed.

I’m someone who typically gets up at least during the aptly-named wee hours of the night. Frequently, when I climb back into bed, I encounter a knee, elbow and/or shoulder. My husband has, in that brief interval, shifted over toward my side of the bed.

For over 20 years, I have grumbled (mildly) about this apparent bed-hogging behavior. It’s a king-sized bed! Why does he need to take over even more space?

A few weeks ago, as a result of a conversation I don’t remember in detail, it dawned on me: that wasn’t what was happening.

When I get out of bed, and he half-rouses from sleep, he senses something missing. He’s been checking to see if I’m still there.

For over 20 years, he’s been reaching out for me.

I’ve stopped grumbling.

One more on health care

Well, it appears we aren't done with Obamacare, so here's one more letter I sent (to the allegedly-Blue-Dog Democrats):

-------

Please vote Nay on, and actively oppose, the Senate-passed version of Obamacare and any procedural vote related to Obamacare.

Both the House and Senate bills would greatly expand government involvement in health care and impose an unconstitutional mandate on individuals to buy government-defined health insurance packages, while (if honestly examined) greatly expanding future federal deficits. Both are full of little-known booby traps, such as a marriage penalty for many low and middle income couples. The Senate bill, however, adds some particularly loathsome touches -- blatant vote-buying provisions including the Louisiana Purchase and the Cornhusker Kickback. It would also saddle the states with massive new unfunded mandates.

There is every reason to expect that if the House passes the Senate bill, the President will sign it. There is no reason to assume that the reconciliation process will be used, or lawfully can be used, to correct any significant portion of what is wrong with this bill.

Public opposition to this approach to health care reform is unyielding and increasing. It is outpaced only by public revulsion for the strong-arm tactics that have been used, and even more for those being contemplated. Any Democrat whose legislative agenda does not begin and end with Obamacare must realize that if this bill is passed, the Republicans are likely to take the House, and to greatly reduce (at least) the Democratic majority in the Senate. Is it worth it? Is it worth the likelihood of losing your own Congressional seat? Are you a Congressional Representative or a lemming?

Please bring this sorry episode to an end, and facilitate a new and better-considered approach to health care reform.

Sincerely,

Karen A. Wyle

Let's have a party, we'll all dance the hora

I should have done it long ago. I am a neglectful Jewish parent. But finally, yesterday, I taught my younger daughter to dance the hora.

Turned out my older daughter didn't know it either. We demonstrated it. More formal instruction will follow.

Curt Schilling's defamation action

Well, the inimitable gaffe-mistress Martha Coakley has done it again. After ridiculing her opponent, Scott Brown, for "standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?", she has now called famed Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling a Yankee fan.

Schilling may have a cause of action here. It is slander per se (no need to prove damages) to make false allegations injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession. Schilling has retired, but if he makes money from speaking tours, promotional items, etc., that income would surely suffer if people believed he was a secret Yankees fan. The only question is whether anyone (besides Martha Coakley) would be foolish enough to believe it.

No F-ing Way

Oh, come on, now.

In addition to double searches of carry-on luggage and other random searches, we hear that for the last hour of a flight, passengers will be forbidden to hold anything in their laps -- blankets, books, notepads, and of course, laptops -- or to leave their seats. Let's examine this bright idea.

How many businesspeople will decide that a day at the office plus a video conference is more productive than spending maybe three or four hours in security, and then sitting on a plane unable to work? (Gee, didn't the airlines just spend money on making wireless Internet available on planes? Too bad.) How many trips to see family or go on vacation will be switched to cars, trains and buses? (I'm due to go to Chicago in January, and if this policy is in place, you can bet I won't fly there.) But that isn't the best part.

Picture a plane with 15 or 20 young children on board. For the last hour of the flight, none of those children may play with toy cars or Barbies or handheld games; hold their blankets, lambies or teddy bears; look at a picture book; color with crayons; curl up with a pillow; or go to the bathroom.

How long will it take until a flight attendant commits seppuku? or assaults a TSA official?

Senator Bayh and the Washington Post

The Washington Post opines that Senator Evan Bayh's recent record of "crossing the aisle" and breaking away from the Democratic lockstep "virtually ensures he will not be a serious candidate for national office." I'm not so sure. Yes, many Democratic primary voters will want someone with a purer devotion, but others will be worried enough at the party's sinking popularity that they'll hold their noses and vote for a centrist.

Here's the message I sent Sen. Bayh earlier today:

--------

Dear Senator Bayh:

A Washington Post article today suggested that your relative "conservatism" and tendency to "cross the aisle" must mean that you were abandoning any Presidential aspirations. Well, that's the Washington Post for you.... I am quite skeptical about the notion that political moderation, and refusal to go along with ill-conceived and damaging legislation like "cap and trade", would disqualify a senator from nationwide recognition and support.

Whatever your plans for the future, here's one Hoosier and American applauding the independence you have sometimes shown, and urging you to go further in the same direction. Please assess, soberly and apart from partisan considerations, whether the current health care bill is well-conceived, thoroughly thought out, inclusive of all sensible reforms, and devoid of serious unintended consequences. If you cannot answer a decisive "Yes!" to all these questions, please stand up and vote against ending debate on the health care bill. If you do, I for one will hope to see you prove the Washington Post wrong.

Sincerely,
Karen A. Wyle

still trying on health care

Well, here's the latest missive into the whirling void:

Dear Senator Bayh:

Some of the latest tidbits from the healthcare debate should give any moderate senator or voter pause about the current enterprise. The proposed legislation would make disproportionate cuts in Medicare's home care coverage. This could be in a Proverb Dictionary under "penny-wise, pound-foolish". To somehow compensate, an amendment is passed to say that no "guaranteed" home care benefits will be cut -- a word with no reliable content. A new program, the "Class Act", is set up, with premiums due for years before benefits, but with expected payouts far exceeding benefits. So those who are losing home health care from the Medicare cuts can now pay out premiums for years before receiving anything, under a program that will founder in a few years from inadequate funding.
This muddled and destructive approach to one aspect of healthcare cannot reasonably be expected to be the exception to the bill's overall quality and impact. How can you support this ill-conceived political behemoth?
Do you really have more to fear politically from the Democratic leadership than from Hoosier voters, if this bill or anything like it becomes law? As a member of what is supposed to be the more sober and deliberative legislative body, don't you owe it to your consituents and the country to call, "Whoa!" and give a more considered, less politicized process a chance?
Please!

Not just a pig

From my latest message to my Congressman, Baron Hill:

"The House’s health care bill: 1,990 pages, much of it in impenetrable legislative jargon. This isn’t just a pig in a poke – it’s a manure lagoon."

In other news, making Biden look good

Whodathunkit: in the context of the ineptness of the Obama administration -- junking the planned Eastern European missile installations, without prior notice to Poland, on the anniversary of the Soviet's invasion of that country -- Vice President Biden looks like a skilled statesman.

Still trying on health care "reform"

Since Senator Evan Bayh is one of my senators, I keep sending him messages about Obamacare and its siblings. I dunno how often is too often -- I hope my emails aren't being automatically roundfiled. Anyhow, here's the latest. The subject line was "impact of medical device tax -- another unintended consequence".

----

One of Bloomington, IN’s premier companies, Cook Medical, would take a serious financial hit from the proposed health care “reform” legislation. The 4% tax on medical devices would threaten a company that provides your constituents not only with thousands of good jobs, but with the pride of hosting a company whose products improve medical care worldwide. Other medical device companies face similar damage. There’s an irony – health care “reform” that undermines health-enhancing technology. This is just one of the unintended consequences that would flow from ill-considered, patched-together, politically driven legislation.

You are in a position to hit the brakes. Please do so, for the good of your constituents and your country. Give us a chance to accomplish real health care reform with the appropriate care, thoroughness, and bipartisan creativity.

A Pig in a Poke -- free meme....

Well, I just made my first Facebook Flair, and there it is. I'm going to do my feeble best to get this meme out there in the blogosphere....

If I can get my talented artist daughter to do a cartoon, I'll focus in particular on what a Conference Committee would turn out.

Although "Frankenstein" would be as good a label as "pig in a poke" for what would probably result....

Meanwhile, at the UN - a Contrast in Leadership

I do NOT wish I lived in Israel, but boy howdy, I'm up for a leadership exchange program.

Israel's Netanyahu gives a speech worthy of Churchill. It starts out focusing on Iranian Holocaust denial, and gets broader in scope as it goes along. It's an exhilarating defense of science and innovation, of freedom, of human potential.

Meanwhile, our very own President seasons his generality soup with a sprinkle of self-importance and a soupcon of stale apologies. Not to mention that he's all excited about closing Pandora's box -- whoops, I meant eliminating all nuclear weapons from the planet (I guess everyone will forget how to make them). Oh, and to prevent bad guys from getting hold of fissile material, he wants to have an "internationally supervised" nuclear fuel bank. Which would hold low-enriched nuclear fuel, which is easy to process into weapons-grade material. Russia and Kazakhstan have offered to host it. What could possibly go wrong?

OY VEY.

Constituents of Gang of 6 -- Beware the Conference Committee

The constituents of the Senate Finance Committee's "Gang of 6" may be our only hope for stopping Obamacare. Whatever careful compromise the 6 think they've worked out, they will have no control over the last-minute deals made in the Conference Committee, and there will be enormous pressure on both houses to pass whatever Frankenstein that committee patches together and lets loose. The Gang's constituents need to bombard them with the message that they most hold the pass. (It might be better to come up with better-matching metaphors than I'm offering....)

Life's little ironies

(As opposed to the big irony about which I posted yesterday.)

I've been dieting and losing weight. I look slimmer, especially in pants, but what I didn't expect is that most of my skirts are riding lower and therefore look longer. Which makes me look shorter. Slimmer but shorter.

Since I mainly wear skirts in warm weather, and fall and winter approach, I'm OK with the tradeoff, for now.

Two cautionary tales

Yesterday my husband embarked upon life as a civil servant. (He will be aiding the national defense -- so he will be among perhaps a minority of civil servants who are performing functions authorized by the Constitution.) He immediately encountered two distinct instances of the federal bureaucracy fouling things up, in a way we may ponder as we contemplate a greater federal role in American health care and/or business.

As part of "in-processing", he took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. This was his first opportunity to do so, and he was proud and moved to make such a declaration. He was discomfited to discover that the form given him to sign, while properly allowing him to "swear (or affirm)", included the language "so help me God". He asked the lady in charge whether he could cross out the religious language and was told, "No, you can't change anything on a federal form." The form by which he was to declare his allegiance to the Constitution violated the Constitution.

He was troubled enough to do some research when he had the chance. As it turned out, a previous version of the form specified that, should the "appointee" choose to affirm, the words "swear" and "so help me God" should be stricken out. The fine print on the current form is less specific, and was perhaps intended to be less restrictive: "Note - If the appointee objects to the form of the oath on religious grounds, certain modifications may be permitted pursuant to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Please contact your agency's legal counsel for advice." The bureaucrat in charge of the procedure was unaware of this language, and her statement directly contradicted it. Even had she made some attempt to comply with it, the form gave her little guidance and no convenient way to obtain any.

Our next surprise concerned health insurance. My husband and I had both grown up hearing that federal employment offers particularly good benefits. This may be, but it turns out he is not yet covered by his new insurance. In fact, he -- and the rest of the family -- won't be covered for more than two weeks. None of his previous employers -- government contractors -- have left him out in the cold this long. This instance of federal management of health care has not inspired us to optimism where Obamacare is concerned.

One big crowd

So we have estimates from 60,000 to 2 million Tea Party protesters in D.C. on September 12, 2009. A time-lapse aerial view from 8 to 11:30 a.m., while not great quality, shows a Whole Lot of People -- and that's at a time when many were in very long lines for subway tokens and the like. I'm no expert, but I would bet a fair amount of money, which we are not flush with right now, that the crowd was well into the six figures. Over 200,000 would be my conservative guess, and over 300,000 would be my if-I-were-taking-a-flyer guess.

Still at it -- more emails to Congress

Here's my latest, sent to my senators and to the members of the Senate Finance Committee:

------

Dear Senator:

I am disturbed about some features of the emerging possible compromise on health care legislation. I read that this compromise is likely to include mandatory insurance for individuals, as well as requirements that insurance companies cover those who are already known to need continual expensive care.

There is something fundamentally un-American – not to mention unconstitutional – about the federal government telling people that they must purchase an expensive product for their own use that they do not believe they need. The comparison to auto insurance misses the mark, as that requirement is: (1) a feature of state, not federal law; (2) confined to those who choose to drive; and (3) mainly designed to ensure that the driver can pay for injuries or property damage his driving inflicts on others.

As for requiring insurers to cover all pre-existing conditions, this further distorts the already strained meaning of “insurance”. Insurance is a form of hedging one’s bets, protecting against unlikely events (e.g. fire, accident). Where known medical conditions will require extensive future medical care, “insurance” is a misnomer. Placing the costs of such care on insurers is a kind of tax, which will be passed on to all the insurers’ customers in the form of higher premiums. Such higher premiums are one of several reasons that people currently satisfied with their insurance cannot count on their employers’ retaining such insurance.

The question of how to help Americans pay for chronic health conditions is a difficult one, and we need a great deal more brainstorming on the subject. Greatly expanding the federal bureaucracy, either expanding or imitating existing bureaucracies that are financially imperiled and administratively lackluster, cannot be the best answer available.

There are good ideas already out there for addressing many other aspects of health care. By letting Americans use pre-tax dollars to pay for both health care and health insurance, we can disconnect health care from employment and let people be cost-conscious health care consumers. Health insurance could then fill its more appropriate role, instead of being used for predictable everyday health care. Allowing insurance companies to compete nationwide would greatly reduce cost and expand choice.

Please do not allow the push for a bipartisan solution [replaced in some emails with: the demands of party leaders] to obscure the merits of the issue.

Sincerely,

Karen A. Wyle

UPDATE: Holy cow! My readership just jumped substantially. Hello and welcome, new folks! Please feel free to comment.

If we have 4 years to play with....

My email to my senators:

Dear Senator Bayh/Lugar:

In his speech to Congress last night, Pres. Obama said his plan would go into effect in four years, so that we'd have time to get it right. Conveniently, that gives him time to get re-elected before the actual effects of his plan become evident.
If we have that much time, how about starting over and getting the right bill? How about letting individuals use pre-tax dollars to buy health care and/or health insurance, and letting insurers compete nationwide? How about examining some of the interesting proposals various economists and other experts have been floating?
Please don't let yourself be stampeded into supporting a flawed bill that, according to the President himself, doesn't need to go into effect any time soon.

Karen A. Wyle

Who gave you that microphone, Congressman?

Well, I attended the town hall meeting that my congressman, Baron Hill, finally decided to hold. It was informative -- I'd imagined that he might still be on the fence, or even inclined to live up to his Blue Dog label, but he'd clearly decided to support the Democratic leadership's approach, complete with public option if he can get it.

Hill tried to be fair about the way he ran the meeting, sometimes affirmatively looking for people who opposed his views and wanted to speak. I was, however, disturbed by one of his ground rules: no audio or video recordings except by "accredited news agencies". He was asked twice why he would not let audience members record the proceedings. I don't think he answered the first time, but the second time he replied, "This is MY town hall and I set the rules." That got an angry reaction, and he defiantly repeated that this was "MY town hall." (He also explained that he didn't want recordings showing up on YouTube, which was at least honest.)

So what does that mean, "MY town hall"? He was the one who deigned to hold a meeting. He's the one who is (for now at least) in Congress. But he's there as our employee and representative. We put him there. If we call on him to meet with us on how he's doing his job, is it really "his" meeting? or is it more like his performance review?

An open letter to my Senators

Here's what I just sent Senators Lugar and Bayh:

-----

Dear Senator Lugar/Bayh:

I know that you and your colleagues respected Senator Kennedy’s passion and dedication. I can understand that many of you may identify with a senator who desperately wanted to remain on the battlefield during a crucial fight and was unable to do so. I know you will be urged to honor his memory by ensuring that his removal from the scene does not defeat the cause about which he cared so deeply.

Senator, the issue of American health care’s future is too important to be decided on such grounds. Senator Kennedy’s vision of government-dominated, government-administered health care is wrong for this country. Polls show that most Americans agree with that assessment. Legislators across the country have been confronted with the fear and anger their constituents feel at the possibility of their choices being curtailed and their health care overtaken by a wave of bureaucratic interference.

The challenge of the day is to address the flaws of our generally enviable system without undermining what we are doing so right. There are ideas floating around that meet that test. They include:

--Disconnecting normal health care from insurance. Insurance is for the big bad things that we hope won’t happen – fire, flood, catastrophic illness. It isn’t an appropriate vehicle for dealing with ordinary and predictable expenses. Using insurance for normal health care also prevents people from being intelligent consumers of health care, because they are insulated from its actual costs. We can let people put some of their income, untaxed, into health savings accounts, and spend that money on health care, so health insurance can play the more limited role that’s appropriate to it.

--Disconnecting health insurance from employment. If health insurance has a smaller job to do – covering catastrophic health events – it becomes more affordable. When it’s more affordable, more people can afford it, themselves, rather than getting it as an employment benefit. If we open up insurance to nationwide competition, the costs should go down further.

--Tort reform. We shouldn’t eliminate malpractice litigation, but some limits are necessary. Huge judgments and correspondingly high malpractice insurance premiums translate into higher costs for medical care.

While you honor the colleague you have lost, please maintain your focus on those Americans who remain with us, and who will be deeply affected in the future by the decisions you make today.

Sincerely,

Karen A. Wyle

Anniversary cards

I went looking for a couple of anniversary cards earlier this week (to give my folks for their 60-something'th, and my husband for our 20th). I found abundant birthday cards in every possible variation and specification. I found Congratulations, Thank You, Thinking of You, Friendship, and Carpool Lines. I finally found a very few anniversary cards, providing very little choice in style or sentiment.

I guess I shouldn't have been surprised. Fewer people married for fewer years, with years passing before any remarriage, means fewer anniversaries. I also suspect that people are less likely to send anniversary cards for friends and family who are on their second or subsequent marriage. I would guess also that divorced people, so numerous in this era, don't get much pleasure out of sending anniversary cards: "Congratulations on staying married when I couldn't!"

In the end, I bought a blank card for my husband, with a photo of a boy and girl dressed in wedding garments (she was kissing him). And I used one of my own photos, a couple in silhouette walking on a beach, for a card to my folks. I wonder how many people make do in a similar manner, and how many drop the idea of sending a card -- shrinking the market further.

...and more about toilets

Re my earlier post about automatic toilets: I could be wrong, but it seems to me that in bathrooms with manual flush toilets, there are more unflushed toilets than there used to be. (I'm not talking about deliberately clogged ones.)

My guess: people have gotten used to automatic toilets doing their flushing for them, even though it doesn't always work. They've started to assume that all toilets are automatic, without checking. They no longer view flushing as their responsibility.

Again, an example and a symbol of larger trends.

Has anyone written this book?...

If someone provided me with a good researcher, I might undertake to write a book called something like "A Nation of Cowards: Raising Our Children in Fear". It would compare how Americans addressed risk fifty years ago with how we do it today. Of course, research might find some exceptions to the rule -- were we more germ-phobic in the late 1950's than we are today? On the whole, though, I expect one could document that my now-middle-aged generation was expected to accept many more everyday risks without a second thought, and society as a whole was more prepared to undertake risky endeavors (e.g. going to the moon).

But maybe there are several books like this out there already. Names, anyone?

The automatic toilet as symbol

The other day, I was in a mall bathroom with automatic toilets. Several had been left unflushed; the one I used was, as is common, both under- and over-sensitive, flushing before it should and not flushing when it needed to. It occurred to me that automatic toilets are both a symptom and a symbol of what ails this country (well, one important ailment).

Instead of assuming that people can take responsibility to the minimal extent of flushing away their own waste, we replace individual responsibility with a System. The System doesn't really do the job, failing at least as often (I'd guess more often) than the individuals did -- but its very existence leads people to assume that they no longer have to take any action. Thus the System's failures go uncorrected.

Grudging Benefit of the Doubt -- Obama and Iran - UPDATED

Much as I'd like to join the chorus of those excoriating Obama for not unequivocally backing the Iranian protesters, I can't quite. Why give the mullahs a more credible opportunity to blame the unrest on outside agitators? If Obama actually had guts and a devotion to American-style democracy, wouldn't it be wise for him to walk pretty much the line he's walking?

UPDATE: OK, they're blaming us anyway, and Mousavi's spokesman didn't ask us to keep out of it. Time to man up, Pres-boy!

Where the Money Is

I don't remember which bank robber said he robbed banks because "that's where the money is". A similar principle appears to guide Democratic tax policy: tax the heck out of rich people because that's where the money is.

Trouble is, the economy needs rich people and their money. We need rich people's money for investment, for new businesses, for expansion of existing businesses.

Obama says he won't wallop the rich folks with taxes until the economy recovers. But what makes him think that recovery can be sustained without them?

Or maybe he figures there'll be plenty of money left over, and that it'll still get spent where we need it. Better hope so.

It is utterly obvious that I'm no economist -- but I don't think I'm completely missing the boat here.

Chilly

Thursday morning, it was minus 9 degrees Farenheit at 8 a.m., and the radio cheerfully commented that it was "really chilly".

This is one way I know I no longer live in Southern California.

We are now in that interlude when there is melted snow on top of unmelted ice. This is awkward.

Good Cop, Bad Cop

I am relieved to see Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, for the same reasons I would have been happier to see her as Commander in Chief. The lady is tough, and is probably perceived as such by those who have little reason to assume the same of our President-Elect.

As my husband, the Hoosier Gadfly, said in an email to a friend: "[H]aving a gimlet-eyed sociopath to intimidate one's adversaries is a big asset. She really is something out of a Nietzchean nightmare - the abyss that gazes back at you." He is looking forward to seeing her effect on Putin.

I also suspect that Obama wants her handy for good cop/bad cop routines. "Respond favorably to my warm smile, or the next meeting will be with Medusa here...."

Unintended Consequences Dept. -- Rebuttal of Victim Impact Videos

I've been reading about the U.S. Supreme Court's recent refusal to hear two challenges to victim impact videos, played for juries in the penalty phase of (usually) murder trials. It strikes me that this will, sooner or later, spawn an unforeseen and very messy response.

The relevance of such videos, presumably, is to show the jury what the family and the community have lost due to the defendant's actions. If I were a defense attorney in (especially) death penalty cases, I would consider it my duty to attempt some rebuttal of this evidence. Enter the private investigator, tasked with finding out whether (fictional example!) the young woman feeding the stray puppy in the video had had a neglected attack dog chained up behind her house, or had been spreading STD's, or was fired from a day care for molesting toddlers, or . . . .

I don't see how one can legally justify admitting the favorable video and excluding the nastier evidence. Of course, with some jurors, this approach could backfire big-time. It'd take a masterful defense attorney to pull it off.

McCain is a mensch; Obama, maybe not

I wish it weren't so late, and I weren't so tired, and could find and link to all the right examples.

John McCain is one of the few people, of all those who've known and worked with former Senator Udall, who visits him regularly in the veteran's hospital.

Obama's impoverished relatives don't appear to have benefited much from his fame and fortune.

Flaws notwithstanding, my bet is that John McCain is a mensch. My jury's still out on Obama.

Has Palin caught Thompson-itis?

I've been somewhat disturbed by the percentage of empty platitudes and generalities in Palin's recent interviews. I just realized what it reminds me of. Fred Thompson had his own, vigorous voice -- before he became a candidate. Then, suddenly, it was all mail-in politician-speak. Is the same thing happening to Palin? Say it ain't so....

Housing vs. Travel Per Diem

The Washington Post finally scored a point or two against Gov. Palin with its per diem story. It appears plenty of people now believe that Palin charged the state for hotel-type expenses while staying in her home in Wasila (and commuting to Anchorage or Juneau).

WaPo sure didn't try to make clear that Palin didn't take a housing per diem for this time -- just the travel-expenses portion of the per diem. The expense reports show this -- the portion for hotel/housing expense is left blank.

One could get into an interesting discussion about whether it cost the state more for her to commute from Wasila or to stay at the mansion in Juneau, plus what she gained in effectiveness by staying in Wasila -- plus how much latitude a mother in a high-profile position should have to make things easier for herself and her family, while overall spending a lot less than her predecessor. That discussion won't happen while most of those not obsessed with politics have the impression that she sought hotel-type expenses for living at home. The latter would seriously undercut her “reformer” credentials -- the truth, perhaps not so much.

Gov. Palin's experience

I thought of it first, I bleat.... One of Instapundit's readers notes Alaska's proximity to the former USSR and calls it "two years of foreign policy experience". I've been talking about this since my husband and I started tossing Gov. Palin's name around. Any governor of Alaska who's good at her job would keep a close eye on what's happening in Russia and surrounding countries -- and Palin is reportedly good at her job. A related point (not yet scooped...) -- a competent governor of a state to whom oil is so important would keep up with what's happening in oil-producing states -- which would entail a fair amount of awareness of developments re Islamic extremism.

So Palin may add some real foreign policy expertise (if not exactly "experience") to her executive experience, toughness, reformer credentials, etc.

It Just Don't Look Right

I watched the Democratic Convention roll call, on and off. Since Hillary had released her delegates, the numbers were far more lopsided in Obama's favor than they would have been had they reflected the actual primary/caucus votes. Then, of course, Hillary moved for Obama's selection by acclamation.

I assume this was all negotiated and considered. I assume Obama and staff thought this would be a helpful way for things to go. But I have my doubts. Though I didn't support either candidate, I watched those accumulating numbers and felt that this drastic understatement of Hillary's real support was somehow disrespectful -- of her and of those who voted for her. It looked like a distortion and even, in some sense, a humiliation. Numbers like that belonged to a race between an overwhelming favorite and a pathetic also-ran with delusions of seriousness. If I were a Hillary supporter having trouble swallowing the current situation, those numbers would REALLY tick me off. And Hillary's being a team player, good sport, etc. would make me angrier, not more reconciled.

Mazel tov!

A red-letter day, a personal and family triumph -- daughter Alissa tried and enjoyed a bagel with lox and cream cheese.

Alissa is quite fond of salmon, but had the notion that she didn't like lox, aka smoked salmon. (Feel free to enlighten me on when smoked salmon is and isn't technically lox.) I am not very picky about my lox, and she may have previously tried a worse-than-average sample of the cheap stuff with which I usually content myself. Paul, with craft and persuasion, managed to get her to try the expensive variety he likes. One small taste, and she admitted with only slight sheepishness that she liked it too. The two of them dined on toasted bagel, cream cheese and lox.

Paul was triumphant that one of his daughters, at least (the other is a vegetarian), would eat this Jewish staple henceforth. I find this somewhat endearing and amusing, given that he's a blond (now gray-blond) Texan ex-Methodist, Jewish by conversion only (via a particularly tolerant rabbi who somehow overlooked agnosticism verging on atheism).

I am also pleased. Tradi-tion!

McCain campaign needs to tell stories like this

When voters get bored with hearing in general terms about McCain's captivity and fortitude in North Vietnam, they need to hear stories like this (from the Wall Street Journal via Powerline):

"[Colonel Bud Day, a Medal of Honor recipient and America's most highly decorated veteran, shared a cell for some time with McCain.] Day escaped his original detention in North Vietnam, but was recaptured. Upon recapture, the North Vietnamese conveyed a harsh message:
'When he was recaptured, a Vietnamese captor broke his arm and said, "I told you I would make you a cripple."
'The break was designed to shatter Mr. Day's will. He had survived in prison on the hope that one day he would return to the United States and be able to fly again. To kill that hope, the Vietnamese left part of a bone sticking out of his arm, and put him in a misshapen cast. This was done so that the arm would heal at "a goofy angle," as Mr. Day explained. Had it done so, he never would have flown again.
'But it didn't heal that way because of John McCain. Risking severe punishment, Messrs. McCain and Day collected pieces of bamboo in the prison courtyard to use as a splint. Mr. McCain put Mr. Day on the floor of their cell and, using his foot, jerked the broken bone into place. Then, using strips from the bandage on his own wounded leg and the bamboo, he put Mr. Day's splint in place.Years later, Air Force surgeons examined Mr. Day and complimented the treatment he'd gotten from his captors. Mr. Day corrected them. It was Dr. McCain who deserved the credit. Mr. Day went on to fly again.' "

The Wall Street Journal article has other stories as well, including how Cindy McCain brought a dying orphan from Bangladesh to the U.S. for medical treatment and the McCains adopted her.

If the McCain campaign can't find a way to tell stories like these effectively, 527's had better get on the stick!

Su-per Senator passes laws solo!

Not once, but twice! Both of Obama's general election ads have trumpted that he "passed laws" doing thus-and-so. As has been noted elsewhere, no one legislator can pass a law. But since Obama is supposed to be the harbinger of a new kind of politics, maybe Yes He Can....

(I also read an article somewhere claiming that he didn't end up supporting one or more of the laws on which his claims (in the first ad) were based -- but other articles, such as the post I just linked to, seem to disagree.)

Let Uncommitted be Uncommitted

One thing should be easy about the overall-difficult issue of the Florida and Michigan delegates. At whatever strength the Michigan delegates are seated, the proportion derived from the vote for "uncommitted" should get to be -- gee -- uncommitted! That's what people voted for. Like superdelegates, the delegates in the uncommitted group could wait until the convention to announce their preferences, or could let people know (in a nonbinding way) ahead of time.

armchair sociology

I had occasion to see some interesting social patterns in action a couple of weeks ago. (And if I were close to diligent about blogging, I'd have mentioned it then.)

Joshua Bell, world-famous classical violinist, hails from Bloomington, IN, and was gracious enough to give a free concert here last weekend, with a pianist friend of his, Jeremy Denk. Tickets were available as of 11 a.m. on a weekday morning. The line started forming around 8:40 a.m. (I know because an acquaintance of mine was first in line). I arrived around 10:40 a.m. and found a line of people waiting in the cold -- a line that looked surprisingly short, until I saw that most of it was inside the building. The line snaked back and forth through the lobby. The loops were crowded so close together that it was sometimes difficult to keep track of which was which, especially since people kept stepping across to chat with each other. And yet no one, so far as I could see, made any attempt to jump the queue. Nor was there any impatience evident, although those of us in my part of the line ended up waiting for two hours. The line etiquette/ethos may have been bolstered by the presence of auditorium staff, giving occasional updates and reassurances, discreetly keeping an eye on things. And of course, it was reasonably clear what we were supposed to do and where we were supposed to go.

On to the nearby parking garage -- and a very different scene. Cars converged from several directions on the narrow exit. The line of cars with the clearest shot did not, most of the time, take turns with those coming from the side. It took ingenuity and/or recklessness to get one's car out of a spot in the first place, and then to get the heck out. (I had to create a new lane of traffic -- yes, there was room -- in order to get out of my spot, and then play chicken with a driver in the favorably positioned lane.)

And of course, these were pretty much all the same people who'd been following the rules so nicely in the line at the auditorium.

One main difference was that there were rules apparent in the auditorium. Another was the presence of those who might enforce those rules. And finally, as my husband pointed out: people are different in cars.

Snow and the ebbing of the American spirit

Apparently some of the local schools no longer let kids play in the snow at recess. I find that appalling enough. But what's really dispiriting is the collection of letters that were in the paper the other day. It appears that some 6th grade class was given the assignment of writing letters to the editor re whether they approved or disapproved of the no-play policy. (Here's the link, but I don't think it'll work for anyone who doesn't subscribe to the Bloomington Herald-Times.) Given how much the letters resembled each other, the kids may have had a list of pros and cons to choose from. What really makes me wonder where America went and how long it's been gone is that 9 out of 16 kids thought they should not be allowed to play in the snow at recess. Reasons:
--Kids could get wet and cold. (Example: "Just imagine every kid cold and wet from playing in the snow and how fast kids would get sick.") And they might not have snow gear.
--Kids could get hurt. Someone could put a rock in a snowball.
--Whatever will the teachers do with the wet outerwear?...

Risk is the only thing to consider. Any risk is too much. The way to handle the risk of inappropriate behavior is to ban all related activity. Any difficulty is too much to handle.

Is there ANY way to turn this around?!!??...

Woman, the tool-using animal

We had ice raining down the other night, covering pretty much everything. (My daughter described this in, I think, quite amusing terms on her live journal.) One temporary casualty was the flag on our mail box: frozen in the down ("nothing here, guys!") position. So I took a screwdriver out there and chipped away the ice. Presto, functional mailbox flag!

It doesn't take much in the way of technical achievement to make me feel proud of myself....

Thompson Blogburst (notwithstanding...)

Despite my reservations about Fred Thompson, noted earlier, I'd like to see him stay in the race, and I may prefer him to the rest of the pack. He is bright and can write. He does not steer by polls. Most important to me, he understands that we are in a real, hot war to preserve a number of things that make humanity a worthwhile accident-or-invention (that's for another post) -- like democracy, scientific method, freedom of conscience, secular thinking, treating women like human beings, treating human beings ditto.

Right Wing Nut House asks bloggers who support Thompson (I refuse to say "Fred") to ask their readers to cough up some money. In the event I have any readers, please consider it....

What Thompson's campaign says about his ability to reshape a bureaucracy

Since Fred Thompson's campaign actually began, I've been quite disappointed in its feel and tone -- cookie cutter EveryPolitician stuff with no individual touch and no appearance of respecting the voter's intelligence. It occurred to me today that the campaign tastes and smells as if it's run by the campaign equivalent of bureaucrats. Which doesn't bode well for how a President Thompson would deal with the entrenched federal bureaucracy. Would he be able to shake it up at all, to reshape it, to exert much control over it? I'd like to think so, but I'm not too optimistic at present.

Some improvs

A few days ago, younger daughter Alissa asked me to give her some improv acting assignments. Here are a few I came up with. Feel free to try these at home....

--Porcupine with an itchy rash
--Extreme fishing
--Game show host with a hangover
--Dracula at a job interview
--Boxer with a phobia about contact
--Underdog at the vet
--Realtor showing a haunted house
--Infomercial for hemorrhoid cream
--Time traveller in ancient Athens looking for the bathroom
--The Queen in Snow White shopping for a new mirror

Does Fred Thompson want my money?

I was excited about Fred Thompson for a while, before he actually got in the race, because I liked his blog posts -- both their content (usually) and their style. I was not thrilled with the style of his campaign -- recycled politician-pap for the most part -- but I am still inclined to prefer him over the other major candidates, so I decided to pony up a bit of money. I tried to contribute $15.00 -- the same amount I've recently sent to ACLU Indiana and to St. Jude's -- to his campaign. However, when I entered that amount at the Donate link on his campaign website, I got a little message in red saying the amount was "inappropriate".

And how inappropriate is it to diss a would-be contributor? (Is that how to spell "diss"?)

I've sent an email, also through the website, asking whether they really don't want my money. I'll update with any response I get.

The Catch-All Amendment

A while back (it takes an idea a while to make it here), as I was dealing with some statute or other, it occurred to me how often statutes listing factors for trial courts to consider end the list with some sort of catch-all. Such a provision typically authorizes the judge to consider "all other relevant factors" or something of the sort. Viewed in this context, the Ninth Amendment seems somewhat less troubling and impractical. If statutes can have catch-all provisions, why not the Bill of Rights? In each case, it's left to members of the judiciary to fill in the blanks.

Chill

I just read a post on Pajamas Media about how to deal with potentially nasty political discussions at family gatherings (e.g. Thanksgiving dinner). It reminded me of last summer's trip to Los Angeles, where much of my generally-liberal extended family resides.

Some time before, one of my daughters came up with the idea of a "CHILL" sign, to be produced and displayed when a political or other discussion became heated. During the summer visit, we spent some time at a cousin's house, gathered around a long table. At one end, I got into a spirited but friendly debate with an uncle about Iraq. One daughter, at the other end of the table, feared that things were getting out of hand, and made a CHILL sign from a napkin. The other daughter, closer to the action, could see that all was civil. She responded with her own napkin stating "They're just discussing". We then put the two signs together to read "Chill -- they're just discussing".... I rather like the idea of having both signs available, and deploying either or both as needed.

some thoughts on abortion and technological advances

I sometimes think up imaginary conversations while driving, and today's concerned abortion. I imagined someone asking me how I felt about abortion. The initial answer: "Queasy...." However, I went on, I basically thought that up to some point in the pregnancy, it should be the mother's (if that's the right word) decision. Trying to figure out just where that point was, I ended up with an answer dependent on technology we don't have yet: once we have artificial wombs capable of nurturing a fetus until it's full-term, it should probably not be the woman's option to kill it rather than off-loading it.

Althought that raises lots of sticky questions: who pays for the out-of-mother gestation? Can a woman still abort if the state won't pay? And what parental rights, if any, does a woman retain who was ready to kill her fetus? May she veto a social service agency's decision as to where to place the baby? A factor further confusing things: once it's possible to end pregnancy early without harming the fetus, many women will want to do so, without any present intention of avoiding the maternal role post-partum. At that point, it will often be impossible to determine who was ready to abort, and who decided later that she wanted to give her baby up for adoption. I don't know whether parents who give up babies for adoption have any leverage, at present, as to what happens to the baby.

That's as far as I can follow this tangle for the moment.

The genocide resolution: more than one way to skin a president

I haven't seen any discussion of what seems to me a likely motive for the Democrats' persistence in pushing the genocide resolution.

The Democrats have been unable to muster the political will-muscle combination to force a withdrawal from Iraq. However, passing this resolution is likely to do serious, possibly fatal, harm to the Iraq military mission. Turkey may well withdraw various key permissions. Our position might finally become as untenable as the Democrats keep pretending it already is. Gee, I wonder who'd be happy about that (aside from AQ in Iraq, Iran, etc.)?

This way, they can undercut "Bush's war" while acting self-righteous about something supposedly unrelated.

UPDATE: At least one commentator has now made this point -- Thomas Sowell.

The deterioration continues

In other news, my arthritic toes aren't giving too much trouble, but I now have tennis elbow. I believe I acquired this from utterly sedentary activity -- too much image processing in too short of time. (I photographed a wedding on 7-07-07, and had to edit 1000+ images and post the better ones before leaving town on 7-25.)

I'm oddly un-resentful of this sort of sign of aging. I'm less complaisant about the cosmetic changes. It has something to do with having decided, at 50+, to finally start paying attention to dress and grooming. I'd like not to have my nose rubbed in the fact that I got started just a lee-tle late.

Miscellanea, including a rant and Harry Potter questions

Someone actually looked at my blog recently, which inspires me to stop proscrastinating and post. Actually, I can blog and procrastinate simultaneously, as I have literally a pile of work to do (exhibits to review).

As I was contemplating writing this, it occurred to me that someone should cobble together and market a gizmo allowing one to dictate and transmit draft blog posts while driving. Hands-free, please.

I've promised a rant and some Harry Potter questions -- I feel more like the latter, so it'll come first.

SPOILER ALERT! These questions may imply plot points in the seventh HP book!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Hope that's enough >'s....

I've finished the last book, reread the second, am rereading the first, and am VERY glad that Rowling is likely to write an encyclopedia. I am not ready to un-immerse myself.

Rowling has done interviews and at least one long chat in which she's answered various questions the book didn't answer. I was pleased that she answered one of mine: what's the Hufflepuff common room like?... However, I have a few left:

--Why does Dumbledore repeatedly show and declare SO much trust in Hagrid? He's completely goodhearted, of course, but his judgment is very unreliable. (Examples aren't limited to his persistent tendency to underestimate the dangers posed by various magical creatures. When Harry encounters Draco Malfoy in a shop -- I forget in what part of which book -- Hagrid is wrongly confident that Draco wouldn't cause trouble in such a public place.)

--Why (other than for literary reasons) does Dumbledore usually refer to "Voldemort" rather than "Tom Riddle"? Wouldn't it be useful for V's origins to be more widely known? And doesn't Dumbledore believe in calling things by their real names?

--How did Dumbledore defeat Grindelwald? The usual way to defeat an owner of the Elder Wand is by underhanded stealth (e.g. murdering the owner in his sleep). One hopes that wasn't Dumbledore's approach, and I believe there are references to a climactic duel -- but how would he defeat someone wielding the Elder Wand in a duel?

--This may be a plot hole: Voldemort thought he was the only one to know about the Room of Requirement. Therefore, when he hid the tiara there, there can't have been any other hidden possessions in the room. But when Harry hid his (Snape's old) Potions book in that room in Book Five, there were generations' worth of hidden possessions there. Voldemort can't have specified a hiding place no one else could discover, because Harry saw the tiara there, without knowing what it was. Did all the other hidden items accumulate after Voldemort's time? Seems unlikely, given the quantity and the age of Hogwarts.

Please add more questions in Comments!

... OK, the rant. You've heard (read) this song before -- here's another verse.

It appears that we now have a growing societal problem with Vitamin D deficiency, attributable to people following all the advice to avoid exposure to sunlight. (Here's a link, and another, to a couple of the articles on the subject.) I find this nicely symbolic of the effects of our societal obsession with safety. As in this instance, it is often simplistic, short-sighted, focusing on one or two trees and ignoring even the possibility of a forest.

The sun has historically been a symbol of life. We've been telling people to hide from it. It fits. We've trained the younger generations to spend all their time poised to recognize and protect themselves from one supposed hazard after another. That attitude is fundamentally inconsistent with a spirit of exploration and innovation -- and even with enjoying the everyday incidents and pleasures of life. A pervasive and constant fear of death ends up, in effect, as fear of life.

OK, who's next on the soapbox? Be sure it isn't too high, and that it's been inspected for its weight-bearing properties....

an open letter to Fred Thompson

Dear Senator Thompson:

[Query: is that the proper form of address for an ex-Sen?]

I am one of those who have been hoping you would seek the Republican presidential nomination. I have read a fair number of your columns. I was excited by how often I agreed with them, and thrilled at the prospect that someone as articulate and straightforward as you appeared to be might have a real chance at the Presidency.

I sent a modest contribution, and here are some excerpts from the email I got in return.

"Now we’re moving forward together. . . . [I]f I do take on this challenge, we’re not going to do things the same old way. . . . We’re going to plow some new ground and make a real difference for our nation. . . . I believe there is a real sense across our country that we’re tired of the same old petty politics. Our fellow Americans want to see some real change."

This is the same type and style of politician-speak that I would have expected to see in a message from the campaign of Mark Warner, or Barack Obama, or who knows how many politicians past and present. It is stale. It is boring. It is fungible. It belies the very idea of "real change".

Please, Senator -- don't subside into this sort of sludge before you've fairly begun.

Sincerely, Karen A. Wyle, would-be actual supporter of a Presidential candidate

The defeated inflating the victory -- campaign finance decision

OK, I'll post about a legal topic for a change -- though not in a particularly lawyerlike manner.

I've been looking at articles and posts about the USSC's latest 5-4 decision on campaign finance regulation. A couple of articles or posts (I don't remember which) are making this out to be a great victory for opponents of such regulation. Count me as an opponent -- I think political speech like "Vote for Joe and against Jack" is exactly the kind of political speech that the First Amendment is intended to protect to the fullest possible extent. And as an opponent of regulating political speech, I don't think the Roberts opinion, at least, is a great victory -- it's just a lot better than a defeat. It improves the status quo ante; it includes some good language that could have been used to greater effect; and it provides a wink-wink-nudge-nudge loophole of adequate size. Call me a grouch, but I consider it demeaning to have to phrase a political ad in a particular way to get it past censors.

UPDATE: I should read the opinions before commenting further, but here I go anyhow: SCOTUSBlog paraphrases Roberts as saying that "[th]e case did not provide an occasion to revisit [the 2003 ruling that upheld the constitutionality of the federal law restricting such radio and TV ads close to elections]." IMHO, cases provide such "occasions" when the Justices want them to. As did three of the Justices in the majority.

to waterproof or not to waterproof (mascara)

Setting the scene: most of my life, I have thrown on any old schlumpy clothes and worn no makeup. I have had a few form-fitting tops here and there, and even a very few dresses (well, I remember one, actually -- I wore it to high school graduation under my robe). Somehow, some months ago, watching What Not to Wear and hanging around my younger daughter added up to a critical mass, and I started an amateur makeover project. My folks got wind of it and added funding -- and I've been having a blast clothes-shopping for the first time in my life. I've gotten a number of nice comments (and some bemused expressions) on my new look, though I am still finding my way with a fair amount of fumbling. I'm particularly tentative where makeup is concerned.

As a makeup newbie, I have decisions to make. One is whether to use waterproof mascara. Pro waterproof mascara: I cry over country songs in the car. Con waterproof mascara: I may end up with indelible interesting and unintended designs around my eyes and elsewhere . . . .

While it can't solve all my petty makeup problems, I love reading this makeup blog.

BloomingtonGirl, are you sorry yet that you urged me to post more often? :-)

Too Short the Fireflies (cue sappy music)

I think the amazing firefly season may be over. When I walked the dog last night, I saw hardly any. Reminds me of when I first saw daffodils, visiting England in the spring of 1976. I didn't realize how briefly they'd be around -- I thought I had all the time I could want to savor them. This time I knew it wouldn't last too long, but really didn't know when it would end. I was hoping for another few weeks at least. At least I hauled the girls out to see them once.

DAUGHTRY

I haven't been a particular fan of many musicians or bands, though I've had various non-exclusive favorites over the years. But I am pretty near jump-and-squeal territory where DAUGHTRY is concerned. (I understand that all-caps designates the band, as opposed to its raison d'etre, Chris Daughtry. He's the primary reason I love their sound, but he picked a great band.)

I was rooting for Chris D. to win American Idol, but cooled off when he got too full of himself. I wish I could somehow test my guess that he was voted out because he bragged about how female fans wanted to know what type of underwear he wore. Now there's a way to turn off quite a few of your female fans and most of your male fans . . . .

Younger Daughter and I went to see the American Idol finalists perform at the 2006 Indiana State Fair. We were at the very top of the bleachers, which had the sole benefit of letting us stand up without blocking anyone's view. When Chris Daughtry performed -- and he is one hell of a performer -- it was the closest I've had to a rock-concert experience. (I had about the tamest youth of any late baby boomer you'll meet.) We stood up and hollered, and I waved my cellphone! (blush)

So I have five of his songs on my ipod, and I crank 'em up when they come on. I hate to think what he'd think of an over-50 fan doing the fan thing at his concert. But what the heck.

Fairyland

The fireflies are still spectacular -- far more so than any summer I remember. Walking up our street is like walking uninvited into fairyland, hoping for welcome. Fireflies all through the trees, high and low; fireflies floating by in the air; fireflies on the path....

UPDATE: Younger Daughter loves fireflies, but doesn't much like walking after dark. Still, I thought that this she had to see. I coaxed her outside and held onto her while she braved the dark street. She was impressed even by the first few scattered fireflies we saw, and utterly awestruck by the full display in the trees. She cried because it was so beautiful, and because it might be the only time she would see the like....

We went and got Older Daughter, who doesn't voluntarily venture outside that much by night or day. She was also highly impressed. I believe she summed up her reaction with "Holy crap!!!"

Fireflies

There is something going on with fireflies and trees lately. When I walk the dog after dark, it's not a matter of waiting for the occasional firefly sighting. There are fireflies all through the trees, flashing in beautifully random patterns, like Christmas lights escaped into the wild. They seem as likely to be signalling to the stars as to the glowworms in the grass below. Watching as I walk, I can't tell from simple observation whether any of the stars are flashing back.

Soylent Green is -- a good movie

We belong to Blockbuster Online, and even occasionally watch the movies. Usually I have to unearth the current selection from under a pile of notes and grocery coupons, but I haven't yet actually lost one. Elder Daughter requested Soylent Green, and I put it in the queue, vaguely expecting it to be clumsily made, over-the-top if not cartoonish. I don't know why, except that I had occasionally heard people hamming up the movie's final line (can't tell ya -- it's a spoiler).

Turns out it's quite a good movie. Charleton Heston stars in what is NOT a one-note performance. There are a number of nice cinematic touches. I choked up twice, which is not unprecedented, but doesn't happen all that often. (Listening to country music, that's different. I tend to be sappy about that.) I also appreciated little bits of consistency -- after our hero gets the unheard-of chance to take a shower occasionally, he looks much less grubby for the duration.

Younger Daughter had heard the last-line spoiler several times, but still didn't put things together, so she got to experience the movie's intended big surprise. It was great fun to watch her mouth drop and her eyes go extra-wide.

UPDATE/P.S.: The movie's assumptions about the future -- population explosion, massive environmental degradation by early 21st century -- are very wrong indeed. Husband (Hoosier Gadfly) often has difficulty enjoying movies with whose political assumptions he intensely disagrees, but he managed to enjoy this one.

Pledge of Allegiance, revised (meme?)

While driving my daughter to school this morning, I did a quick rewrite of the Pledge of Allegiance:

I pledge allegiance to the republic
of which this flag is a symbol,
united by common principles,
dedicated to providing liberty and justice for all.

Other rewrites welcome....

This, I like

Saw a billboard (I think -- could have been a poster, it was a couple of days ago) putting a nice twist on some classic American language. If I recall this much correctly, it was advertising the Marine Corp.

"Life, Liberty -- and the Pursuit of Those Who Endanger Either"

Right on, as my brother would have said (about other things).

dog-walking haiku

Last night, I came up with this -- well, something close to it -- while walking the dog:

Because of the dog
I walk outside every night.
Moonlight -- a dog's gift.

That message ain't private

So Nancy Pelosi is pleased to have sent a strong message to Iraq. I guess nobody else would be so rude as to listen. Good thing, since otherwise, our enemies in Iraq and in the region would be hearing something like: "Hang in there! Just keep things messy for a while longer, and the Americans will bug out, leaving you to shoot innocents in the head or blow them to bloody scraps with far less hindrance. May the best future tyrannical enemy of America win!"

How loud can dogs...

...fart? I was just wondering. Our mutt can certainly release a stink bomb, but she doesn't make much noise. Whereas I have startled her a bit on occasion. Do we have an unusually discreet dog? If this is a basic species difference, what is the evolutionary basis for it?

I have a partial draft of a more literary post, but I'm too sleepy for anything that requires real thought.

A less unhelpful way to oppose the surge

I assume any readers I have are aware that Congress has been debating nonbinding resolutions opposing the troop surge in Iraq. ("Resolution" is an odd term for a way of expressing a lack of resolution. But I digress.) I take a dim view of this exercise. For largely domestic political reasons, the Congressfolk are strongly reinforcing the view, so prevalent before 9/11 and partly contributing to it, that the U.S. is a paper tiger.

However, there is a way that Congress and commentators could express skepticism about, and outright oppose, the "surge" without doing such damage. They could simply point out that Iraq is only one front in the larger war against resurgent Islamism, and demand that we move on to other targets. Point out that the situation in Iraq is threatening to us mainly insofar as it empowers or undermines other countries in the region, and argue for a focus on those countries instead. "On to Iran!" "On to Syria!" No paper tigerdom there.

Unrelated note: I gather this will be my last opportunity to post before attempting the switch to New Blogger. If I never post again, please assume it's due to technical inability rather than the also-plausible mental lethargy.