Forever A Fangirl

Getting Mileage Out Of My Valentine's Rose

My bouquet of Valentine's flowers turned brown about ten days after V-Day. All except this one. (I have  a new bouquet, but haven't gotten to it with the camera. :shrug:)

Spotlight efffect

"Dayight" effects

Original--with brush-stroke effect.  I think I now have this one setting down. : fingers crossed:

Rose Gold

Plum Grove Junior High School

Ten minutes ago I got a phone call from the Assistant Principal at my youngest son's school (I swear, this guy is so young that his voice hasn't changed yet.)

Apparently at lunch, "some kid" chucked some food at my son. No biggie. This happens throughout the cafeteria whenever the little twits can get away with it. So my "little" boy hurls some food back at "the kid." They get caught by the police officer who patrols the school halls, and he removes them to a separate table. (Why, to the same table,  I'll never know.) I guess the two little food tossers then started giggling and it pissed off Officer Friendly enough that he hauled them down to the pokey (the principal). Upshot is that my son was given two detentions and a severe tongue-lashing. And I just got "the call" from the AP.
He told me twice that my son is not a "bad kid" (a parent wouldn't know that?) and that he hasn't ever been referred to him before (knew that too, seeing as though they call the mother each and every time there's anything amiss (sickness, missed homework, this kind of stuff).

Junior High school is all about keeping order amid chaos and raging hormones.

Twelve and thirteen year-old boys are going to throw food and giggle. For fucks sake, I wish school wasn't so regimented. I'm not saying they should allow food-throwing, but their tactics to address "the situation" have not worked. (I know this since I put my first son through there a decade ago, I substitute-taught at that Junior High for three years, and I volunteer at the school when I can--fully observing the same old methods of "handling" kids.)

Tossing food in the cafeteria when authority figures aren't present is what immature, fidgety kids do. And there are no mature junior high school boys. Not a one of them.

The entire roomful of kids are already made to pick up everything off the floors/tables and wipe down their own tables before they can leave.
I'm not trying to minimize this but honestly, there's got to be some more important way for both Officer Friendly and the AP to spend their time besides fussing over food.

Oh, the AP's solution for my son, the "disrespectful" giggler?
Next time (that would be Monday) someone throws food, go and get an adult to diffuse the situation.
Is he fecking serious?
Does he remember nothing of the culture of teenagers?
He would be harassed way beyond getting food chucked at him if he "told on" the original perpetrator.

My suggestion would be to allow the children (almost all boys--the girls are content to sit at their tables not eating, sipping Diet Coke, and chatting) to walk directly across the hall to the gym and shoot some hoops.
This solution will never be implemented though, because it would mean a change in the way things are done and rarely does anything change in the public school system's "way of doing things." It smacks too much of common-sense that they'd offer the kids who had a 40-minutes recess last year, some time this year to get off their derrieres and move around a bit after they've finished eating and cleaned up.
Public school's priorities are NOT about what's practical, sensible, or good for the kids. It's about keeping order and keeping the guards and teachers happy.

Wet cows wallow in mud at a dairy farm

Long ago, though in some of my memories not at all far away, I lived in Cambria, California.  Cows surrounded Cambria as they grazed on rolling, vibrant-green hills of grass. Sometimes, the cows would be on the ocean side of Hwy 1 (which ran right by/though Cambria, as well further south, through/ by San Luis Obispo) and they would graze almost to where the steep cliffs sloped sharply down to the ocean. Gazing at the cows silhouetted again the the ocean backdrop seemed surreal, and I was reminded of the only surreal artist I knew at that time (ages 21-24) by name -- Salvador Dali. 

The ever-present lush hills spotted with cows, was a mometary way of  getting away from the the personal world of pain I lived in at that time.

Poor cows. I hope everyone's suffering ends soon!

Wet cows wallow in mud at a dairy farm in Chino, Calif., Thursday, Feb. 24, 2005. Dairy farmers said rain that this month has deluged an important region of the nation's top milk-producing state has cost at least $38 million _ or at least $2,000 per day per dairy _ in lost milk production, dead and sickened animals and damaged infrastructure. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)

Crews Struggle With Calif. Storm Damage

What I Do In The Dark Whilst My Spouse Sleeps

My spouse generally precedes me in turning in for the night by 3-4 hours. The bedroom lights, except a 20W on my computer shelf are all turned off. I do most of my work and play on the computer in those four hours. I alternate reading, writing and reading some more (on and off line). Sometimes I get up and do some yoga postures.

Last night, I felt like shooting some pictures but it's dark so I used candlelight. The 20W light was on as well.

I got tangled  up in the tripod in some of these--at one point I was actually trying to get a pic of my calves because I think their muscularity is almost deformed-looking--the combo of swimming primarily and yoga secondarily has carved some odd looking areas.
So I didn't get what I was looking for--I'm going to need more light.
Still, I had fun and learned a bit more about my camera-- and this is the result.

My spouse and son many years ago as spouse read a bedtime story, my wilting Valentine flowers, and the tip of a candle.

Candle reflected in glass--photoshopped tweaking the black & white points .

The same as above with an etched/ silver

Oh well.

 

Your Amazon Marketplace sale is official!

Your Amazon Marketplace sale is official! We've deposited your
earnings from the sale of this item into your Amazon Payments
account.

Please ship item immediately via standard shipping speed.

1 of Fear and loathing: on the campaign trail '72  by Thompson, Hunter S

Your Amazon Marketplace sale is official! We've deposited your
earnings from the sale of this item into your Amazon Payments
account.

Please ship item immediately via standard shipping speed.

1 of Little Brown Bear  by Upham, Elizabeth

One of the several hats I wear is that of on-line bookseller.

The Hunter S. Thompson book order (above) came in the  day after he killed himself.  It was a first printing (1972 or '73) and had been sitting here  unsold for a year as I  stubbornly refused to drop the price any lower than $15.00. If it wouldn't sell I still win--as I get to keep the book. And then he dies and it becomes "worth" buying. I find irony in this.

Today I received an order for a book that's been sitting around for less than 6 months (still a long time). It's an original issue and some sellers are asking upwards of $100 for it.  Mine fetched $35 as I won't gouge people.
The Little Brown Bear--a thin little children's book--maybe 40 years old--has a sentimental value of $35.

The price of sentimentality it seems, is higher than that of morbid curiosity. Kinda makes me slightly hopeful. Kinda.

With $3.50 and a Dream, the 'Anti-Christo' Is Born

Very clever.

LINK

By SARAH BOXER

Published: February 19, 2005

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Feb. 18 - You've seen Christo's "Gates" in Central Park. But what about Hargo's "Gates" in Somerville, Mass.? Sure, Hargo is unabashedly riding on the coattails of Christo and Jeanne-Claude. But it did take him some time to make his gates: 0.002 years, he estimates. That's a good chunk of a day. You may as well take a look:

not-rocket-science.com/gates.htm.

Just who is Hargo? Is he some kind of genius wrapper? His name is Geoff Hargadon, he is 50 and, in a telephone interview, he would only say, enigmatically, "Art is not my profession." His last installation was a studio full of discarded ATM receipts. The show was called "Balance." It was about "people, privacy and money," he said, adding: "You want to know how much people have? Here it is."

Like Christo and Jeanne-Claude, Hargo used recyclable materials for "The Somerville Gates." Unlike them, he accepts donations to defray the cost of his installation, which was $3.50. The mayor of Somerville did not come to the unveiling, on Valentine's Day.

Does Hargo have a Jeanne-Claude at his side? His cat, Edie, is a redhead, like Jeanne-Claude, he said on the telephone. But his partner in art is his wife, Patricia La Valley. Together they installed "The Somerville Gates" at their home on Monday night, while watching the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show on television. They took pictures, posted them on a Web site and sent the link to 30 friends by e-mail. Within 24 hours, the site had 99,000 hits.

"The Somerville Gates" has now become, Mr. Hargadon said, "the anti-Christo."

Geoff Hargadon

“The Somerville Gates” begin with the Door Gates.

NOT ONE DAMN DIME DAY - PART II DEMAND RESPONSIBLE SPENDING ON TAX DAY

NOT ONE DAMN DIME DAY - PART II

DEMAND RESPONSIBLE SPENDING ON TAX DAY

Because the people in Washington continue to mortgage America's future with tax cuts and deficit spending, because corporate America and the corporate press continue to hide their heads in the sand about it, Tax Day, April 15th, 2005 is Not One Damn Dime Tax Day across America.

On Not One Damn Dime Tax Day, email the people who represent you in Washington. Tell them to stop playing fast and loose with the economy. Sit down at the computer and speak up. Take part in a virtual march on Washington by emailing both of your Senators, as well as your Representative.

Tell them you're mad as hell about their fiscal insanity. Tell them cutting taxes and going deeper into debt than this nation has ever gone is no way to run America. Tell them 'Not One Damn Dime more in national debt.'

Tell them to do right by the American people, and the issues they care about, like education and health care. Tell them they are not elected by the corporations and corporate lobbyists who are lining the halls of congress (and lining your representatives' pockets) looking to reduce their tax obligations one minute, and increase government subsidies to their industries the next. Tell them 'Not One Damn Dime more in corporate tax breaks.'

Tell them that more spending on an unnecessary war in Iraq is throwing good money after bad, and threatens our national security. Tell them to support our troops by bringing them home now. Tell them 'Not One Damn Dime more for military adventures.'

Tell them people across America, red and blue, agree: It's unfair to saddle future generations of Americans with trillions of dollars in principal and interest for programs and pork Washington wants, but won't pay for, today. Tell them 'Not One Damn Dime more in pork.'

Tell them that, with the Euro breathing down America's neck, with foreign banks getting nervous about the size of America's debt, they owe America tough decisions and real solutions more than they owe their corporate buddies another favor. Email them on April 15th. Tell them 'Not One Damn Dime!'

Just three little emails. Send them anytime between 12:01 AM and 11:59 PM on April 15th. (You can find the appropriate addresses and sample messages at http://www.notonedamndime.com .)

On April 15th, 2005, write your Senators and your Representative. Tell them you don't want them to borrow one damn dime more; that they have no right to put your children and grandchildren's names on their IOUs. Tell them to stop porking around and get America's fiscal act together. Now.

Please share this as an email with as many people as possible, and please express your opinion at www.NotOneDamnDime.com .

Cyanide & Happiness

Cyanide & Happiness @ Explosm.net

Vive le Canada!

Truly awesome speech!

Address by Prime Minister Paul Martin on Bill C-38 (The Civil Marriage Act). Text and video available

This question does not demand rhetoric. It demands clarity. There are only two legitimate answers – yes or no. Not the demagoguery we have heard, not the dodging, the flawed reasoning, the false options. Just yes or no.

February 16, 2005

Ottawa, Ontario

February 16, 2005: Prime Minister Paul Martin delivers his speech during second reading debate on Bill C-38 (The Civil Marriage Act) in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill. Photo by Dave Chan - PMO.

Dial-up low-speed connection

Windows Media (low resolution)
QuickTime (low resolution)

High-speed connection

Windows Media (high resolution)
QuickTime (high resolution)


Check against delivery

I rise today in support of Bill C-38, the Civil Marriage Act. I rise in support of a Canada in which liberties are safeguarded, rights are protected and the people of this land are treated as equals under the law.

This is an important day. The attention of our nation is focused on this chamber, in which John Diefenbaker introduced the Bill of Rights, in which Pierre Trudeau fought to establish the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our deliberations will be not merely about a piece of legislation or sections of legal text – more deeply, they will be about the kind of nation we are today, and the nation we want to be.

This bill protects minority rights. This bill affirms the Charter guarantee of religious freedom. It is that straightforward, Mr. Speaker, and it is that important.

And that is why I stand today before members here and before the people of this country to say: I believe in, and I will fight for, the Charter of Rights. I believe in, and I will fight for, a Canada that respects the foresight and vision of those who created and entrenched the Charter. I believe in, and I will fight for, a future in which generations of Canadians to come, Canadians born here and abroad, will have the opportunity to value the Charter as we do today – as an essential pillar of our democratic freedoms.

There have been a number of arguments put forward by those who do not support this bill. It’s important and respectful to examine them and to assess them.

First, some have claimed that, once this bill becomes law, religious freedoms will be less than fully protected. This is demonstrably untrue. As it pertains to marriage, the government’s legislation affirms the Charter guarantee: that religious officials are free to perform such ceremonies in accordance with the beliefs of their faith.

In this, we are guided by the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada, which makes clear that in no church, no synagogue, no mosque, no temple – in no religious house will those who disagree with same-sex unions be compelled to perform them. Period. That is why this legislation is about civil marriage, not religious marriage.

Moreover -- and this is crucially important – the Supreme Court has declared unanimously, and I quote: “The guarantee of religious freedom in section 2(a) of the Charter is broad enough to protect religious officials from being compelled by the state to perform civil or religious same-sex marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs.”

The facts are plain: Religious leaders who preside over marriage ceremonies must and will be guided by what they believe. If they do not wish to celebrate marriages for same-sex couples, that is their right. The Supreme Court says so. And the Charter says so.

One final observation on this aspect of the issue: Religious leaders have strong views both for and against this legislation. They should express them. Certainly, many of us in this House, myself included, have a strong faith, and we value that faith and its influence on the decisions we make. But all of us have been elected to serve here as Parliamentarians. And as public legislators, we are responsible for serving all Canadians and protecting the rights of all Canadians.

We will be influenced by our faith but we also have an obligation to take the widest perspective -- to recognize that one of the great strengths of Canada is its respect for the rights of each and every individual, to understand that we must not shrink from the need to reaffirm the rights and responsibilities of Canadians in an evolving society.

The second argument ventured by opponents of the bill is that government ought to hold a national referendum on this issue. I reject this – not out of a disregard for the view of the people, but because it offends the very purpose of the Charter.

The Charter was enshrined to ensure that the rights of minorities are not subjected, are never subjected, to the will of the majority. The rights of Canadians who belong to a minority group must always be protected by virtue of their status as citizens, regardless of their numbers. These rights must never be left vulnerable to the impulses of the majority.

We embrace freedom and equality in theory, Mr. Speaker. We must also embrace them in fact.

Third, some have counseled the government to extend to gays and lesbians the right to “civil union.” This would give same-sex couples many of the rights of a wedded couple, but their relationships would not legally be considered marriage. In other words, they would be equal, but not quite as equal as the rest of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the courts have clearly and consistently ruled that this option would offend the equality provisions of the Charter. For instance, the British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that, and I quote: “Marriage is the only road to true equality for same-sex couples. Any other form of recognition of same-sex relationships ...falls short of true equality.”

Put simply, we must always remember that “separate but equal” is not equal. What’s more, those who call for the establishment of civil unions fail to understand that the Government of Canada does not have the constitutional jurisdiction to do so. Only the provinces have that. Only the provinces could define such a regime – and they could define it in 10 different ways, and some jurisdictions might not bother to define it at all. There would be uncertainty. There would be confusion. There would certainly not be equality.

Fourth, some are urging the government to respond to the decisions of the courts by getting out of the marriage business altogether. That would mean no more civil weddings for any couples.

It is worth noting that this idea was rejected by the major religions themselves when their representatives appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in 2003. Moreover, it would be an extreme and counterproductive response for the government to deny civil marriage to opposite-sex couples simply so it can keep it from same-sex couples. To do so would simply be to replace one form of discrimination with another.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, there are some who oppose this legislation who would have the government use the notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights to override the courts and reinstate the traditional definition of marriage. And really, this is the fundamental issue here.

Understand that in seven provinces and one territory, the lawful union of two people of the same sex in civil marriage is already the law of the land. The debate here today is not about whether to change the definition of marriage – it’s been changed. The debate comes down to whether we should override a right that is now in place. The debate comes down to the Charter, the protection of minority rights, and whether the federal government should invoke the notwithstanding clause.

I know that some think we should use the clause. For example, some religious leaders feel this way. I respect their candor in publicly recognizing that because same-sex marriage is already legal in most of the country, the only way – the only way – to again make civil marriage the exclusive domain of opposite-sex couples is to use the notwithstanding clause.

Ultimately Mr. Speaker, there is only one issue before this House in this debate. For most Canadians, in most parts of our country, same-sex marriage is already the law of the land. Thus, the issue is not whether rights are to be granted. The issue is whether rights that have been granted are to be taken away.

Some are frank and straightforward and say yes. Others have not been so candid. Despite being confronted with clear facts, despite being confronted with the unanimous opinion of 134 legal scholars, experts in their field, intimately familiar with the Constitution, some have chosen to not be forthright with Canadians. They have eschewed the honest approach in favour of the political approach. They have attempted to cajole the public into believing that we can return to the past with a simple snap of the fingers, that we can revert to traditional definition of marriage without consequence and without overriding the Charter. They’re insincere. They’re disingenuous. And they’re wrong.

There is one question that demands an answer – a straight answer – from those who would seek to lead this nation and its people. It is a simple question: Will you use the notwithstanding clause to overturn the definition of civil marriage and deny to Canadians a right guaranteed under the Charter?

This question does not demand rhetoric. It demands clarity. There are only two legitimate answers – yes or no. Not the demagoguery we have heard, not the dodging, the flawed reasoning, the false options. Just yes or no.

Will you take away a right as guaranteed under the Charter? I, for one, will answer that question, Mr. Speaker. I will answer it clearly. I will say no.

The notwithstanding clause is part of the Charter of Rights. But there’s a reason that no prime minister has ever used it. For a prime minister to use the powers of his office to explicitly deny rather than affirm a right enshrined under the Charter would serve as a signal to all minorities that no longer can they look to the nation’s leader and to the nation’s Constitution for protection, for security, for the guarantee of their freedoms. We would risk becoming a country in which the defence of rights is weighed, calculated and debated based on electoral or other considerations.

That would set us back decades as a nation. It would be wrong for the minorities of this country. It would be wrong for Canada.

The Charter is a living document, the heartbeat of our Constitution. It is also a proclamation. It declares that as Canadians, we live under a progressive and inclusive set of fundamental beliefs about the value of the individual. It declares that we all are lessened when any one of us is denied a fundamental right.

We cannot exalt the Charter as a fundamental aspect of our national character and then use the notwithstanding clause to reject the protections that it would extend. Our rights must be eternal, not subject to political whim.

To those who value the Charter yet oppose the protection of rights for same-sex couples, I ask you: If a prime minister and a national government are willing to take away the rights of one group, what is to say they will stop at that? If the Charter is not there today to protect the rights of one minority, then how can we as a nation of minorities ever hope, ever believe, ever trust that it will be there to protect us tomorrow?

My responsibility as Prime Minister, my duty to Canada and to Canadians, is to defend the Charter in its entirety. Not to pick and choose the rights that our laws shall protect and those that are to be ignored. Not to decree those who shall be equal and those who shall not. My duty is to protect the Charter, as some in this House will not.

Let us never forget that one of the reasons that Canada is such a vibrant nation, so diverse, so rich in the many cultures and races of the world, is that immigrants who come here – as was the case with the ancestors of many of us in this chamber – feel free and are free to practice their religion, follow their faith, live as they want to live. No homogenous system of beliefs is imposed on them.

When we as a nation protect minority rights, we are protecting our multicultural nature. We are reinforcing the Canada we value. We are saying, proudly and unflinchingly, that defending rights – not just those that happen to apply to us, not just that everyone approves of, but all fundamental rights – is at the very soul of what it means to be a Canadian.

This is a vital aspect of the values we hold dear and strive to pass on to others in the world who are embattled, who endure tyranny, whose freedoms are curtailed, whose rights are violated.

Why is the Charter so important, Mr. Speaker? We have only to look at our own history. Unfortunately, Canada’s story is one in which not everyone’s rights were protected under the law. We have not been free from discrimination, bias, unfairness. There have been blatant inequalities.

Remember that it was once thought perfectly acceptable to deny women "personhood" and the right to vote. There was a time, not that long ago, that if you wore a turban, you couldn’t serve in the RCMP. The examples are many, but what’s important now is that they are part of our past, not our present.

Over time, perspectives changed. We evolved, we grew, and our laws evolved and grew with us. That is as it should be. Our laws must reflect equality not as we understood it a century or even a decade ago, but as we understand it today.

For gays and lesbians, evolving social attitudes have, over the years, prompted a number of important changes in the law. Recall that, until the late 1960s, the state believed it had the right to peek into our bedrooms. Until 1977, homosexuality was still sufficient grounds for deportation. Until 1992, gay people were prohibited from serving in the military. In many parts of the country, gays and lesbians could not designate their partners as beneficiaries under employee medical and dental benefits, insurance policies or private pensions. Until very recently, people were being fired merely for being gay.

Today, we rightly see discrimination based on sexual orientation as arbitrary, inappropriate and unfair. Looking back, we can hardly believe that such rights were ever a matter for debate. It is my hope that we will ultimately see the current debate in a similar light; realizing that nothing has been lost or sacrificed by the majority in extending full rights to the minority.

Without our relentless, inviolable commitment to equality and minority rights, Canada would not be at the forefront in accepting newcomers from all over the world, in making a virtue of our multicultural nature – the complexity of ethnicities and beliefs that make up Canada, that make us proud that we are where our world is going, not where it’s been.

Four years ago, I stood in this House and voted to support the traditional definition of marriage. Many of us did. My misgivings about extending the right of civil marriage to same-sex couples were a function of my faith, my perspective on the world around us.

But much has changed since that day. We’ve heard from courts across the country, including the Supreme Court. We’ve come to the realization that instituting civil unions – adopting a “separate but equal” approach – would violate the equality provisions of the Charter. We’ve confirmed that extending the right of civil marriage to gays and lesbians will not in any way infringe on religious freedoms.

And so where does that leave us? It leaves us staring in the face of the Charter of Rights with but a single decision to make: Do we abide by the Charter and protect minority rights, or do we not?

To those who would oppose this bill, I urge you to consider that the core of the issue before us today is whether the rights of all Canadians are to be respected. I believe they must be. Justice demands it. Fairness demands it. The Canada we love demands it.

Mr. Speaker: In the 1960s, the government of Lester Pearson faced opposition as it moved to entrench official bilingualism. But it persevered, and it won the day. Its members believed it was the right thing to do, and it was. In the 1980s, the government of Pierre Trudeau faced opposition as it attempted to repatriate the Constitution and enshrine a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But it persevered, and it won the day. Its members believed it was the right thing to do, and it was.

There are times, Mr. Speaker, when we as Parliamentarians can feel the gaze of history upon us. They felt it in the days of Pearson. They felt it in the days of Trudeau. And we, the 308 men and women elected to represent one of the most inclusive, just and respectful countries on the face of this earth, feel it today.

There are few nations whose citizens cannot look to Canada and see their own reflection. For generations, men and women and families from the four corners of the globe have made the decision to chose Canada to be their home. Many have come here seeking freedom -- of thought, religion and belief. Seeking the freedom simply to be.

The people of Canada have worked hard to build a country that opens its doors to include all, regardless of their differences; a country that respects all, regardless of their differences; a country that demands equality for all, regardless of their differences.

If we do not step forward, then we step back. If we do not protect a right, then we deny it. Mr. Speaker, together as a nation, together as Canadians: Let us step forward.

No one needs anyone to really survive
But if I want to make my soul dance,
my eyes sparkle,
my step a bit lighter,
my sun shine a bit brighter,
my love a bit stronger,
my smile a bit wider,
my singing a bit better,
my laugh a lot louder,
my running a bit faster,
and my contentment a bit contenter,
Then I need you

--J.R.V.A.

The Puritan Ethic's Stranglehold On Common Sense

This country's Puritan ethic continues to win out over common sense.

So, at a time when we're cutting school and health programs, why should we pour additional tax money into abstinence-only initiatives, which are likely to lead to more pregnancies, more abortions and more kids with AIDS? Now, that's a scandal.

Bush's Sex Scandal

February 16, 2005
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Bush's Sex Scandal
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

I'm sorry to report a sex scandal in the heart of the Bush administration. Worse, it doesn't involve private behavior, but public conduct. You see, for all the carnage in President Bush's budget, one program is being showered with additional cash - almost three times as much as it got in 2001. It's "abstinence only" sex education, and the best research suggests that it will cost far more lives than the Clinton administration's much more notorious sex scandal.

Mr. Bush means well. But "abstinence only" is a misnomer that in practice is an assault on sex education itself. There's a good deal of evidence that the result will not be more young rosy-cheeked virgins - it will be more pregnancies, abortions, gonorrhea and deaths from AIDS.

Look, I'm all for abstinence education. I support the booming abstinence industry as it peddles panties and boxers decorated with stop signs (at www.abstinence.net), and "Pet Your Dog, Not Your Date" T-shirts.

Abstinence education is great because it helps counteract the peer pressure that often leaves teenagers with broken hearts - and broken health.

For that reason, almost all sex-ed classes in America already encourage abstinence. But abstinence-only education isn't primarily about promoting abstinence - it's about blindly refusing to teach contraception.

To get federal funds, for example, abstinence-only programs are typically barred by law from discussing condoms or other forms of contraception - except to describe how they can fail. So kids in these programs go all through high school without learning anything but abstinence, even though more than 60 percent of American teenagers have sex before age 18.

In the old days, social conservatives simply fought any mention of sex. In 1906, The Ladies' Home Journal published articles about venereal disease - and 75,000 readers canceled their subscriptions. Congress banned the mailing of family planning information, and Margaret Sanger was jailed in 1916 for selling a birth control pamphlet to an undercover policewoman.

But silence about sex only nurtured venereal diseases (one New York doctor, probably exaggerating, claimed in 1904 that 60 percent of American men had syphilis or gonorrhea), so sex education gradually gained ground. Then social conservatives had a brilliant idea: instead of fighting sex ed directly, they campaigned for abstinence-only programs that eviscerated any discussion of contraception.

That shrewd approach succeeded. In 1988, a survey by the Alan Guttmacher Institute found that only 2 percent of sex-ed teachers used an abstinence-only approach. Now, the institute says, a quarter of them do.

Other developed countries focus much more on contraception. The upshot is that while teenagers in the U.S. have about as much sexual activity as teenagers in Canada or Europe, Americans girls are four times as likely as German girls to become pregnant, almost five times as likely as French girls to have a baby, and more than seven times as likely as Dutch girls to have an abortion. Young Americans are five times as likely to have H.I.V. as young Germans, and teenagers' gonorrhea rate is 70 times higher in the U.S. than in the Netherlands or France.

Some studies have claimed that abstinence-only programs work, but researchers criticize the studies for being riddled with flaws. A National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy task force examined the issue and concluded: "There do not currently exist any abstinence-only programs with strong evidence that they either delay sex or reduce teen pregnancy."

Worse, there's some evidence that abstinence-only programs lead to increases in unprotected sex.

Perhaps the most careful study of the issue involved 12,000 young people. It found that those taking virginity pledges had sex 18 months later, on average, than those who had not taken the pledge. But even 88 percent of the pledgers had sex before marriage.

More troubling, the pledgers were much less likely to use contraception when they did have sex - only 40 percent of the males used condoms, compared with 59 percent of those who did not take the pledge.

In contrast, there's plenty of evidence that abstinence-plus programs - which encourage abstinence but also teach contraception - delay sex and increase the use of contraception. So, at a time when we're cutting school and health programs, why should we pour additional tax money into abstinence-only initiatives, which are likely to lead to more pregnancies, more abortions and more kids with AIDS? Now, that's a scandal.

 

Untitled Too

My status is that I'm holding my own...I'm working out, helping out at the charity's warehouse and store every day as my son's boss is on vacation--they run a lean ship in the charity biz--he's it for mgmt. right now. So at least my trying to get the book dept. in shape is one less worry for him. I'd had a counterpart that worked the books but she's elderly-ish and has a sick spouse and hasn't volunteered in weeks--so they look to me and I'm like...hey, I just volunteer, 'ya know... but as I said staff is sparse and it behooves both of us for me to try to get in there more often.
I've had some very neat titles come my way in the past few days --Tin tin for one--and a book of beautiful Disney cells and other drawings released on their 50th annniversay. On a lesser scale financially, gently used boxed sets of Encyclopodia Brown and C.S. Lewis's Chronicles Of Narnia series showed up yesterday. They are fun to sell because someone is usually buying them for sentimental reasons.

Just tonight, a book I've had for a while, on two guys that are considered pioneers in movie monster-making (like Godzilla) sold for $50. Just a yellowing oversize paperback with cool pics. I'm very glad that there are people out there with disposable income. (I never clean the store out of "good" books (as a volunteer, I get 1st picks for my very small resale book biz)--I want people to find "treasures," just as I did as a customer. Keeps 'em happy and keeps 'em comin' back, and once in the store...other stuff is almost always bought.)
Some beauties come in--brand new books--they go right out on the shelves because a. people like them and b. authors like Clancy and Steele churn out so many books so they have no real resale value. Though tons of non-fiction come through too, it's the books you see on the top ten fiction or self help lists that people snatch up (I cannot tell you how many "Who Moved My Cheese" books I've sold--thank Ja that book is out of fashion).

I'd like to go back tomorrow as I'm trying to put together an art book section--they tend to be almost unshelvable due to their oversize. The kid's section needs a lot of work, too. And it goes on.
But, it's a drive up near the Wisconsin border for me tomorrow as I must get my locks lightened by my friend, M.

As always, 

--Cyn

Green Day, White Rose, and The Queen's Breasts

I got pretty red roses and cards and chocolate for V-Day. No one here is imaginative,     but they are thoughtful.

Take care,

--Cyn

***

In musical awards news, Green Day actually did win best rock "record" of the year at the Grammy Awards. (How old are the awards now, 50? Please don't tell me much more than that--I already feel really ancient when I watch one of these shows (and I only looked at copy and  still photos of this show... and listened to some clips from some winning songs! Woo.)

Green Day's American Idiot, a  one-hour  sorta-punk-rock-opera,  follows in the fine tradition of well, they play like they have at least 20 distinct influences...after the first few listenings, the Who's Tommy was impossible not to compare it to as well as the Clash, heavily but more tunefully--and Green Day comes out favourably!

American Idiot is the best rock album I've heard this year since  Van Lear Rose, which is not really rock, more country/honky tonk/rock. Van Lear Rose (her mama's nickname, as in "The" Van Lear Rose) coincidentally happened to take Best Country Record for the lovely Loretta Lynn.  The CD showcases an excellent sampling of several of her styles and though she's now near 70, her voice is still in strong form.
I hear a lot of a Patsy Cline influence. Then of course there's the Jack White "of the The White Stripes," producing the whole thing and writing a bit and showing up now and again performing vocally--which I think is cool (as I do Loretta Lynn--that's why they made a movie about her--she's interesting. :)

So neat, I own two Grammy Awarded CD's!

(Do you think Queen Latifah looks better with breasts--showcased in the film Chicago-- or without  (now and forever, I suppose) after her breast  :shiver:  reduction surgery?
She's still got a broad, lovely body--pretty, wide hips. I think her original breasts looked really good on her.
Oh, well.
I'm keeping mine. ;)

 

Monday February 14, 12:05 AM

Loretta Lynn wins first Grammy in 33 years
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Veteran country
Singer/ songwriter Loretta Lynn , who launched a bold comeback last year by joining forces with Detroit rocker Jack White of the White Stripes, has won her first Grammy Award in 33 years.

Lynn, 69, who received five nominations in four categories, won the country collaboration with vocals prize on Sunday for her performance with White on "Portland Oregon" (Sample lyric: "Well sloe gin fizz works mighty fast, when you drink it by the pitcher and not by the glass...")

She lost the female country vocal performance race to best new artist nominee Gretchen Wilson, and the best country song race -- where she was nominated

 

twice -- to Tim Nichols and Craig Wiseman, the writers of the Tim McGraw hit "Live Like You Were Dying".

Lynn's album, "Van Lear Rose", was also nominated for best country album, the winner of which will be announced during the televised ceremony later in the day.

Lynn's sole Grammy to date was for "After the Fire is Gone", her duet with the late Conway Twitty, which they won in 1972.

"Van Lear Rose", the 71st album of her 45-year career, earned wide critical acclaim and attention from a new generation of fans, thanks to the unlikely involvement of White, who coaxed her out of semi-retirement.

The cherubic-faced frontman with the hallowed indie duo the White Stripes was a longtime fan and journeyed to Nashville in 2003, where they ended up recording most of the album in two days.

In addition to producing and arranging the album, he sang with Lynn on the atmospheric single "Portland Oregon", which won unexpected airplay on rock radio stations.

Lynn's chart-topping autobiographical 1970 tune "Coal Miner's Daughter" inspired both a best-selling memoir and an Oscar-winning film starring Sissy Spacek.

Mentored by the late Patsy Cline, she carved out a career as a feminist heroine. Her other No. 1 country hits included "Don't Come Home Drinkin' (with Lovin' On Your Mind)", "Fist City" and "Woman of the World". (A couple of my favourite titles include D.I.V.O.R.C.E.   and The Pill.)

Loretta Lynn accepts the award for best country album with Jack White of the White Stripes during the 47th annual Grammy Awards in Los Angeles February 13, 2005. Lynn won for her album 'Van Lear Rose. Photo by Gary Hershorn/Reuters
(There's a lovely little backstory of the 20-something year-old White, a life-long fan of  Lynn's, approaching her at her home in Nashville--where she'd been in virtual seclusion since the death of her husband, and convincing her to come back to what may be the biggest success of her career.)

Happy V-day!

   Happy V-Day!
Try to make time to stop and smell the flowers... 

                                       

 

Reflecting

I've been sick for going on two weeks--lots of symptoms earlier, now down to a hacking cough that interferes hugely with sleep and a runny nose that has blown out our Kleenex supply.

Nonetheless, I swore I'd get to the pool today-- and I did.
As soon as I walked through the shower room door to the pool area a wave of warm humidity hit me. I breathed it in and it felt good. The pool water was a bit on the cool side, though. I took it very gently at first, then kept a moderate pace for about 35 minutes, cutting it short so I could shower, get dressed, and get home in time to chauffeur my 12. y.o. to a laser-tag birthday party.

Doing pool laps I would guess, is similar to any repetitive physical activity done without a companion. It gives one time to think. Usually what's troubling me is the first to bubble up in my consciousness as I move back and forth in my favourite lane, the one I refer to as "the grotto" because it features two large spouts that  constantly spit out water halfway across the lane, plus the lower diving board, which from the perspective of the swimmer, is an overhanging. The water is constantly churning as it's sucked in in a large intake area as well. I prefer a pool lane that is "unpoolish," as I prefer "real" water (lakes, the ocean, a river in a pinch) so my choosing the grotto has everything to do with putting me into a place other than the pool lane, that much more quickly.

I didn't cough once in the pool--in fact, no symptoms until I was done and taking a hot shower. Now however it's taken hold, though I'm trying to fend it off with a cup of Earl Grey tea (hot).

My recent entry about the lack of an identity of this blog garnered several comments/emails --which shouldn't have surprised me, but did. They were all encouraging and each writer very kind in his comments.

It seems we all question what we are doing "here" from time to time.
So much has been in the press about the blogging "phenomenon" (or is it just a natural offshoot of the Internet--a step beyond chat rooms/IRC or instant messaging?) Are we here to practice writing, try to make money or friends, speak out on matters that matter to us, express ourselves creatively, write for an audience?
Why does it matter?

I can't imagine putting in the time necessary to maintain a blog without some kind of strong investment in it. Perhaps that's why so many blogs are created and ultimately abandoned.

I'm not writing to find my voice. I'm not writing to make friends (though that is a pleasant side effect). I don't want to pour out my innermost crud onto this page--because it is simply that--crud.

I keep trying to make this place into a reflection of me and maybe that's where I'm mistaken. At this point in my life, I've done a lot of reflecting on me. I'm more interested in reflecting on what's going on around  and beyond me and to truly capture that here but is that even something within my abilities?*

Okay, I'll answer my own question. I can do it but I can't do it as well as say, Jack or  Vanessa  -- two real writers. I just don't have it in me. I've never been a creative writer, and even when writing factually one needs a creative way of  "speaking."  I can churn out the five W's and an H but that's pretty pedestrian and let's face it,  snooze-inducing.

"Glances At History"

To be a patriot, one had to say, and keep on saying, "Our country, right or wrong," and urge on the little war. Have you not perceived that that phrase is an insult to the nation.
  - Mark Twain, "Glances at History," 1906

The Rogers Indicator of Multiple Intelligences

You scored as Intrapersonal. You prefer your own inner world, you like to be alone, and you are aware of your own strengths, weaknesses, and feelings. You learn best by engaging in independent study projects rather than working on group projects. People like you include entrepreneurs, philosophers and psychologists.

Intrapersonal		89%
Verbal/Linguistic		79%
Interpersonal		75%
Visual/Spatial		71%
Musical/Rhythmic		57%
Bodily/Kinesthetic		39%
Logical/Mathematical		39%

The Rogers Indicator of Multiple Intelligences
created with QuizFarm.com

Untitled

This blog is afflicted with an identity crisis.

When I first began blogging in Sept 2003, it was in reaction to being kicked off a forum where I had journaled extensively. It was a "personal"  journal and I stuck pretty much to daily entries.
It chronicled my life and myriad adventures ( j/k about the myriad adventures part).

Due to the owner of the forum being  a 20 y.o. egomaniac, I parted ways with him and my journal , too. A desperate feeling to "not miss a day" of journaling drove me to Blogger and finally, here to TypePad.
My writing such as it is, is much less personal now. I'd guess that this blog is at least 50% political, 20% pictorial, and the rest a mish-mash. So it is neither a personal nor political blog.

When I have something of a daily grind-type nature, I write it at a forum that was created by the people included in the the eventual exodus from the forum where I had my first on-line journal. We don't have individual journals there, therefore a member started a Status of Your Day thread that evokes comments from..."Life sucks right now, " to paragraphs detailing just about every waking moment of ones day, to a kind of call and response post as members read each others entries and along with adding their own entry, they comment on the prior writer's posts.

It can get very long if one is to "answer" all the previous posters, but with the extra time commitment is a connection that the other journal did not have. Though my first journal was one of many that posters kept, and people commented in it, it was a distinct and separate entity. With the set-up now, our lives are "woven" together--there's a depth of unity that didn't exist before. And it's not cliquish, which if it were would be the first thing to send me packing.

No, whether its "older" members finally getting around to taking a stab at the Status or brand new ones just jumping in, all are equally encouraged and welcomed. It takes a short while if a person writes regularly, to get a general sketch of his/her life--less so, the more forthcoming they are.
It's a bit soap-opera-ish at times, quite moving, very funny,  and sometimes quite sad. But it's all there, every day. And when a person misses posting for a few days, always one or more members will "call them out," Most likely he/she has been lurking--reading the posts but not taking the time to write. Most of the time the stated reason is "not feeling like it." But one can't "not feel like writing" for long over there, as the other writers won't allow it.

So though this place once served as a really good place for me to share my feelings, it's become so public, e.g. my family reads it, and I write posts that garner thousands of hits from total strangers (no worries that I'm a fantastic writer--the visits are usually based on something stupid that Google turned up), that I take my innermost musings elsewhere to share.
TypePad continues to be my site. It's been neglected of late, but unlike the forum, there are no complaints when I don't post.

***I'd like to redesign the site...I may just pull this template and have it look ugly until I have time to fine-tune colours and fonts and such. Basically, as the weather gets better and I'm outside more I'd like to see it move more toward a photo-blog (with commentary , of course.)  ;)

Peace,

--Cyn

I like the following editorial on political language enough that I'm reprinting it here.

Published on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 by the Cape Cod Times

Originally found here.

Word-Watch: Orwell Reborn

by Sean Gonsalves

The most illuminating definition of freedom I've heard is: "freedom is not a license to do whatever you want. It's the opportunity to become who you are." Or as the old Greek adage has it: "become what thou art."

I know you think we are in the year 2005 but we're not. We are living in the year 1984. And this is the word (and the world) according to Orwell.

Witness the thought-police out in full force, cloaked in "patriotism." Any criticism of our government's policies is popularly labeled "anti-American."

Notice the proliferation of false, child-like dichotomies such as "either you're with us or against us" and "we're good, they're evil," international law, the Geneva Conventions and Abu Ghraib aside.

In his essay on "Politics and the English Language," George Orwell offers this penetrating insight:

"One ought to recognize that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end. If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark, its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself.

"Political language - and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists - is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."

It is with that preface that I announce the rebirth of this column as a vehicle for exploring the political language of our day, an effort to "simplify," as Orwell did; to expose "stupid remarks" in all of their obvious "stupidity."

"There is a problem when the turnover in the United States House of Representatives is lower than it was in the Soviet Politburo."

  NATHANIEL PERSILY,   an election law expert at the  University of Pennsylvania  Law School.
          

Boromir has a Bob The Angry Flower Moment

(Clickety-click the link.)

Subject: LOTR Alternate dialog

Boromir has a Bob The Angry Flower Moment... if you don't know who or what Bob the Angry Flower is, all I can say is I don't get most of the humour in his strip... :shrug:
This one I do.
Enjoy!

My brother sent this to me. It was forwarded to him.
Wow, huh?

The Year of Living Indecently or, Nipplegate: The Fallout, One Year Later

(Excerpt  from this article .)

A month before the election, The Los Angeles Times reported on its front page that the department had quietly destroyed more than 300,000 copies of "a booklet designed for parents to help their children learn history" after Lynne Cheney, who has no official government role, complained about its contents. The booklet burning occurred under the watch of Rod Paige, the education secretary who, we would later learn, was simultaneously complicit in another sub rosa exercise in heavy-handed government information management: the payment of $240,000 in taxpayers' funds to Armstrong Williams, a talking head and columnist, to plug Bush administration policies on radio and TV.

I really dislike censorship.
If  parents or guardians feel strongly enough to censor SpongeBob or PBS's Postcards From Buster, why in the name of all that is sane do they not just turn OFF the television!?!

I'm not even going to try to answer that question. (Yes, the question was rhetorical.) These self-same parents generally are quick to blame most of their progenie's problems on anyone but themselves and it really is difficult to conduct a rational discussion with them about the responsiblities that come with parenting.

Yes of course, there is truckloads of crap on both commerical and pay television. I watch very little of it and have a household policy of muting all commercials (if one of the kids forgets while watching say, The Simpsons, they'll hear me call out, "Mute!") The television isn't called the idiot box for no reason.

Overall, network teevee is a vast wasteland of titillation and continual pushing of the envelope. Back when I was a kid, no swear words of any kind were allowed, except maybe damn and hell, if they were inserted correctly into the script ("damnation," "damned," "heaven and hell"). As the years passed and standards in society grew more lax, teevee followed suit and the next thing one knew, Dennis Franz's bare bum was being flashed on N.Y.P.D. Blue.
That didn't surprise me as much as the gradual use of  some of the "Seven Dirty Words You Can't Say On Television."  (If you are not acquainted with the George Carlin comedy sketch on said subject, the words  are " shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker and tits.")
I remember the first time I heard "shit" used on network teevee. I was genuinely shocked. And conflicted. Where does one draw the line and at what point is that line being crossed?
I don't have an answer other than if it offends you, turn off the tube.

I believe Lynne Cheney, much like  her husband, wields way too much power (more than the First Lady, it seems--maybe I shouldn't be surprised) and needs to be muzzled. Immediately.
I can't even fathom, in a nation filled with more non-traditional families (anything other than the nuclear "mom, dad, and kids") than traditional, that we continue to reject the parents and consequently the children of gay and lesbian couples.

Do the powers that be, do the parents that are supposedly up in arms, think their precious bundles will never be exposed to "gayness " and non-traditional families? What's worse? What better illustrates the family values that the Christian neocons so revere? Divorced families or lesbian parentage? Apples and oranges right? I'm betting that they would gladly support divorced/single mom/dad situations before they let junior be corrupted by the "twisted morality" of  a gay couple raising kids.
And that's just sad.

February 6, 2005
FRANK RICH
The Year of Living Indecently

LET us be grateful that Janet Jackson did not bare both breasts. On the first anniversary of the Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction that shook the world, it's clear that just one was big enough to wreak havoc. The ensuing Washington indecency crusade has unleashed a wave of self-censorship on American television unrivaled since the McCarthy era, with everyone from the dying D-Day heroes in "Saving Private Ryan" to cuddly animated animals on daytime television getting the ax. Even NBC's presentation of the Olympics last summer, in which actors donned body suits to simulate "nude" ancient Greek statues, is currently under federal investigation.

Public television is now so fearful of crossing its government patrons that it is flirting with self-immolation. Having disowned lesbians in the children's show "Postcards From Buster" and stripped suspect language from "Prime Suspect" on "Masterpiece Theater," PBS is editing its Feb. 23 broadcast of "Dirty War," the HBO-BBC film about a terrorist attack, to remove a glimpse of female nudity in a scene depicting nuclear detoxification. Next thing you know they'll be snipping lascivious flesh out of a documentary about Auschwitz.

This repressive cultural environment was officially ratified on Nov. 2, when Ms. Jackson's breast pulled off its greatest coup of all: the re-election of President Bush. Or so it was decreed by the media horde that retroactively declared "moral values" the campaign's decisive issue and the Super Bowl the blue states' Waterloo. The political bosses of "family" organizations, well aware that TV's collective wisdom becomes reality whether true or not, have been emboldened ever since. They are spending their political capital like drunken sailors, redoubling their demands that the Bush administration marginalize gay people, stamp out sex education and turn pop culture into a continuous loop of "Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm."

With Sunday's Super Bowl, their crusade has scored a touchdown. MTV has been replaced as halftime producer by Don Mischer, the go-to guy for a guaranteed snoozefest; his credits include the Tony Awards, the Kennedy Center Honors and the 2004 Democratic National Convention at which the balloons failed to drop. (His subsequent cursing was heard on CNN, but escaped government sanction because no Republicans were watching.) Fox Sports Net has changed the title of its signature program "Best Damn Sports Show Period" to "Best Darn Super Bowl Road Show Period." The commercials, too, will "be careful" and in "good taste," according to the head of marketing for Anheuser-Busch. Fox, which recently pixilated the bottom of a cartoon toddler in a rerun of the series "Family Guy," now has someone on full-time rear-end alert: it rejected a comic spot for Airborne, a cold remedy, showing the backside of the 84-year-old Mickey Rooney as he leaves a sauna.

This might all be laughable were the government not expanding its role as cultural cop. But it is. The departures of Michael Powell, the Savonarola of the Federal Communications Commission, and John Ashcroft, whose parallel right-breast fixation was stimulated by a statue in the Justice Department, are red herrings. "Thank God he's gone, but God help us with what's next," said Howard Stern upon learning of Mr. Powell's imminent exit. He's right. After all, L. Brent Bozell of the Parents Television Council condemned Mr. Powell for "four years of failed leadership" in fighting indecency. (Mr. Powell's commission had the temerity to actually reject some Parents Television Council jeremiads, which are distinguished by their inordinate obsession with the penis.) Mr. Bozell, whose organization has been second to none in increasing the number of annual indecency complaints from 111 in 2000 to a million-plus last year, is angling for a tougher successor and may well get one.

"Come See Our Brutal Democracy"

Let's right now start preparing for U.S. forces to march into that pesky repressive China. Let us look forward to BushCo declaring war on Iran, and then North Korea, and then huge parts of nondemocratic Africa. Any day now, yes? How about Egypt? And Pakistan? And Jordan? Dictatorships and monarchies and repressive, antidemocratic oligarchies, all. Man, we'll be at war until 2045! Whee! ( M. Morford)

I was just articulating this thought to my spouse. What we are doing in Iraq reminds me of the Christian Crusades when "heathens" had Christianity shoved down their throats. It also brings up the haunting notion of, Are we really trying to take over the world? And hasn't that been tried already by another country, and didn't it come to a very bad end? (As if all that's happened in Iraq is not bad enough).
Something is very wrong. My twelve-year-old knows it and it's not because he parrots my beliefs--I listen to him and  he's disgusted with Bush and the neo-cons. We agree that we are none too happy with the Liberals either, for allowing the GOP to run rough-shod over them.
It's hard to know what to do other than participate in this democracy by securing citizenship (which I'll apply for come spring, when my green card expires), voting, being outspoken in various manners including calling, emailing, and snail mailing your state representatives. And writing and speaking about it -- not being cowed into silence by the "majority."

Recently, both my sons found out that due to a change in the law, although they were born in the USA, because I am Canadian,  they have dual citizenship (though I believe we must get some paperwork done).  I'm happy for them because it strikes a happy medium and gives them more of a choice about which philosophies to embrace.

I love this country. It  is rich in diversity, culture, opportunities... but I don't love our federal government... and I can't think of a thing that they are planning to do that's going to change that.

Come See Our Brutal Democracy
        Freedom rings in Iraq! Bush was right all along! American wins! Or, you know, not  
- By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Wednesday, February 2, 2005

Ah, the violent march of democracy.

Beautiful thing, really, seeing repressed and weary Iraqis vote for the first time, and dance in the bloody bombed-out streets, and avoid the suicide bombers and of course not be able to travel between provinces or drive anywhere in their locked-down nation and by the way watch out for the snipers on the roofs.

It really is amazing, watching the deeply flawed system of democracy take hold in a raw and decimated nation like a thorny weed cracking through shattered concrete. All people deserve to be free and now Iraqis have a tiny bloody taste of it and this is always, always a good thing. I am not kidding.

So, should we be proud? Is Bush's thuggish and illegal pre-emptive attack strategy justified? Are Iraq's first-ever elections a defining moment in American political history? Are we all righteous and good and holy, despite all the dead bodies and the hatred?

Well, sort of. But then again, not really. Should Bush get some credit for all the cheering Iraqis who are now breathing sort of free? Well, no. Not even close.

While it's always heartwarming to see a brutalized and disheartened people flex their newfound freedom for the first time, the costs of this teetering, fragile, force-fed, implode-at-any-moment democracy are nauseating and appalling. You already know the numbers: $300 billion, over 1,400 dead U.S. soldiers and over 10,000 permanently wounded and countless thousands of dead innocent Iraqi civilians -- and many, many more to come.

And let us not forget the biggest disclaimer of all: Not a single one of BushCo's alleged reasons for dragging our fractured and bankrupt nation into one of the most brutal wars since Vietnam has actually proved valid or justifiable. The disgusting array of WMD/nuclear/biotoxin lies and deceptions are not suddenly erased because we set up some polling places.

How quickly we forget: A democratic Iraq was never the reason Bush forced us into this war. Iraq's fledgling democracy is a pleasant side effect, a bonus PR move, a heartstring-tugging and patriotic patina of bogus humanitarianism BushCo is now trying to slather over one of the most disastrous and inept military efforts in recent history. It makes for terrific photo ops. It makes for miserable and debilitating foreign policy.

Look. Democracy is good. Treasonous BushCo dishonesty and misprision and an outright ignorance regarding exit strategies and the true costs of war are not. Republicans and Bush apologists are quick to ignore, in this momentary orgy of political spin and PR, how not a single one of the problems Iraq faced before the elections has been solved. The brutal insurgent violence is only increasing. U.S. soldiers are dying in record numbers. Iraq is a violent mess. And Bush just asked for $80 billion more from the broke U.S. economy to fund the occupation, with no end in sight.

Let's just say it outright: The ends do not justify the means. A barely democratic Iraq is fine and good, but you well know that if Bush had mumbled to the nation three years and $300 billion ago that we were going to start bombing this piss-poor country back to the Stone Age and gut the U.S. economy and put thousands of American soldiers and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis in death's way to deliver it, all while sending the nastiest possible message to the world and actually increasing the threat of terrorism while turning our backs on every major U.S. ally, I doubt many Americans would have giddily waved the flag of support (except maybe Ann Coulter, who apparently loves anything involving guns and dead foreigners).

Let's put it another way: Here is your choice, America: $300 billion and massive international disrespect and a huge pile of dead American soldiers in an effort to force a fragile democracy onto a torn and fractured Iraq by ousting their useless dictator who was, let us repeat, no threat to us, or to anyone, and who was, in fact, our ally, until he dared to threaten our oil.

Or: $300 billion to assist struggling nations and battle AIDS and protect the planet, to evolve our international relationships and set up treaties and unifying alliances and maybe even have a little left over to help fix our own schools, maybe help all those destitute American city upgrade their hospitals and fix their homeless problems and even maybe launch a national health-care plan, spend that money on trying to solve a huge host of social ills plaguing this crumbling beautiful egomaniacal empire we call home.

Which do you choose? What cost democracy? Where do you draw your lines?

Bush does not get credit for Iraq's fleeting glimpse of democracy for the exact same reason you don't give the tsunami credit for cleansing the streets of Indonesia. His motives were never, repeat never, to bring democracy to Iraq. His motives were to oust a pip-squeak dictator who threatened our access to 10 percent of the world's oil. It was about power, and regional control, and ego, and petroleum. Period.

Does this matter anymore? Iraq gets a glimmer of democratic hope and all lies and broken international laws and oily policy shifts are forgiven? Hardly.

Because if this is our new agenda, if we are suddenly the Hammer of Democracy that slams our political system onto every country we feel deserves it and damn the fiscal, emotional, spiritual and human costs, well, let's get to it, already.

The Farmer And The Irrigator

Combining art and agriculture...sounds neat...will have to see it in person next time I'm in the vicinity.

February 2, 2005

 

Bumper Crops for the Eye

 

By CAROL POGASH

   

SALINAS, Calif. - Out of the fertile fields of the Salinas Valley, the giant figures loom: 18-foot-high plywood workers harvest iceberg lettuce. An irrigator, his boot on a shovel, surveys the land. A farmer crouches nearby, his hand cupping the loamy soil. Women in headscarves thin just-budding crops. The creases in their shirts, their bodily expressions, even with their backs turned, these figures are so lifelike that their appearance startles passers-by, which is what their creator, the artist John Cerney, intends.

The giant sculptures at the Farm, an agricultural education center and demonstration farm owned by the Crown Packing Company, are but one of dozens of installations in this valley, where the land looks much as it did when John Steinbeck wrote about it.

For 22 years, Mr. Cerney has been creating giant people who pop up in fields and on storefronts all over Monterey County, which includes the Salinas Valley and is about 100 miles south of San Francisco. The expanse of blue-on-blue sky and miles of row crops serve as his canvas.

"I've never cared about galleries and square things framed on a wall," Mr. Cerney said in an interview. What mattered "was that people would see my work," he said, adding "that meant working outside."

Mr. Cerney, 51, lives a pared down life in a corner of his workshop in a corrugated metal warehouse here, where he works 12 hours a day pursuing his art. Parts of giant plywood people lie strewn about. Leaning against one wall, a marathon runner raises her triumphant fist in the air. A friendly gas station attendant grasps a hose, about to fill 'er up. Even in repose there is something both ordinary and heroic about his people.

Mr. Cerney's art, said Amanda Holder, spokeswoman for the National Steinbeck Center in Salinas, "does what public art should do, it enriches the landscape visually and emotionally."

The Steinbeck center commissioned him to make a plywood Marilyn Monroe for its agricultural wing. (Monroe was crowned Miss California Artichoke Queen in nearby Castroville in 1948.) He hesitated initially because he prefers his work to be displayed outdoors...

...Mr. Cerney "brings back the tradition of regional art, roadside art," and Works Progress Administration murals from the 1930's that survive in schools and post offices around the country, said his friend, the artist D. J. Hall.

When Beverley Meamber, president and chief executive of the Salinas Valley Chamber of Commerce, called his pieces "works of art," Mr. Cerney, a marathon runner who looks younger than his years, winced, preferring to think of himself as a draftsman and illustrator. He likes digging four-foot holes and pouring the concrete for the Douglas fir posts that, along with a metal bar, hold the plywood people in place.

His work combines two parts of his life: agriculture and art. After high school, he spent seven years working for a produce company, operating a forklift, until he quit to enter college. After graduating from California State University, Long Beach, with a degree in art, he returned home to Salinas, where he knocked on a stranger's door and persuaded him to hand over the front of his building. Mr. Cerney converted an ordinary facade into a stunningly realistic mural of "Tony's Friendly Auto Service." His only payment was $50, for putting friends' licenses on the painted cars.

Since then, "Tony's" has given way to "Sam's Friendly Produce Stand," a mural on the same site with cut-out plywood characters and a truck loaded with produce boxes that is so realistic that the Chamber of Commerce has had to disabuse tourists who, having seen the picture in agricultural magazines, come to shop at Sam's.

Mr. Cerney started making his plywood people pretty much by accident. While painting the produce stand, he "miscalculated" the space available and had to add a plywood arm to one of his painted people. He noticed how the arm "popped out," liked the effect, and added a plywood Corvette and a free-standing girl. A dozen plywood people followed.

"I don't need walls anymore," he remembers thinking. "I need a field."

Christie Whitman Rides to the Defense of Her Grand Old Party

I remember wondering when she was appointed to the EPA, if Whitman really realized that she was being used. The Cheney/Rove agenda was what she'd be pursuing, not many of her proposals and those previously promised in Mr. Bushes presidental campaign.
Was she that blinded/doomed to fail by her reverence for the "old" Repubican party?

February 1, 2005

 

EDITORIAL OBSERVER

Christie Whitman Rides to the Defense of Her Grand Old Party

 

By ROBERT B. SEMPLE Jr.

   

Christie Whitman emerged from her first meeting with President-elect George Bush in 2000 full of optimism and convinced of his determination to build a positive environmental "legacy" - a belief reinforced moments later when Karl Rove took her aside and confided, flatteringly, that as the boss of the Environmental Protection Agency, she would be one of just three cabinet-level officers who would help determine whether the president would be re-elected in 2004. This she took to mean that "the work I would do in building a strong record on the environment would help the president build on his base by attracting moderate voters."

"As it turned out," she now concedes in her just-published political memoir, "It's My Party Too," "I don't seem to have understood Karl correctly."

In fact, she misunderstood him completely. Why she did so is one of the many puzzles in this interesting but often disingenuous and frustrating book. A cursory check would have revealed that Mr. Rove had no use for environmentalists and, indeed, had long believed that Mr. Bush's father lost the 1992 election partly because he was too squishy on environmental issues, offending the conservative base on which Mr. Rove pins his political strategy.

Perhaps Ms. Whitman missed the signs because she wanted so much to believe that she could both help a president she very much admired and contribute to a cause that is important to her. Had she fully understood that, as it now appears, Mr. Rove wanted her on board to help provide cover for the easing of important environmental laws, she might never have taken the job at all.

But take it she did, leading to two and a half years of bureaucratic struggle against the lobbyists and ideologues Mr. Bush had installed in every other important environmental job, as well as a series of brutally embarrassing policy reversals that might have driven a less loyal person out of town much sooner. Of these, the most humiliating was the president's decision to reverse a campaign pledge to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas, only weeks after Ms. Whitman, acting on good faith and with Condoleezza Rice's assurances, had promised America's European allies that the pledge would be honored. But there were other setbacks, and they must have stung.

Ms. Whitman's purpose here, however, is not to whine. A product of New Jersey's political aristocracy, and a firm believer in Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment - "thou shalt not speak ill of other Republicans" - she is far is too polite to indulge in settling scores. Besides, she has a larger agenda, which is to deplore the hijacking of her beloved Republican Party. After all, this is a woman whose parents met at the 1932 Republican convention, and who attended her first convention when she was only 9.

On this score, she is in full cry, laying about her against the "fundamentalists," the "social conservatives" and the "ideological zealots" whose views on abortion, race and other big social issues she battled tirelessly as governor of New Jersey. This is a call to arms to the remaining moderates of the Eisenhower/Rockefeller school, and a timely reminder in this age of bitter ideological combat that there was once a Republican mainstream, before the mainstream flowed right.

Yet she is maddeningly coy about the reactionaries who determined the Bush administration's environmental policies and ultimately did her in. There is no doubt whatsoever that Vice President Dick Cheney's insistence on unilaterally dismantling the Clean Air Act to please the administration's industrial patrons torpedoed Ms. Whitman's dream of reforming that law in an orderly, bipartisan manner.

She said publicly last week that the weakening of the act had been the insult that finally persuaded her to resign. But in the book she refers only in the most general terms to the "antiregulation element of the base" and to officials who favored "the concerns of business" over the needs of the environment.

In their own way, of course, these shadowy ideologues and their cramped environmental views are as hostile to the Republicanism Ms.Whitman holds dear as the social conservatives. For that reason - even though Mr. Rove and Mr. Cheney make cameo appearances - it seems unfair to leave the reader guessing who the villains really were.

Ms. Whitman gives the president a pass as well. Though she describes Mr. Bush as the "most socially conservative president of my lifetime," she portrays him as a victim of the fundamentalists, not their standard bearer.

And while she is disappointed that Mr. Bush was not more attentive to her views on global warming, and annoyed that he did not fight harder for her reforms of the Clean Air Act, she ultimately excuses him as a prisoner of bad advice and pressures from industry and the right-wingers on Capitol Hill.

But this is absurd. The president was surely complicit in the policies that drove her out of town. One wishes that on this score, Ms. Whitman had abandoned her fealty to the 11th Commandment. That would have better served her party and the historians.

"Reinventing High School"

Anyone with a kid under high school age might want to read  this editorial.

The warehousing of children in high school--the concept-- has fascinated me ever since my father told me of it when I was a kid... (It wasn't all that fascinating to live it, tho'.)
EDIT:  OK, article read..a few interesting things.
One was a restating that our high schools are failing and as I found out this weekend past when I began the search for the best high schools in areas we are considering a move to, I found that our high-esteemed local high school and the other side of town  (plus unincorporated area)  high school--also well-respected--though on a lessor scale due to the various issues that can make 5 miles apart seem like 500, these "good suburban schools" are failing, based one minimal state criteria.

Anyway, I think I found a high school --couldn't be must worse that the overcrowded,  dysfunctional Fremd High School, where my first son went until they gave up on him in 10th grade and encouraged him to drop out (!) and where I'm working to make sure the second doesn't attend.
Sheer size alone--nearing 3000 at Fremd and expanding, convinces me smaller has to be better. The high school I'm looking at in the town we are probably moving to before my younger son starts high school, has 1600 students. Still pretty big, but smaller than anything around here. It's further out than thought I'd go but I'm/we're longing for a detached house with a yard and a fence for the dog--the American dream I suppose. That's one reason why my attendance at this  and other blogs will be even more erratic than now, as I have to re-prioritize in order to make this move happen. I'm getting quite excited.   :)

February 1, 2005

 

EDITORIAL

Reinventing High School    

The achievement gap between rich and poor students is narrowing in some states, thanks to the added resources and better instruction that are a result of the No Child Left Behind Act. But that good news is largely limited to the early grades. Progress is stalled in high schools, where more states are slipping behind than are making progress, and American teenagers have lost ground when compared with their peers in other industrialized nations. The United States, which once led the world in high school graduation rates, has plummeted to 17th - well behind France, Germany and Japan.

The American high school is a big part of the problem. Developed a century ago, the standard factory-style high school was conceived as a combination holding area and sorting device that would send roughly one-fifth of its students on to college while moving the rest directly into low-skill jobs. It has no tools to rescue the students who arrive unable to read at grade level but are in need of the academic grounding that will qualify them for 21st-century employment.

 

New York City recently embarked on a plan to develop a range of smaller schools, some of them aimed at the thousands of students whose literacy skills are so poor that they have failed the first year of high school three times. The plan is to pull these students up to the academic standard while providing some of them with work experiences. The National Governors Association has begun a high school initiative that calls for remedial services and partial tuition reimbursement for students who complete community college courses that lead to technical or industrial job certifications. The White House, rushing to get ahead of the parade, recently announced a high school project of its own. And other school districts are tinkering with gimmicks like cash bonuses for good grades.

The emerging consensus is that the traditional high school needs to be remade into something that is both more flexible and more rigorous. But the rigor has to come first. Many states are still setting the bar for reading performance abysmally low in the primary grades, paving the way for failure when children move on to high school. State education departments have fudged vital statistics on graduation rates, as well as the teacher qualification data they have reported to the federal government in ostensible compliance with No Child Left Behind.

The federal Education Department failed to push the states toward doing better under the disastrous leadership of its departing secretary, Rod Paige. No matter how hard localities try, the best-designed high schools in the world will still fail unless the states and the federal government finally bite the bullet on teacher training. That means doing what it takes to remake the teacher corps, even if it means withholding federal dollars from diploma mills pretending to be colleges of education, forcing out unqualified teachers and changing the age-old practice of funneling the least-prepared teachers into the weakest schools.