Apparently Seth the theophile has decided to afflict me with 'blog tag', which is kind of like a chain letter, but more annoying. I'll play along, but I'll do part in ending it by not tagging anyone else:
Number of books I Own: What a stupid question! Maybe hundreds, maybe thousands. I have no idea. Moving on.
Last Book I Bought (For Myself): Good-Bye to All That by Robert Graves. I always liked I Claudius, and the generation of British writers who came of age after WWI (Graves, Orwell, Dahl) have always been my favorites, and their lives are impossibly interesting.
Last Book I Read: The Luzhin Defense by Vladmir Nabakov. It took a while to become interested in a dialouge-less novel about a frankly boring chess maniac, but it draws you in little by little.
Books that Mean Alot to Me: Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell. A clear-eyed look at the better world that's possible. The Sword in the Stone by T. H. White. The first book I ever read that made real people out of all its characters; heroes, villians, fools, and sages.
I'll expand on this if I feel like it.
Oh Tom Tomorrow, sometimes you just have to do the talking for me.
Campaign Update: Chap Peterson is offering temporary tattoos. Get'em while they're hot.
Sunday, June 05, 2005
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Memorial Day
Yesterday was Memorial Day, and I for one spent my time walking in the Falls Church Memorial Day Parade next to Leslie Byrne, being driven in a convertible. As she waved to the crowd I had a packet of brochures in one hand and a basket of candy in the other, and I distributed campaign literature and sweets to all who wanted them. Guess which was more popular.
But they event made me think. Memorial Day is supposed to be a time to gather together and remember those who gave their lives to protect us from those who wished to do us harm. But do we really understand how those servicemen really lived and died? Did we and the military give them so much consideration when they were alive? And did we give their deaths the honor of truth that every person deserves? Even if you subscribe to the idea that war is necessary sometimes, the sheer disregard for US servicemen and women displayed by our own government and their own commanding officers (I mean the ones on top, not the ones in the field) is something unbelievable.
At the start of 2005, at least a quarter of US deaths in Iraq were in non-combat situations. This is fairly typical for an occupying army. Yet what is the family of those servicemen told? That the fallen was 'fighting for freedom' is popular, as is 'defending America'. And I'm sure that people believe those things when they hear them. They have to. Who among us could face the idea that your son, your daughter, your husband, or anyone else you loved dearly, died in vain and for no purpose at all? Who has the heart to tell someone that? What commander or politician has the courage to admit it?
No, better that the soothing balm of heroism and patriotism be applied to the whole painful affair. No one needs to know about the orders that went wrong, or the jeep that hit a pothole and rolled over, or (God forbid) the friendly fire. Thus responsibility is avoided, and the truth of war remains where most people can handle it: out of sight.
And what if the war itself was nothing but a waste and a sham built on lies and false hopes?. Not surprisingly, many veterans lash out at that idea, especially if they lost friends. Their sacrifice has to mean something, and all those America-haters who opposed the war must be wrong. In a way, they're right: their friends' deaths do mean something. Just not what they dearly hoped it would.
Pardon me for being inarticulate. I did my best.
But they event made me think. Memorial Day is supposed to be a time to gather together and remember those who gave their lives to protect us from those who wished to do us harm. But do we really understand how those servicemen really lived and died? Did we and the military give them so much consideration when they were alive? And did we give their deaths the honor of truth that every person deserves? Even if you subscribe to the idea that war is necessary sometimes, the sheer disregard for US servicemen and women displayed by our own government and their own commanding officers (I mean the ones on top, not the ones in the field) is something unbelievable.
At the start of 2005, at least a quarter of US deaths in Iraq were in non-combat situations. This is fairly typical for an occupying army. Yet what is the family of those servicemen told? That the fallen was 'fighting for freedom' is popular, as is 'defending America'. And I'm sure that people believe those things when they hear them. They have to. Who among us could face the idea that your son, your daughter, your husband, or anyone else you loved dearly, died in vain and for no purpose at all? Who has the heart to tell someone that? What commander or politician has the courage to admit it?
No, better that the soothing balm of heroism and patriotism be applied to the whole painful affair. No one needs to know about the orders that went wrong, or the jeep that hit a pothole and rolled over, or (God forbid) the friendly fire. Thus responsibility is avoided, and the truth of war remains where most people can handle it: out of sight.
And what if the war itself was nothing but a waste and a sham built on lies and false hopes?. Not surprisingly, many veterans lash out at that idea, especially if they lost friends. Their sacrifice has to mean something, and all those America-haters who opposed the war must be wrong. In a way, they're right: their friends' deaths do mean something. Just not what they dearly hoped it would.
Pardon me for being inarticulate. I did my best.
Saturday, May 28, 2005
All Politics is Local
Only in rare instances has my day-to-day existence intersected with the actual political process as it’s generally thought of in the U.S. But now, I’m a great deal more involved. You see, I’ve ended up interning for Leslie Byrne, a candidate for the lieutenant governorship of Virginia. I know, it’s not exactly high-profile; but one has to start somewhere.
Besides, in this situation I have an opportunity to actually get noticed by the candidate and the campaign. If I were working for a governor or senator (or for a presidential nominee, like I did in the fall) none of the higher-ups would even hear of me, and the candidate almost certainly wouldn’t come over to my desk and introduce herself, like Byrne did this morning.
She’s a good candidate too – a favorite of educators, pro-choice groups, the environmental lobby, and the labor unions. What else could one ask for in a Democratic candidate?
Byrne started off about 20 years ago with a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates. After Clinton came in he named her to be the nation’s consumer advocate, but in 1999 she returned to local politics and won a seat in the Virginia senate. For the 2003 election, the Republicans re-drew the district line right next to Byrne’s house, forcing her to either a.) move, or b.) challenge an incumbent Democrat for his seat. She decided to do neither for the time being, and run for lieutenant governor instead.
Our main competition in the Democratic primary is J. Chapman ‘Chap’ Peterson, a shifty-looking guy with conservative values, family connections, and enough money to buy himself an RV to tour the state in.
Other candidate include Viola Osbourne Baskerville (what a name!), a Richmond-area delegate with progressive ideals but little experience, and Phil Puckett, a former high-school principal going for the ’rustic woodsman’ vote, if his campaign photos are any indication.
As for the Republicans, I don’t know much about them. There’s ‘moderate’ Sean Connaughton and ultra-conservative Bill Bolling. Until the primary, they don’t really concern me.
So far I’ve mainly been doing office work, but I’ve also worked the phones. Our biggest hurdle with voters isn’t convincing them to vote for us, it’s making them aware that an election is even taking place! I realize it’s just the primary for lieutenant governor, but even so, the sheer apathy and alienation is sometimes rather astounding. Voting is not the most important part of democracy, especially with the electoral system as stratified as it is, but it counts for something, and if we can’t even get people to rouse themselves to go to the polling place more than once a year, we’re in serious trouble.
Updates to follow. Not everyone may find this race as fascinating as I do, so I’ll keep my comments focused on the big picture.
Besides, in this situation I have an opportunity to actually get noticed by the candidate and the campaign. If I were working for a governor or senator (or for a presidential nominee, like I did in the fall) none of the higher-ups would even hear of me, and the candidate almost certainly wouldn’t come over to my desk and introduce herself, like Byrne did this morning.
She’s a good candidate too – a favorite of educators, pro-choice groups, the environmental lobby, and the labor unions. What else could one ask for in a Democratic candidate?
Byrne started off about 20 years ago with a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates. After Clinton came in he named her to be the nation’s consumer advocate, but in 1999 she returned to local politics and won a seat in the Virginia senate. For the 2003 election, the Republicans re-drew the district line right next to Byrne’s house, forcing her to either a.) move, or b.) challenge an incumbent Democrat for his seat. She decided to do neither for the time being, and run for lieutenant governor instead.
Our main competition in the Democratic primary is J. Chapman ‘Chap’ Peterson, a shifty-looking guy with conservative values, family connections, and enough money to buy himself an RV to tour the state in.
Other candidate include Viola Osbourne Baskerville (what a name!), a Richmond-area delegate with progressive ideals but little experience, and Phil Puckett, a former high-school principal going for the ’rustic woodsman’ vote, if his campaign photos are any indication.
As for the Republicans, I don’t know much about them. There’s ‘moderate’ Sean Connaughton and ultra-conservative Bill Bolling. Until the primary, they don’t really concern me.
So far I’ve mainly been doing office work, but I’ve also worked the phones. Our biggest hurdle with voters isn’t convincing them to vote for us, it’s making them aware that an election is even taking place! I realize it’s just the primary for lieutenant governor, but even so, the sheer apathy and alienation is sometimes rather astounding. Voting is not the most important part of democracy, especially with the electoral system as stratified as it is, but it counts for something, and if we can’t even get people to rouse themselves to go to the polling place more than once a year, we’re in serious trouble.
Updates to follow. Not everyone may find this race as fascinating as I do, so I’ll keep my comments focused on the big picture.
Friday, May 20, 2005
Down South, Turning Left
So what’s up with Latin America?
In recent years, a host of left-wing governments have swept to power south of the border, and while Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez is the most famous and most radical, also on the ‘watch list’ is Nestor Kirchner of Argentina, Luiz Inacio ‘Lula’ da Silva of Brazil, and (most recently) Alfredo Palacio of Ecuador.
Who are these people, anyway?
They come from a fairly diverse set of backgrounds:
Chavez is a former colonel in the paratrooper division who led an unsuccessful coup attempt in 1992, for which he spent two years in prison. As it became clear the coup wasn’t going to work he told his supporters to stand down and went on TV, declaring that their goals hadn’t been achieved, ‘for now’. Upon his release, he built up his political base and won the presidency in 1999.
da Silva is the former head of a major Brazilian steel worker’s union During his rise to political prominence, many supporters of the former military dictatorship (including the US government) dubbed him ‘the son of Moscow’, but da Silva has been careful to move both his language and his policies toward the center. His nickname, ‘Lula’ is short for ‘Luiz’. It’s also the Portuguese word for ‘squid’. Whether that has any significance is up for debate.
Nestor Kirchner is the kind of person neither left-wingers nor right-wingers can really get excited about. Argentina’s current crisis is tied to the massive unpaid loans from the IMF, and while Kirchner decries the international banking establishment in harshest terms while at home, he’s mild and amiable when dealing with the financiers themselves, and has so far enacted no serious reforms.
Palacio is a trained cardiologist who was elected vice president of Ecuador in 2002. He has no official political party, though many of his ministers are from the Izquierda Democratica (Democratic Left).
How did they come to power? And, for that matter, why?
Well, they were all democratically elected, so far as anyone can tell. Chavez has survived numerous well-funded recall attempts by landslide margins, despite the fact that his opposition is rich, well-organized, and controls the media. Palacio only came into office very recently following his predecessor Lucio ‘Sucio’ Gutierrez fleeing to Brazil to escape from an angry mob.
All the men mentioned above got their jobs for the same reason any elected official should get his job: the old way wasn’t working. After decades of promises by politicians to use their nation’s enormous natural resources to enrich their people, after loan after loan from the World Bank was wasted to no effect and South America still maintained incredibly high poverty rates; (up to 80%, in the case of Venezuela) the voters had had enough.
Now, what are they doing that bothers people so much?
Their policies and rhetoric tend to be against international banking organizations (IMF, World Bank, etc.) and their domestic policies center on social spending and reducing foreign control of their internal affairs. Seeing as the US is the main benefactor of such groups. This is coupled with America’s long history of overthrowing leftist democracies has made regional leaders somewhat jumpy.
Venezuela and Ecuador are especially high priorities because of their large stores of oil, and in these days of high fuel prices and Middle Eastern chaos, one can’t be too careful about where your oil is coming from.
I don’t think these developments are anything terribly surprising or anything an honest citizen needs to worry about. Thus far, there have been (despite a host of completely unproven allegations to the contrary) no death squads, mass jailings of political opponents, clampdowns on free speech, or suspension of democratic institutions – unlike what happened under numerous Latin American governments installed by the CIA. In fact, if US businesses were really smart, instead of incredibly idiotic and short-sighted, they’d support these left-wing movements in Latin America with all they had.
The reason is simple; they’re trying to turn Latin America into a collection of first-world countries. Should they succeed, that means a great deal more money and opportunity for everyone – including us.* If we work with them, they’ll work with us. That’s what the Bolivarian revolution is all about, so far as the US is concerned.
Palacio himself has said (In reference to the World Bank) "If we pay that amount of debt, we're dead. We have to survive. If we die, who is going to pay them?"
*Call that bourgeois justification if you want. I know who my audience is.
In recent years, a host of left-wing governments have swept to power south of the border, and while Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez is the most famous and most radical, also on the ‘watch list’ is Nestor Kirchner of Argentina, Luiz Inacio ‘Lula’ da Silva of Brazil, and (most recently) Alfredo Palacio of Ecuador.
Who are these people, anyway?
They come from a fairly diverse set of backgrounds:
Chavez is a former colonel in the paratrooper division who led an unsuccessful coup attempt in 1992, for which he spent two years in prison. As it became clear the coup wasn’t going to work he told his supporters to stand down and went on TV, declaring that their goals hadn’t been achieved, ‘for now’. Upon his release, he built up his political base and won the presidency in 1999.
da Silva is the former head of a major Brazilian steel worker’s union During his rise to political prominence, many supporters of the former military dictatorship (including the US government) dubbed him ‘the son of Moscow’, but da Silva has been careful to move both his language and his policies toward the center. His nickname, ‘Lula’ is short for ‘Luiz’. It’s also the Portuguese word for ‘squid’. Whether that has any significance is up for debate.
Nestor Kirchner is the kind of person neither left-wingers nor right-wingers can really get excited about. Argentina’s current crisis is tied to the massive unpaid loans from the IMF, and while Kirchner decries the international banking establishment in harshest terms while at home, he’s mild and amiable when dealing with the financiers themselves, and has so far enacted no serious reforms.
Palacio is a trained cardiologist who was elected vice president of Ecuador in 2002. He has no official political party, though many of his ministers are from the Izquierda Democratica (Democratic Left).
How did they come to power? And, for that matter, why?
Well, they were all democratically elected, so far as anyone can tell. Chavez has survived numerous well-funded recall attempts by landslide margins, despite the fact that his opposition is rich, well-organized, and controls the media. Palacio only came into office very recently following his predecessor Lucio ‘Sucio’ Gutierrez fleeing to Brazil to escape from an angry mob.
All the men mentioned above got their jobs for the same reason any elected official should get his job: the old way wasn’t working. After decades of promises by politicians to use their nation’s enormous natural resources to enrich their people, after loan after loan from the World Bank was wasted to no effect and South America still maintained incredibly high poverty rates; (up to 80%, in the case of Venezuela) the voters had had enough.
Now, what are they doing that bothers people so much?
Their policies and rhetoric tend to be against international banking organizations (IMF, World Bank, etc.) and their domestic policies center on social spending and reducing foreign control of their internal affairs. Seeing as the US is the main benefactor of such groups. This is coupled with America’s long history of overthrowing leftist democracies has made regional leaders somewhat jumpy.
Venezuela and Ecuador are especially high priorities because of their large stores of oil, and in these days of high fuel prices and Middle Eastern chaos, one can’t be too careful about where your oil is coming from.
I don’t think these developments are anything terribly surprising or anything an honest citizen needs to worry about. Thus far, there have been (despite a host of completely unproven allegations to the contrary) no death squads, mass jailings of political opponents, clampdowns on free speech, or suspension of democratic institutions – unlike what happened under numerous Latin American governments installed by the CIA. In fact, if US businesses were really smart, instead of incredibly idiotic and short-sighted, they’d support these left-wing movements in Latin America with all they had.
The reason is simple; they’re trying to turn Latin America into a collection of first-world countries. Should they succeed, that means a great deal more money and opportunity for everyone – including us.* If we work with them, they’ll work with us. That’s what the Bolivarian revolution is all about, so far as the US is concerned.
Palacio himself has said (In reference to the World Bank) "If we pay that amount of debt, we're dead. We have to survive. If we die, who is going to pay them?"
*Call that bourgeois justification if you want. I know who my audience is.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Losing the Base
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently announced the closing or reduction of more than 800 military installations.
The ostensible reason is to reduce costs, yet of course military budgets keep going up and up and up - but none of that gets to the soldiers, the medics, the engineers, or any of the other personnel on the ground; it all goes to defense contractors, to buy $50 million dollar jets and $3,000 screwdrivers. As of now, a US army private gets about $14,000 a year. I wonder how much they could raise pay for the price of one F-16?
But this is also a bit of electoral payback. Whiles bases are closing in Conneticut, Maine, and Washington DC, they'll be opening in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and Alabama - not to mention Texas. Though there is some bipartisanship in who suffers from this:
Job Losses:
CT: Liberman (D) -6496
ME: Snowe (R) -6938 (many actually in NH)
MO: Talent (R) -3679
MS: Lott (R) -1678
ND Conrad (D) -2645
NM Bingaman (D) -2849
PA Santorum (R) -1878
VA Allen (R) -1574
Let the games begin.
The ostensible reason is to reduce costs, yet of course military budgets keep going up and up and up - but none of that gets to the soldiers, the medics, the engineers, or any of the other personnel on the ground; it all goes to defense contractors, to buy $50 million dollar jets and $3,000 screwdrivers. As of now, a US army private gets about $14,000 a year. I wonder how much they could raise pay for the price of one F-16?
But this is also a bit of electoral payback. Whiles bases are closing in Conneticut, Maine, and Washington DC, they'll be opening in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and Alabama - not to mention Texas. Though there is some bipartisanship in who suffers from this:
Job Losses:
CT: Liberman (D) -6496
ME: Snowe (R) -6938 (many actually in NH)
MO: Talent (R) -3679
MS: Lott (R) -1678
ND Conrad (D) -2645
NM Bingaman (D) -2849
PA Santorum (R) -1878
VA Allen (R) -1574
Let the games begin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)