The previous post has been deleted, never to return.
Just too much ugliness going on there, for no reason that I can see. I want to thank those of you who offered comments in my defense and the others of you who emailed me directly to express your support.
I felt I had to respond to the initial comment that set off the storm because it attacked my credibility, baldly laying out a claim that my blog is some kind of hoax, but in hindsight it was wasted effort and energy.
Going forward, I will have a new policy regarding comments. As always, differing opinions will be welcomed, but I will take advantage of my right to delete any comment that is off-topic or a personal attack.
I have decided to disable comments for this post; if you want to communicate with me about it, you can email me directly.
* * * * * * *
Last week's nastiness came at a bad time.
As regular readers know, I resolved at the start of the year to learn a new piece and sing it for my church, and was scheduled for this coming Sunday, March 9th.
I felt ready and excited. I had chosen the aria "Mache dich, mein Herze, rein" from Bach's St. Matthew Passion, which is ideally suited to me. It was memorized and I was just continuing to polish and perfect it, while my voice continued to re-align and strengthen and open up back to its old self.
It's been five years since I last sang in public; at 33, I am just hitting what should be my vocal prime as a baritone, and the new physical maturity I heard in the sound was encouraging; the top notes, especially, had a new luster and ease. I could not wait to get out there; this was going to be fun.
And then suddenly, about two weeks ago, it all started to fall apart. Once again, it seemed my voice couldn't quite warm up all the way, and it would tire quickly. Though my throat was open, my jaw relaxed and my breathing solid, the warm, round sound began to fade, becoming fuzzy, reedy or thin-sounding in various parts of my range. Intonation began to go off-kilter. There was no longer a smooth transition in the passaggio; instead, it was like driving a car with a bad transmission. At first I thought, "Oh, it's just one of those days," but it began to be persistent and I had to admit to myself that this is exactly what happened to my voice in 2002.
This was infuriating, because for the last several years, I have had no problems with acid reflux at all. I felt ready to try again, and I would never have asked if I could sing if I hadn't been 100% confident that I was okay. I immediately made some radical changes in my diet and started going through some of the routines that had been helpful the first time around, but after a few days I began to sense that I probably could not fully recover in time. It wasn't going to be enough to just "get through" the piece; I needed to triumph, I needed to nail it, or it wasn't going to be worth it.
So on Saturday I told the music director that I was having problems again and that I would temporarily need to withdraw my offer to sing.
I am going to kick this. I want to say a special word of thanks to two friends who have given me invaluable advice this week. I wasn't going to say anything, because it is too painful and, frankly, humiliating, but both of them are encouraging me in a new direction, toward being more in touch with my feelings and what's going on inside me and more willing to reach out and be honest and ask for help with things.
So, that's all, for now. I could just use your friendship and support, and if you're the praying sort, I would appreciate a word or two on my behalf.
Monday, March 03, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Senator Clinton on Iraq, February 2003
I always opposed the invasion of Iraq.
Like many -- because of the "information," if we want to call it that, that was provided by the Bush administration -- I believed that Saddam Hussein possessed a WMD arsenal in 2003. Still, I opposed invasion and occupation, because I absolutely thought it was the wrong solution. I did not believe that simply removing Saddam Hussein was going to result in the formation of a model democracy in the heart of the Middle East; instead, I feared it would create an opening for the sectarian and ethnic divisions of the country to explode into civil war, and I greatly feared what would happen to the weapons I believed were there in the ensuing destabilization of the country. I did not believe that the inevitable deaths of innocent Iraqis and American soldiers were going to be worth the head of Saddam Hussein. I did not believe we were going to be in and out in six months or year, and I was not convinced we had a plan to put Iraq back together again.
I knew enough about Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden's geostrategic goals to know there was no possibility of collaboration with Saddam Hussein.
Okay, so I was wrong. Iraq didn't have any WMD's, at all. But other than that, I was right on the money.
As the Bush Administration continued to attempt to make its case for war, I wrote to Hillary Clinton, who was my senator, to urge her to oppose military action in Iraq. This was her response to me.
Like many -- because of the "information," if we want to call it that, that was provided by the Bush administration -- I believed that Saddam Hussein possessed a WMD arsenal in 2003. Still, I opposed invasion and occupation, because I absolutely thought it was the wrong solution. I did not believe that simply removing Saddam Hussein was going to result in the formation of a model democracy in the heart of the Middle East; instead, I feared it would create an opening for the sectarian and ethnic divisions of the country to explode into civil war, and I greatly feared what would happen to the weapons I believed were there in the ensuing destabilization of the country. I did not believe that the inevitable deaths of innocent Iraqis and American soldiers were going to be worth the head of Saddam Hussein. I did not believe we were going to be in and out in six months or year, and I was not convinced we had a plan to put Iraq back together again.
I knew enough about Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden's geostrategic goals to know there was no possibility of collaboration with Saddam Hussein.
Okay, so I was wrong. Iraq didn't have any WMD's, at all. But other than that, I was right on the money.
As the Bush Administration continued to attempt to make its case for war, I wrote to Hillary Clinton, who was my senator, to urge her to oppose military action in Iraq. This was her response to me.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Analyze This
When I look at the crowds of supporters in shots of Obama, Clinton and McCain, it's the McCain crowd in which I find all the hotties.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Turbangate
Boy, just when you thought you couldn't possibly manufacture a political dust-up dumber than the Obama "plagiarism" thing, someone on Hillary Clinton's staff goes and provides The Drudge Report (!!!!!) with an old photo of Obama on a diplomatic visit to Kenya in which he is seen donning some local garb, including a turban-like head-thingy. Sub-text: "See, he really is a secret Muslim!"
The Obama campaign responded by saying, "Hey, can we get back to what matters to the American public, please?" (that may be a paraphrase) and then the Clintonites accused Obama of using the photo to create a distraction from the issues.
Amazing.
People, it is perfectly normal for Americans visiting foreign lands to try on local costume as a diplomatic gesture. To wit:
Ogaki, Japan, 1990.
The Obama campaign responded by saying, "Hey, can we get back to what matters to the American public, please?" (that may be a paraphrase) and then the Clintonites accused Obama of using the photo to create a distraction from the issues.
Amazing.
People, it is perfectly normal for Americans visiting foreign lands to try on local costume as a diplomatic gesture. To wit:
Ogaki, Japan, 1990.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Sunday Photo Blogging: Andy & Glenn Do Yachats: Fin
On our last morning down at the coast, instead of walking on the beach behind the hotel, I decided to walk into town. It was so quiet and peaceful, and there are some really cute little cottage-y places in the little "neighborhood" between 101 and the sea.
Here's a shot of the cabins where we stayed.
Check out these gulls hanging out at the Yachats State Recreation Area.The Green Salmon is closed on Mondays, so we went back to the place where we'd had dinner the night before; I had french toast with marionberry compote. Love those marionberries! Then it was back to the hotel to check out and head down the road.
Glenn was on his way back to San Francisco and was planning on getting as far down 101 as Eureka, so we needed to get moving. We decided we'd stop at the Sea Lion Caves just north of Florence and then say our goodbyes.
Check out this weather! Hard to believe this is mid-February.
The cave itself is pretty spectacular. The echoes of the sea lion bellows are so loud it sounds like the den of some horrible beast. Some horrible, foul-smelling beast. Phew, what a stench! But still, fascinating.
Back up top, we wandered down a small path to view the rocky outcrop where the sea lions go to sun themselves.
We made one last stop together at the Fred Meyer in Florence (had to show Glenn the pride of the Northwest!) for snacks, diet Coke and discount gas. Then with a hug and a wave, Glenn headed south and I turned east toward Eugene. No meandering country excursions for me this time; I was eager to get home and see the cats, so I booked it to I-5 and sailed back to Portland.All in all, an amazing, much-needed weekend. Glenn's pics are here.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Best Argument Against Same-Sex Marriage
Isaac Davis: I got a kid, he's being raised by two women at the moment.
Mary Wilke: Oh, y'know, I mean I think that works. Uh, they made some studies, I read in one of the psychoanalytic quarterlies. You don't need a male, I mean. Two mothers are absolutely fine.
Isaac Davis: Really? Because I always feel very few people survive one mother.
-- from Woody Allen's Manhattan (1979)
Mary Wilke: Oh, y'know, I mean I think that works. Uh, they made some studies, I read in one of the psychoanalytic quarterlies. You don't need a male, I mean. Two mothers are absolutely fine.
Isaac Davis: Really? Because I always feel very few people survive one mother.
-- from Woody Allen's Manhattan (1979)
Andy & Glenn Do Yachats, Day Two
After a restful night's sleep in our cozy cabin, the first order of the day was the obligatory quiet, solitary walk by the sea behind the hotel.
For breakfast we went to the Green Salmon Cafe, where in addition to a fantastic cup of rich, strong coffee I had an amazing marionberry and blueberry bear claw. The clientele is an odd mix of eccentric locals, cruchy-granola Portland liberals on vacation and slightly concerned-looking mainstream Americans just passing through.
Then it was off to the Oregon Coast Aquarium in Newport, one of my favorite places. It's small, but very pleasant and always fascinating; it's comprised entirely of local animals.
For lunch we headed into "downtown" Newport and walked up and down the main street, but didn't really shop for anything. It's mostly kitschy tourist crap.
Glenn wanted to see a lighthouse, so I took him up to Yaquina Head. We waited in line for probably 20 minutes at least, and were then told it was going to be another half-hour yet, so Glenn decided the lighthouse looked just fine from the outside. Having seen all kinds of neat animals behind glass this morning, I was eager to show him the real deal, so we went down to the tidepools at Smelt Sands State Park, just north of Yachats. The tide was extremely low and the ocean fairly calm, so the waves weren't spraying up into the air as they usually do, but this allowed us to go pretty far out and see live animals like sea stars, anemones, crabs, chitons and tons of mussels.
As it was late in the day, we decided to stay and sit on a park bench and watch the sun disappear over the horizon. Glenn was really missing his boyfriend.
We went to dinner at a local place and then Glenn went to hang out in the hotel's hot tub. (I forgot my suit, and it's not that kind of hotel, so I stayed in by the fire and had evening prayer and finished the pinot noir.)
For breakfast we went to the Green Salmon Cafe, where in addition to a fantastic cup of rich, strong coffee I had an amazing marionberry and blueberry bear claw. The clientele is an odd mix of eccentric locals, cruchy-granola Portland liberals on vacation and slightly concerned-looking mainstream Americans just passing through.
Then it was off to the Oregon Coast Aquarium in Newport, one of my favorite places. It's small, but very pleasant and always fascinating; it's comprised entirely of local animals.
For lunch we headed into "downtown" Newport and walked up and down the main street, but didn't really shop for anything. It's mostly kitschy tourist crap.
Glenn wanted to see a lighthouse, so I took him up to Yaquina Head. We waited in line for probably 20 minutes at least, and were then told it was going to be another half-hour yet, so Glenn decided the lighthouse looked just fine from the outside. Having seen all kinds of neat animals behind glass this morning, I was eager to show him the real deal, so we went down to the tidepools at Smelt Sands State Park, just north of Yachats. The tide was extremely low and the ocean fairly calm, so the waves weren't spraying up into the air as they usually do, but this allowed us to go pretty far out and see live animals like sea stars, anemones, crabs, chitons and tons of mussels.
As it was late in the day, we decided to stay and sit on a park bench and watch the sun disappear over the horizon. Glenn was really missing his boyfriend.
We went to dinner at a local place and then Glenn went to hang out in the hotel's hot tub. (I forgot my suit, and it's not that kind of hotel, so I stayed in by the fire and had evening prayer and finished the pinot noir.)
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Not a Fluke
Starbuck is doing that yoga-pose in front of the fire again, so apparently that works for her. Too lazy to take a picture and upload it for proof. Sue me.
* * * * *
I enjoyed the Texas debate tonight. We all know I'm no huge fan of Senator Clinton, but I've said it before and I'll say it again: we could do worse. What a relief to know the days of the Bush era are truly numbered and regardless of how the nomination process turns out, the next president is going to be confident, articulate and on the right side of the issues. (No, I don't think McCain has a prayer, and for the record, based on its content so far, I think this New York Times story is about the most ridiculous and transparent thing I have ever seen and I am tremendously disappointed in their decision to run with it. If they have more, they'd better show their hand right quick.)
I remain impressed with Obama. He could have made an attempt to seal the deal tonight, to put nails in the coffin Clinton's campaign has built for her, but he wouldn't kick her when she was down. When she tried to play hardball and go negative, you could feel the audience cringing. After he neatly dispatched her accusations of plagiarism by reminding her that Deval Patrick is his national campaign co-chair and that Patrick encouraged him to use the phrase in question, she doubled down and said, "I just think if you're going to give speeches, your words ought to be your own." At which point she was hissed by the audience.
She also dug herself a hole with her spin that Obama's healthcare plan leaves 15 million people uninsured. That actually taps in to my own dissatisfaction with his plan: studies show that even if healthcare insurance is "affordable," people who live paycheck to paycheck and are generally healthy aren't likely to pay for what they don't perceive that they need. Making healthcare "affordable" won't really address the big problem, but neither will Clinton's plan to assess fines on poor people for not having insurance. The answer is genuine universal healthcare. Free healthcare. For everyone. But neither of them are ready to go there so we have to pick from what we've got, and while neither plan is perfect, at least Obama isn't going to penalize poor people.
I don't understand how people can see the two of them up there side by side and come away with the impression that Obama is somehow substantially vaguer on policy and specific solutions. They seem equally competent to me in this regard; the question, then, is who is best equipped to implement the changes needed? And I'm sorry, but I think unfortunately for her, Hillary comes laden with baggage -- not all of it her fault, but some, for sure -- that Obama doesn't have. I think he will have superior success with identical proposals because he hasn't been engaged in partisan trench warfare for the last sixteen years; he has spent that time making change while she made enemies.
* * * * *
I enjoyed the Texas debate tonight. We all know I'm no huge fan of Senator Clinton, but I've said it before and I'll say it again: we could do worse. What a relief to know the days of the Bush era are truly numbered and regardless of how the nomination process turns out, the next president is going to be confident, articulate and on the right side of the issues. (No, I don't think McCain has a prayer, and for the record, based on its content so far, I think this New York Times story is about the most ridiculous and transparent thing I have ever seen and I am tremendously disappointed in their decision to run with it. If they have more, they'd better show their hand right quick.)
I remain impressed with Obama. He could have made an attempt to seal the deal tonight, to put nails in the coffin Clinton's campaign has built for her, but he wouldn't kick her when she was down. When she tried to play hardball and go negative, you could feel the audience cringing. After he neatly dispatched her accusations of plagiarism by reminding her that Deval Patrick is his national campaign co-chair and that Patrick encouraged him to use the phrase in question, she doubled down and said, "I just think if you're going to give speeches, your words ought to be your own." At which point she was hissed by the audience.
She also dug herself a hole with her spin that Obama's healthcare plan leaves 15 million people uninsured. That actually taps in to my own dissatisfaction with his plan: studies show that even if healthcare insurance is "affordable," people who live paycheck to paycheck and are generally healthy aren't likely to pay for what they don't perceive that they need. Making healthcare "affordable" won't really address the big problem, but neither will Clinton's plan to assess fines on poor people for not having insurance. The answer is genuine universal healthcare. Free healthcare. For everyone. But neither of them are ready to go there so we have to pick from what we've got, and while neither plan is perfect, at least Obama isn't going to penalize poor people.
I don't understand how people can see the two of them up there side by side and come away with the impression that Obama is somehow substantially vaguer on policy and specific solutions. They seem equally competent to me in this regard; the question, then, is who is best equipped to implement the changes needed? And I'm sorry, but I think unfortunately for her, Hillary comes laden with baggage -- not all of it her fault, but some, for sure -- that Obama doesn't have. I think he will have superior success with identical proposals because he hasn't been engaged in partisan trench warfare for the last sixteen years; he has spent that time making change while she made enemies.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Andy & Glenn Do Yachats, Day One
I love road trips.
I have been dying to get out to the Oregon Coast for a weekend for months, but the winter weather makes the mountain passes tricky and I wasn't feeling inclined to spend money just to sit in a hotel room in the rain, even though storm-watching on the Coast can be spectacular. So when Glenn called and said he was pondering taking a detour up to Oregon following a business trip to California and proposed meeting in Yachats, I jumped at the chance, even as I warned him it was likely to be cold, dark and wet.
I needn't have bothered, apparently: our weather was freakishly awesome.
Because I had plenty of time and love to tool around in the boonies, I opted for possibly the least-direct route to the coast I could have chosen. I never once got on the freeway, and instead took the main road right behind my house far out into the country until it connected with Highway 99W, and then took that south all the way to Junction City, just north of Eugene, where I headed off on Oregon 126 to Florence, passing through the megalopoli of Blachly, Swisshome and Triangle Lake. (And right now I am counting my lucky stars that the starter didn't conk out and the timing belt didn't snap until after I got back home.) In Florence I had a quick stop for a snack and then lazily headed north on 101 the 26 miles to Yachats, stopping for a stretch and some photos at Washburne State Park.
I was eagerly anticipating a hot cup of excellent coffee at the Green Salmon Cafe in Yachats, which unfortunately closed at 2:00, just a couple of minutes before I rolled into town. I spent the next hour or so wandering around until meeting up with Glenn at our rental cabin.
If DJ ever tires of his bohemian Manhattan lifestyle, he can settle into this ready-made gift shop and massage parlor on the Oregon Coast.
As it was low tide, we hurried quickly down to the beach behind the hotel, but it wasn't super spectacular. After splashing around there and introducing ourselves to an older gay couple there for Valentine's Day weekend, I took Glenn a few miles south to Cape Perpetua for some more dramatic views in the twilight.
After that we went back into town for dinner and retired to the cabin to sit and read and talk next to the fire. I gave myself special dispensation to break my Lenten fast and enjoyed a bottle of Eola Hills 2006 Special Reserve Oregon Pinot Noir. Mmmmmm.
Following deep conversation (e.g., did "time" exist before the big bang? and mutually lamenting growing up with "pre-trib" fathers) we settled into our respective beds for deep, peaceful sleep.
I have been dying to get out to the Oregon Coast for a weekend for months, but the winter weather makes the mountain passes tricky and I wasn't feeling inclined to spend money just to sit in a hotel room in the rain, even though storm-watching on the Coast can be spectacular. So when Glenn called and said he was pondering taking a detour up to Oregon following a business trip to California and proposed meeting in Yachats, I jumped at the chance, even as I warned him it was likely to be cold, dark and wet.
I needn't have bothered, apparently: our weather was freakishly awesome.
Because I had plenty of time and love to tool around in the boonies, I opted for possibly the least-direct route to the coast I could have chosen. I never once got on the freeway, and instead took the main road right behind my house far out into the country until it connected with Highway 99W, and then took that south all the way to Junction City, just north of Eugene, where I headed off on Oregon 126 to Florence, passing through the megalopoli of Blachly, Swisshome and Triangle Lake. (And right now I am counting my lucky stars that the starter didn't conk out and the timing belt didn't snap until after I got back home.) In Florence I had a quick stop for a snack and then lazily headed north on 101 the 26 miles to Yachats, stopping for a stretch and some photos at Washburne State Park.
I was eagerly anticipating a hot cup of excellent coffee at the Green Salmon Cafe in Yachats, which unfortunately closed at 2:00, just a couple of minutes before I rolled into town. I spent the next hour or so wandering around until meeting up with Glenn at our rental cabin.
If DJ ever tires of his bohemian Manhattan lifestyle, he can settle into this ready-made gift shop and massage parlor on the Oregon Coast.
As it was low tide, we hurried quickly down to the beach behind the hotel, but it wasn't super spectacular. After splashing around there and introducing ourselves to an older gay couple there for Valentine's Day weekend, I took Glenn a few miles south to Cape Perpetua for some more dramatic views in the twilight.
After that we went back into town for dinner and retired to the cabin to sit and read and talk next to the fire. I gave myself special dispensation to break my Lenten fast and enjoyed a bottle of Eola Hills 2006 Special Reserve Oregon Pinot Noir. Mmmmmm.
Following deep conversation (e.g., did "time" exist before the big bang? and mutually lamenting growing up with "pre-trib" fathers) we settled into our respective beds for deep, peaceful sleep.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
What Do Hillary and My Car* Have in Common?
Remember the last time I drove to Yachats and the car broke down?
This time Mabel the Sable waited until I got back to Portland to die. Wasn't that thoughtful of her? A weekend at the beach with a good friend and great weather? Priceless. Trip to the mechanic? $464.
On the plus side, we continue to edge closer to that bright future when someone randomly puts down their martini and says, "Hey, what the hell ever happened to Hillary Clinton?"
Today basically sucked up one side and back down the other, and not in a good way, so I'm retiring to bed early with some gentle music, a candle and a nice escapist book and two cuddly cats. In the meantime, here's a couple of photos to "tide" you over. (Ah, beach puns.)
(* Though, to be fair, I doubt Hillary has an "Obama '08" bumpersticker on her ass.)
This time Mabel the Sable waited until I got back to Portland to die. Wasn't that thoughtful of her? A weekend at the beach with a good friend and great weather? Priceless. Trip to the mechanic? $464.On the plus side, we continue to edge closer to that bright future when someone randomly puts down their martini and says, "Hey, what the hell ever happened to Hillary Clinton?"
Today basically sucked up one side and back down the other, and not in a good way, so I'm retiring to bed early with some gentle music, a candle and a nice escapist book and two cuddly cats. In the meantime, here's a couple of photos to "tide" you over. (Ah, beach puns.)
(* Though, to be fair, I doubt Hillary has an "Obama '08" bumpersticker on her ass.)
Monday, February 18, 2008
Home Again
We had a great time. The weather was unseasonably fabulous, and we kept very busy. More photos to come! But now it's time for bed.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Beach Slap
Okay, I'm outtie for the weekend. Heading down to Yachats to rendezvous with old New York pal Glenn of Glennalicious, who with this trip to Oregon completes his goal of visiting all 50 states.
See ya Monday.
See ya Monday.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
You Can't Think Like That
Something bothered me while I watched Katie Couric’s interview with Senator Clinton on 60 Minutes this past Sunday. I couldn’t quite put my finger on it, until suddenly today my concerns coalesced: her approach to problem solving is to convince herself she couldn’t possibly be wrong.
Listen to the senator’s response to Couric’s inquiry as to whether she ever wonders if Obama might win.
"Even in your deepest darkest moments, when you're exhausted, you don't think 'Oh my gosh, I'm going through this, I'm spending so much money, I'm so tired and this could be all for naught?' What if that happens?" Couric asked. "You have to, once in a while, think that. No?"
"No, Katie," Clinton said. "You can't think like that. You have to believe you're going to win."
First, that has to be a lie. It’s scary to think that she has never pondered the possibility she might not win the nomination. A better answer might have been, “Well, of course, but I don’t dwell on those thoughts because I believe I can do this.” It’s one thing to say, “Yes, but…” and quite another to say, “I don’t allow myself to consider the alternative.”
I mean, hurray for positive thinking and affirmations, but look where that got our current President. As Iraq spiraled long ago into bloody chaos, Bush angrily insisted that we had to remain optimistic. But being optimistic isn’t just crossing your fingers and hoping for rainbows when there’s no rain in the forecast. Hoping for the best is an admirable quality in a president – indeed, Obamites have adopted “hope” as one of their mantras – but optimism, when it transcends the boundaries of the possible or even the likely, is delusion. While hoping for the best, a president should be ready for the worst.
A president who refuses even to consider the worst is not going to be, in Clinton’s words, “ready on day one.” Or on any other day.
Clinton’s reluctance to consider potentially adverse outcomes is the clearest explanation for the tanking of her campaign; presently, Obama – who was down in the polls by double digits about two weeks prior to Super Tuesday – leads Clinton in delegates and has won 22 states to her 10. Of Obama’s last 8 wins, Clinton’s narrowest loss was 19 points. She’s now short on cash and firing (okay, “accepting the resignations of,” to go with the media euphemism) her campaign manager and deputy campaign manager. She has offered a litany of lame excuses for why Obama is besting her, including the fantabulous claim that the caucus system favors him. No, Hillary, the system doesn’t favor Obama, the voters do.
If you focus exclusively on a best-of-all-possible-worlds outcome, you find yourself disengaged from reality. Do we want four more years of this kind of governance?
Sure, she says it with a smile instead of a smirk, and the grammar's not all screwy, but she has exactly the same mindset as President Bush.
Hillary, if you want to govern, you can’t think like that.
Listen to the senator’s response to Couric’s inquiry as to whether she ever wonders if Obama might win.
"Even in your deepest darkest moments, when you're exhausted, you don't think 'Oh my gosh, I'm going through this, I'm spending so much money, I'm so tired and this could be all for naught?' What if that happens?" Couric asked. "You have to, once in a while, think that. No?"
"No, Katie," Clinton said. "You can't think like that. You have to believe you're going to win."
First, that has to be a lie. It’s scary to think that she has never pondered the possibility she might not win the nomination. A better answer might have been, “Well, of course, but I don’t dwell on those thoughts because I believe I can do this.” It’s one thing to say, “Yes, but…” and quite another to say, “I don’t allow myself to consider the alternative.”
I mean, hurray for positive thinking and affirmations, but look where that got our current President. As Iraq spiraled long ago into bloody chaos, Bush angrily insisted that we had to remain optimistic. But being optimistic isn’t just crossing your fingers and hoping for rainbows when there’s no rain in the forecast. Hoping for the best is an admirable quality in a president – indeed, Obamites have adopted “hope” as one of their mantras – but optimism, when it transcends the boundaries of the possible or even the likely, is delusion. While hoping for the best, a president should be ready for the worst.
A president who refuses even to consider the worst is not going to be, in Clinton’s words, “ready on day one.” Or on any other day.
Clinton’s reluctance to consider potentially adverse outcomes is the clearest explanation for the tanking of her campaign; presently, Obama – who was down in the polls by double digits about two weeks prior to Super Tuesday – leads Clinton in delegates and has won 22 states to her 10. Of Obama’s last 8 wins, Clinton’s narrowest loss was 19 points. She’s now short on cash and firing (okay, “accepting the resignations of,” to go with the media euphemism) her campaign manager and deputy campaign manager. She has offered a litany of lame excuses for why Obama is besting her, including the fantabulous claim that the caucus system favors him. No, Hillary, the system doesn’t favor Obama, the voters do.
If you focus exclusively on a best-of-all-possible-worlds outcome, you find yourself disengaged from reality. Do we want four more years of this kind of governance?
Sure, she says it with a smile instead of a smirk, and the grammar's not all screwy, but she has exactly the same mindset as President Bush.
Hillary, if you want to govern, you can’t think like that.
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Opera Review: Roadkill Linda
I have to preface this post by telling you that on my way to the performance I was ticketed for jaywalking.
I was running a little bit late and was about three blocks from the theater; there were no cars coming -- indeed, I would have been in as much danger of being run over had I been on the moon -- but just at that instant a cop came out of the Starbucks on the corner and stopped me. "You know it's illegal to cross against the light?" she asked. "Umm...yeah, I guess," I said, lamely. "You guess?" she replied, tartly. "ID, please." Then she wrote me up.
Ninety-seven dollars for NOTHING. Now I know how Mitt Romney's donor feels.
* * * * * *
I hesitate to write this review because I'm sure now that my mother, who has tickets for the final performance, will decide not to go. Which is probably okay; no one really needs to be subjected to Portland Opera's monumentally ill-advised production of Handel's Rodelinda. Like Attorney General Mukasey, I am unable to say whether this qualifies as torture or not, but it certainly was an ordeal. I give up! I'll tell you where the bomb is: on stage.
I also once promised myself that I would never write awful things about a singer's performance unless they really deserved it; so I will only use the names of the two singers who were absolutely wonderful. Otherwise I will refer to the performers by the names of the characters.
Baroque opera is for connoisseurs; you might think of Handel like sushi. Good sushi is amazing; mediocre sushi is distressing. Tonight was a frozen fish stick.
Thanks to Officer Krupkette, I would have been late had it not been for the cancellation of the evening's star attraction, soprano Jennifer Aylmer in the title role. When I got to my seat at 7:35, General Director Christopher Mattaliano was still making the announcement; I didn't even get to hear why Ms. Aylmer had bowed out, only that she was being replaced by Sharin Apostolou, who made favorable impressions earlier this season in smaller roles in Carmen and La Cenerentola.
She had a total triumph. Though certain passages -- a few high notes and the cadenzas [would it be pretentious to write cadenze?] -- would have benefited from the confidence that would have come from, oh, being able to rehearse, overall it was an astonishing accomplishment. How many arias did she sing? I lost count. 5? 6? 7? If she made any mistakes, I didn't hear them. You can't fake Handel; especially the recitatives. She nailed it.
Alas, rehearsal couldn't have helped most of her colleagues. The singing was ghastly. Every time Apostolou came back on stage it was just so refreshing to hear a voice that didn't have something wrong with it.
Because I was late, I didn't get a chance to look at the program and go over the cast until the lights went up for the first intermission, at which point, due to the hooty hollowness of the singer protraying Bertarido, I was apalled to discover that it was not a countertenor. She sang like she'd had her vocal cords for lunch, an incredibly manufactured, over-darkened sound with utterly unintelligible diction. Because her voice had no ping or sparkle or color, the spectacular aria "Vivi, tiranno" was anti-climactic.
Tenor Grimoaldo displayed some impressive sustained high notes, but...why? Everything else was a mess. The voice is so poorly supported that the coloratura is slushy and the tonality in the passaggio completely leaves the reservation. Though Handelian recitatives need to be sung with passion, they still need to be sung. Sprechstimme is a 20th century idea. Shouting is not the same as acting. He almost redeemed himself with some sensitive tones in the last aria, but it was marred by so much affectation. If he'd just SUNG it it would have been a million times better.
When bass Garibaldo had his first few bars of recitative I thought, "Aha! here's a voice." It was resonant and full and deep and beautiful and clear. But then it all fell apart. Mostly I think he was just miscast and the high tessitura of the arias didn't suit him, but ultimately he was undone by the fact that he doesn't know how to breathe. The passaggio was flat and he ha-ha'd his coloratura so hard he was literally having spasms on stage. His top is so tight that his big voice becomes almost inaudible. Mercifully they cut the "B" and da capo portions of his "Di Cupido impiego i vanni," but we had to endure all of "Tirannia gli diede il regno," where again it was as if shouting was supposed to count as acting. Did I mention he couldn't breathe? He ended the aria, "Cruuuuu- [gasp] -delta!" He also went authentic on us and opted for baroque pitch for the final note. Too bad the orchestra didn't go with him.
Contralto Eduige, though young, sounded like a dramatic mezzo who was ready to be put out to Klytaemnestra pasture. Her chest voice, seemingly bottomless, had nothing to do with her upper register; they were utterly distinct sounds, both of them unfocused and ugly. She seems to think that if she distorts her voice into a grating caterwaul she gets points for interpretation.
So, thank God for countertenor Gerald Thompson as Unulfo. His arias got the biggest ovations of the evening. He sang with great ease and was musical and stylish and positively radiated joy to be up there. Everybody else (except Apostolou) looked like they were trying to give themselves hernias with their effortful bluster, and he sang circles around them.
Handel operas are hard to stage; this plot is particularly idiotic, and it doesn't help when the synopsis in the program contains gibberish like, "Against her wishes, Bertarido declares himself outraged by this reveals his identity to save his insult to his wife's honor." Huh?
A successful Handel production requires ravishing singing; a brilliant production requires a genius director, but I'm not sure God Himself could do anything with some of the appallingly lame "twists" this show throws at you. A nice set helps; I realize that Portland Opera has limited funds, but a designer's job is to make it look like this was exactly the set s/he'd always had in mind, rather than basically putting a disclaimer on the stage that says, "Sorry, we still have to pay for Aida in March." Minimalism works great for Handel, but the difference between "cheap" and "minimal" is "talent."
I can't believe I stayed for the whole thing.
* * * * * *
So my court date for the jaywalking ticket is March 7. The time marked on the ticket is 7:22 p.m., and I have my ticket stub for the opera starting at 7:30. I was in a hurry! I mean, I make no claim that I didn't break the law, I just think NINETY-SEVEN DOLLARS is insane. Should I try to challenge it?
I was running a little bit late and was about three blocks from the theater; there were no cars coming -- indeed, I would have been in as much danger of being run over had I been on the moon -- but just at that instant a cop came out of the Starbucks on the corner and stopped me. "You know it's illegal to cross against the light?" she asked. "Umm...yeah, I guess," I said, lamely. "You guess?" she replied, tartly. "ID, please." Then she wrote me up.
Ninety-seven dollars for NOTHING. Now I know how Mitt Romney's donor feels.
* * * * * *
I hesitate to write this review because I'm sure now that my mother, who has tickets for the final performance, will decide not to go. Which is probably okay; no one really needs to be subjected to Portland Opera's monumentally ill-advised production of Handel's Rodelinda. Like Attorney General Mukasey, I am unable to say whether this qualifies as torture or not, but it certainly was an ordeal. I give up! I'll tell you where the bomb is: on stage.
I also once promised myself that I would never write awful things about a singer's performance unless they really deserved it; so I will only use the names of the two singers who were absolutely wonderful. Otherwise I will refer to the performers by the names of the characters.
Baroque opera is for connoisseurs; you might think of Handel like sushi. Good sushi is amazing; mediocre sushi is distressing. Tonight was a frozen fish stick.
Thanks to Officer Krupkette, I would have been late had it not been for the cancellation of the evening's star attraction, soprano Jennifer Aylmer in the title role. When I got to my seat at 7:35, General Director Christopher Mattaliano was still making the announcement; I didn't even get to hear why Ms. Aylmer had bowed out, only that she was being replaced by Sharin Apostolou, who made favorable impressions earlier this season in smaller roles in Carmen and La Cenerentola.
She had a total triumph. Though certain passages -- a few high notes and the cadenzas [would it be pretentious to write cadenze?] -- would have benefited from the confidence that would have come from, oh, being able to rehearse, overall it was an astonishing accomplishment. How many arias did she sing? I lost count. 5? 6? 7? If she made any mistakes, I didn't hear them. You can't fake Handel; especially the recitatives. She nailed it.
Alas, rehearsal couldn't have helped most of her colleagues. The singing was ghastly. Every time Apostolou came back on stage it was just so refreshing to hear a voice that didn't have something wrong with it.
Because I was late, I didn't get a chance to look at the program and go over the cast until the lights went up for the first intermission, at which point, due to the hooty hollowness of the singer protraying Bertarido, I was apalled to discover that it was not a countertenor. She sang like she'd had her vocal cords for lunch, an incredibly manufactured, over-darkened sound with utterly unintelligible diction. Because her voice had no ping or sparkle or color, the spectacular aria "Vivi, tiranno" was anti-climactic.
Tenor Grimoaldo displayed some impressive sustained high notes, but...why? Everything else was a mess. The voice is so poorly supported that the coloratura is slushy and the tonality in the passaggio completely leaves the reservation. Though Handelian recitatives need to be sung with passion, they still need to be sung. Sprechstimme is a 20th century idea. Shouting is not the same as acting. He almost redeemed himself with some sensitive tones in the last aria, but it was marred by so much affectation. If he'd just SUNG it it would have been a million times better.
When bass Garibaldo had his first few bars of recitative I thought, "Aha! here's a voice." It was resonant and full and deep and beautiful and clear. But then it all fell apart. Mostly I think he was just miscast and the high tessitura of the arias didn't suit him, but ultimately he was undone by the fact that he doesn't know how to breathe. The passaggio was flat and he ha-ha'd his coloratura so hard he was literally having spasms on stage. His top is so tight that his big voice becomes almost inaudible. Mercifully they cut the "B" and da capo portions of his "Di Cupido impiego i vanni," but we had to endure all of "Tirannia gli diede il regno," where again it was as if shouting was supposed to count as acting. Did I mention he couldn't breathe? He ended the aria, "Cruuuuu- [gasp] -delta!" He also went authentic on us and opted for baroque pitch for the final note. Too bad the orchestra didn't go with him.
Contralto Eduige, though young, sounded like a dramatic mezzo who was ready to be put out to Klytaemnestra pasture. Her chest voice, seemingly bottomless, had nothing to do with her upper register; they were utterly distinct sounds, both of them unfocused and ugly. She seems to think that if she distorts her voice into a grating caterwaul she gets points for interpretation.
So, thank God for countertenor Gerald Thompson as Unulfo. His arias got the biggest ovations of the evening. He sang with great ease and was musical and stylish and positively radiated joy to be up there. Everybody else (except Apostolou) looked like they were trying to give themselves hernias with their effortful bluster, and he sang circles around them.
Handel operas are hard to stage; this plot is particularly idiotic, and it doesn't help when the synopsis in the program contains gibberish like, "Against her wishes, Bertarido declares himself outraged by this reveals his identity to save his insult to his wife's honor." Huh?
A successful Handel production requires ravishing singing; a brilliant production requires a genius director, but I'm not sure God Himself could do anything with some of the appallingly lame "twists" this show throws at you. A nice set helps; I realize that Portland Opera has limited funds, but a designer's job is to make it look like this was exactly the set s/he'd always had in mind, rather than basically putting a disclaimer on the stage that says, "Sorry, we still have to pay for Aida in March." Minimalism works great for Handel, but the difference between "cheap" and "minimal" is "talent."
I can't believe I stayed for the whole thing.
* * * * * *
So my court date for the jaywalking ticket is March 7. The time marked on the ticket is 7:22 p.m., and I have my ticket stub for the opera starting at 7:30. I was in a hurry! I mean, I make no claim that I didn't break the law, I just think NINETY-SEVEN DOLLARS is insane. Should I try to challenge it?
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Oops, She Did It Again
I swear I took these photos tonight.
Honestly, I thought this pose was a fluke, and never expected to see it again. I guess she must find it comfortable, after all.
The flash woke up Rocky. Sorry.
Honestly, I thought this pose was a fluke, and never expected to see it again. I guess she must find it comfortable, after all.
The flash woke up Rocky. Sorry.
Confession
Last night during the Ash Wednesday service, we were doing the traditional recitation of Psalm 51.
It's a perfectly nice psalm; my favorite verse is, "Purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow," largely because it reminds me of that wonderful scene in Puccini's La Fanciulla del West, when Minnie reads the miners a portion of this psalm and explains, "Cio vuol dire, ragazzi, che non v'e, al mondo, peccatore cui non s'apra una via di redenzione."*
I am afraid, however, that when we got to verse 5 ("Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me"), my mouth just clamped shut. I couldn't say that part, because I don't believe it.
*That means, boys, there isn't a sinner in the entire world to whom a path of redemption will not open.
It's a perfectly nice psalm; my favorite verse is, "Purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow," largely because it reminds me of that wonderful scene in Puccini's La Fanciulla del West, when Minnie reads the miners a portion of this psalm and explains, "Cio vuol dire, ragazzi, che non v'e, al mondo, peccatore cui non s'apra una via di redenzione."*
I am afraid, however, that when we got to verse 5 ("Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me"), my mouth just clamped shut. I couldn't say that part, because I don't believe it.
*That means, boys, there isn't a sinner in the entire world to whom a path of redemption will not open.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Told Ya
I knew Mike Huckabee was not a flash in the pan. And I knew that Rudy was.
Okay, Huckabee's not well-poised to take the nomination, but he's won six states. And is it just me, or does it seem that he and McCain are unusually buddy-buddy? They look like a ticket, to me.
Why not? Their respective strengths among Republicans balance each other. As Chris Matthews kept pointing out on MSNBC last night, McCain won the primaries in all the states Republicans usually lose in the general; Huckabee took the Bible belt. And what was that little dance they pulled off in West Virginia, with McCain throwing support (and the win) to Huckabee to keep Romney down? Hmmm.
I would also like, if I may, to be unmagnanimous for just a moment and dredge up this December comment.
RB wrote, "I am a political scientist. Let me assure you that Huckabee is a temporary sideshow. The GOP nominee will obviously be Giuliani, short of some remarkable and unpredictable development. Giuliana [sic] will knock out the other GOP candidates in the first round of the major primaries."
Some "unpredictable" development, huh? Yes, no one could have foreseen that America would figure out in time that Giuliani was a creepy one-note vindictive megalomaniac with a lengthy track-record of incompetence, shady connections and vendettas, a candidate who in fact had a weaker grasp of foreign policy and economics than...Mike Huckabee.
PS...well played, Barack! My vote in the Oregon primary might be worth something, after all.
Okay, Huckabee's not well-poised to take the nomination, but he's won six states. And is it just me, or does it seem that he and McCain are unusually buddy-buddy? They look like a ticket, to me.
Why not? Their respective strengths among Republicans balance each other. As Chris Matthews kept pointing out on MSNBC last night, McCain won the primaries in all the states Republicans usually lose in the general; Huckabee took the Bible belt. And what was that little dance they pulled off in West Virginia, with McCain throwing support (and the win) to Huckabee to keep Romney down? Hmmm.
I would also like, if I may, to be unmagnanimous for just a moment and dredge up this December comment.
RB wrote, "I am a political scientist. Let me assure you that Huckabee is a temporary sideshow. The GOP nominee will obviously be Giuliani, short of some remarkable and unpredictable development. Giuliana [sic] will knock out the other GOP candidates in the first round of the major primaries."
Some "unpredictable" development, huh? Yes, no one could have foreseen that America would figure out in time that Giuliani was a creepy one-note vindictive megalomaniac with a lengthy track-record of incompetence, shady connections and vendettas, a candidate who in fact had a weaker grasp of foreign policy and economics than...Mike Huckabee.
PS...well played, Barack! My vote in the Oregon primary might be worth something, after all.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Sunday Photo Blogging
So, as I mentioned in the footnote of the previous post, some silly person (that would be the senior warden) nominated me to run for the parish vestry (that's the elected body that conducts the secular business of the church, such as finances, etc.) and a bunch of other silly people voted for me, so...yeah, now I'm a vestryman. Errm, vestryperson.
This weekend the vestry went on retreat to bond and discuss the BHAGs (Big Holy Audacious Goals) of the coming year at a beautiful conference center in the Columbia Gorge. It was dark when my contingent finally arrived (hey, some of us have jobs...) but the rector promised us that at daybreak we'd have a beautiful view across the Columbia toward Washington.
At daybreak there was no Washington to be seen.
But who's complaining?
Okay, I am. I didn't have the greatest night's rest. Believe it or not, this was the first night since I've moved to Oregon that I was away from my cats. Starbuck always sleeps under the covers with me. In fact, if I go to bed before she's ready, she smacks me on the face with her paw until I lift up the quilt so she can go under and cuddle next to me. (Rocky...well, he's usually somewhere close by. He's kind of all over, depending on his mood.) I felt their absence keenly.
Alas, there wouldn't have been any room for tiny Starbuck in this bed. I likened it to sleeping on a coffee table. It was the smallest bed I've ever seen, and while I like them firm, goodness gracious! My roommate called it a good Christian mattress* (he was being cynical, like all proper Episcopalians). Oh, my roommate was 80. Yes, he snored.
Still, it was a beautiful morning.
Our retreat was cut short because the conference center kicked us out; apparently they checked with the weather service and said, "If you don't leave now, you won't be able to leave for two days." Basically we got as far as agreeing we need a third service, but we didn't decide when or what it should be. (I vote for evensong!!!!) Our carpool also ratified a decision to stop in Troutdale for lattes.
* * * * * * * * *
Here's Starbuck in front of the fire while I watch my TiVo'd Keith Olbermann. Honestly...does this look comfortable?
Here's another view. She looks like she fell off a cliff, right? Maybe it's yoga.
* So small that missionary is the only position that could possibly work and so hard that it wouldn't be much fun.
This weekend the vestry went on retreat to bond and discuss the BHAGs (Big Holy Audacious Goals) of the coming year at a beautiful conference center in the Columbia Gorge. It was dark when my contingent finally arrived (hey, some of us have jobs...) but the rector promised us that at daybreak we'd have a beautiful view across the Columbia toward Washington.
At daybreak there was no Washington to be seen.
But who's complaining?Okay, I am. I didn't have the greatest night's rest. Believe it or not, this was the first night since I've moved to Oregon that I was away from my cats. Starbuck always sleeps under the covers with me. In fact, if I go to bed before she's ready, she smacks me on the face with her paw until I lift up the quilt so she can go under and cuddle next to me. (Rocky...well, he's usually somewhere close by. He's kind of all over, depending on his mood.) I felt their absence keenly.
Alas, there wouldn't have been any room for tiny Starbuck in this bed. I likened it to sleeping on a coffee table. It was the smallest bed I've ever seen, and while I like them firm, goodness gracious! My roommate called it a good Christian mattress* (he was being cynical, like all proper Episcopalians). Oh, my roommate was 80. Yes, he snored.
Still, it was a beautiful morning.
Our retreat was cut short because the conference center kicked us out; apparently they checked with the weather service and said, "If you don't leave now, you won't be able to leave for two days." Basically we got as far as agreeing we need a third service, but we didn't decide when or what it should be. (I vote for evensong!!!!) Our carpool also ratified a decision to stop in Troutdale for lattes.* * * * * * * * *
Here's Starbuck in front of the fire while I watch my TiVo'd Keith Olbermann. Honestly...does this look comfortable?
Here's another view. She looks like she fell off a cliff, right? Maybe it's yoga.* So small that missionary is the only position that could possibly work and so hard that it wouldn't be much fun.
Saturday, February 02, 2008
The Inevitability of Gay Marriage
It's official: Oregon's statewide domestic partnership law goes into effect on Monday.
Last year, both houses of the Oregon legislature passed a bill establishing domestic partnerships for same-sex couples, granting them all the rights, responsibilities and protections of civil marriage. The governor signed the bill. Opponents began a petition drive to remand the bill to the voters, but failed to gather enough signatures. They then sued the state, claiming that some signatures were improperly invalidated and on December 28, just five days before the law was scheduled to go into effect, US District Judge Michael Mosman suspended the law pending a hearing on the alleged irregularities.
At the hearing on Friday, Judge Mosman ruled that the petition had failed and that same-sex couples could begin registering on February 4.
The Alliance Defense Fund, a right-wing activist organization based in Arizona, is considering an appeal. “In America, every citizen’s voice counts. Government bureaucrats cannot decide what is best for the people of Oregon. We are considering all options for appeal of today’s decision on behalf of disenfranchised Oregonians,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks in a press release.
This is why gay marriage in the United States is inevitable: the opponents have no case.
Let's deconstruct ADF's statement a bit. Government bureaucrats? You mean, the legislature? Let's review our gay marriage battle history: first there were the court victories, when the bigots argued that "unelected, unaccountable activist judges" had no business meddling in marriage, which was rightfully regulated by the legislature. Now that the legislature -- elected by and accountable to the people -- has enacted a new law, they're no longer representatives, they're "government bureaucrats"? Then you guys utilized your right to challenge the law by putting it up for popular vote. Every citizen's voice counts? Dude, you couldn't find anyone to sign your petition.
This law has been reviewed and approved by the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the state government, and now the voters (by means of a petition) have rejected an attempt to overturn the law. Yet you respond, "Our country is founded on the basic principle of government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It should stay that way in Oregon," as blathered by Nimocks.
Yes. And you lost, every step of the way. I think the people have spoken, honey.
* * * * * * *
Post-script for legal nerds: Judge Mosman, a Mormon, Republican Bush-appointee, cited Bush v. Gore as part of the basis of his ruling.
* * * * * * *
I would have blogged on this yesterday, except this anti-war, pro-universal-healthcare, gay, Barack-Obama-endorsing liberal got himself elected to the parish vestry and was on a church retreat until late this afternoon. So put that in your pipe and smoke it, you silly conservatives.
Last year, both houses of the Oregon legislature passed a bill establishing domestic partnerships for same-sex couples, granting them all the rights, responsibilities and protections of civil marriage. The governor signed the bill. Opponents began a petition drive to remand the bill to the voters, but failed to gather enough signatures. They then sued the state, claiming that some signatures were improperly invalidated and on December 28, just five days before the law was scheduled to go into effect, US District Judge Michael Mosman suspended the law pending a hearing on the alleged irregularities.
At the hearing on Friday, Judge Mosman ruled that the petition had failed and that same-sex couples could begin registering on February 4.
The Alliance Defense Fund, a right-wing activist organization based in Arizona, is considering an appeal. “In America, every citizen’s voice counts. Government bureaucrats cannot decide what is best for the people of Oregon. We are considering all options for appeal of today’s decision on behalf of disenfranchised Oregonians,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks in a press release.
This is why gay marriage in the United States is inevitable: the opponents have no case.
Let's deconstruct ADF's statement a bit. Government bureaucrats? You mean, the legislature? Let's review our gay marriage battle history: first there were the court victories, when the bigots argued that "unelected, unaccountable activist judges" had no business meddling in marriage, which was rightfully regulated by the legislature. Now that the legislature -- elected by and accountable to the people -- has enacted a new law, they're no longer representatives, they're "government bureaucrats"? Then you guys utilized your right to challenge the law by putting it up for popular vote. Every citizen's voice counts? Dude, you couldn't find anyone to sign your petition.
This law has been reviewed and approved by the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the state government, and now the voters (by means of a petition) have rejected an attempt to overturn the law. Yet you respond, "Our country is founded on the basic principle of government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It should stay that way in Oregon," as blathered by Nimocks.
Yes. And you lost, every step of the way. I think the people have spoken, honey.
* * * * * * *
Post-script for legal nerds: Judge Mosman, a Mormon, Republican Bush-appointee, cited Bush v. Gore as part of the basis of his ruling.
* * * * * * *
I would have blogged on this yesterday, except this anti-war, pro-universal-healthcare, gay, Barack-Obama-endorsing liberal got himself elected to the parish vestry and was on a church retreat until late this afternoon. So put that in your pipe and smoke it, you silly conservatives.
Friday, February 01, 2008
An Open Letter to Tsunami Tuesday Voters
Oregon's primary, May 20, is the last in the nation. There is a good possibility that my vote will have no effect on the nominating process for the presidential candidates. Therefore, I urge you to cast your vote this Tuesday for Senator Barack Obama.
I think Senator Clinton would make a fine president; we could certainly do worse! But I also think we could do much better. In terms of policy proposals, there isn't much difference between the two candidates, so making the case for one over the other means evaluating candidates on the basis of their integrity and their judgment. It is difficult to go into detail without this devolving into an attack on Hillary Clinton, which is not my intent. I think she's capable. But she's the wrong choice, nonetheless.
Senator Obama represents a clean break from the vicious, simplistic partisan hackery of the last twenty years. It is not true that he is substantially less qualified than Senator Clinton, and even if that were the case, experience is worth nothing if it's not coupled with sound judgment. Senator Clinton has a demonstrable history and ongoing practice of choosing politics over principle. Her continued defense of the irresponsible, illegal and immoral decision to invade Iraq disqualifies her from the highest office.
Please vote this Tuesday; democracy is nothing without our participation. And when you vote, choose change. Choose Obama.
I think Senator Clinton would make a fine president; we could certainly do worse! But I also think we could do much better. In terms of policy proposals, there isn't much difference between the two candidates, so making the case for one over the other means evaluating candidates on the basis of their integrity and their judgment. It is difficult to go into detail without this devolving into an attack on Hillary Clinton, which is not my intent. I think she's capable. But she's the wrong choice, nonetheless.
Senator Obama represents a clean break from the vicious, simplistic partisan hackery of the last twenty years. It is not true that he is substantially less qualified than Senator Clinton, and even if that were the case, experience is worth nothing if it's not coupled with sound judgment. Senator Clinton has a demonstrable history and ongoing practice of choosing politics over principle. Her continued defense of the irresponsible, illegal and immoral decision to invade Iraq disqualifies her from the highest office.
Please vote this Tuesday; democracy is nothing without our participation. And when you vote, choose change. Choose Obama.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Better than finding a $20 in your pocket
Tonight I decided it was time to clean out my car (a backseat full of receipts and Google Maps print-outs) and I discovered a bottle of white wine in the rear footwell that I didn't even know was there. Score!
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
My Horoscope Says I'm Good with Leos
Did anyone watch American Idol last night?
Sigh. I'm in love. Not the most flattering picture of him, but this guy was adorable. He cried! Aw.
Let's hear it for corn-fed Iowa boys, whoo!
Sigh. I'm in love. Not the most flattering picture of him, but this guy was adorable. He cried! Aw.
Let's hear it for corn-fed Iowa boys, whoo!
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
The Doomsday Vagina
From this week's Hal Lindsey Report:
"[Jesus] said, 'I am going to prepare a place for you. And if I prepare a place for you, I will come that you may be with me where I am.' [John 14:2b-3] I believe that that could happen to anyone. I call it The Great Snatch."
"[Jesus] said, 'I am going to prepare a place for you. And if I prepare a place for you, I will come that you may be with me where I am.' [John 14:2b-3] I believe that that could happen to anyone. I call it The Great Snatch."
Monday, January 28, 2008
Huckanomics
You can mock Mike Huckabee all you want for fried squirrel, his populist-sounding but regressive and impractical national sales tax plan and his indefensible flag comments in South Carolina, but when it comes to the economic stimulus package agreed upon by Congress and the President, Huckabee is the only candidate with the guts to call "Bullshit!"
The plan calls for giving $100 billion in "rebates" to middle-class taxpayers, working out to about $600 per individual.
It won't help. Here's why, according to Paul Krugman: "[T]he bulk of the money would go to people who are doing O.K. financially — which misses the whole point....If the money the government lays out doesn’t get spent — if it just gets added to people’s bank accounts or used to pay off debts — the plan will have failed. And sending checks to people in good financial shape does little or nothing to increase overall spending. People who have good incomes, good credit and secure employment make spending decisions based on their long-term earning power rather than the size of their latest paycheck. Give such people a few hundred extra dollars, and they’ll just put it in the bank."
Don't get me wrong; I'm looking forward to my $600. But when I first heard about the plan and started thinking about what I would do with the money, I decided that about 10% would go to savings and the rest would go to SallieMae and the modest credit card debt I racked up from my move last year. Maybe I'd spend about $100 on "new" stuff.
In any event, a single injection of $600 isn't going to do very much to help anyone on an individual or household basis. If you're losing your house, $600 probably won't even give you one mortgage payment. A single month's premium for family health insurance can cost much more than $600. You'd be lucky to buy two plane tickets for that amount. I'm not saying that there aren't people in this country who couldn't desperately use $600; I'm just pointing out that it won't solve anyone's long-term problems.
Even St. Barack doesn't get this one right; his stimulus package proposes a more modest rebate of $250. Though his plan includes more low-income people, I don't see how $250 is meaningful help, even to the desperate. His argument for the lower dollar amount is that it could be disbursed more quickly, but the real obstacle is that the IRS is presently gearing up for tax season. It doesn't matter (much) what the size of the check is; the IRS can't get us our "rebates" until June.
So the proposed "rebates" are too small to be of any particular individual aid and are mostly going to people who won't actually pump it into the economy. But guess what else is wrong with this idea?
“The problem I have is that what we are really doing is borrowing about $150 billion from the Chinese, which is where this money has got to end up coming from." That's Mike Huckabee, speaking recently to CNN, echoing the comments he made at the South Carolina Republican debate. So it's not actually a "rebate"; Congress is not returning some of our tax dollars, they're taking out a loan in our names to pander to us in election season. That $600 I'm "getting" in June is not a refund; I have to pay it back. To China. With interest.
Huckabee also astutely points out the trade deficit, noting that so many products people might choose to buy with their "rebate" come from China. “So I have to ask,” he added, “whose economy is being stimulated the most?”
The former Arkansas governor argues -- and I agree -- that if the government is going to spend $150 billion, they should start some kind of public works project. Pay that money to American companies, who will pay (and maybe even hire new) employees and purchase goods from American companies, and in the end the American people will get something tangible out of the deal (Huckabee recommends the national infrastructure, like bridges and highways). So the employees of those companies get put to work, get paid, and then they'll spend that money right into the economy.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson tried to rebuff Huckabee's claims, saying that the point of the stimulus package is to get money into the economy right away, and a public works project would take a long time to get going. You could say that's a valid point, except that the "rebate" checks aren't coming for five months and aren't going to help, anyway. I'd rather have a plan that worked (even if the effects weren't felt for a year) than a boondoggle that kicked in immediately.
Note also that Paulson did not try to rebut Huckabee's claims that it's all just a loan from China.
I am not stimulated.
The plan calls for giving $100 billion in "rebates" to middle-class taxpayers, working out to about $600 per individual.
It won't help. Here's why, according to Paul Krugman: "[T]he bulk of the money would go to people who are doing O.K. financially — which misses the whole point....If the money the government lays out doesn’t get spent — if it just gets added to people’s bank accounts or used to pay off debts — the plan will have failed. And sending checks to people in good financial shape does little or nothing to increase overall spending. People who have good incomes, good credit and secure employment make spending decisions based on their long-term earning power rather than the size of their latest paycheck. Give such people a few hundred extra dollars, and they’ll just put it in the bank."
Don't get me wrong; I'm looking forward to my $600. But when I first heard about the plan and started thinking about what I would do with the money, I decided that about 10% would go to savings and the rest would go to SallieMae and the modest credit card debt I racked up from my move last year. Maybe I'd spend about $100 on "new" stuff.
In any event, a single injection of $600 isn't going to do very much to help anyone on an individual or household basis. If you're losing your house, $600 probably won't even give you one mortgage payment. A single month's premium for family health insurance can cost much more than $600. You'd be lucky to buy two plane tickets for that amount. I'm not saying that there aren't people in this country who couldn't desperately use $600; I'm just pointing out that it won't solve anyone's long-term problems.
Even St. Barack doesn't get this one right; his stimulus package proposes a more modest rebate of $250. Though his plan includes more low-income people, I don't see how $250 is meaningful help, even to the desperate. His argument for the lower dollar amount is that it could be disbursed more quickly, but the real obstacle is that the IRS is presently gearing up for tax season. It doesn't matter (much) what the size of the check is; the IRS can't get us our "rebates" until June.
So the proposed "rebates" are too small to be of any particular individual aid and are mostly going to people who won't actually pump it into the economy. But guess what else is wrong with this idea?
“The problem I have is that what we are really doing is borrowing about $150 billion from the Chinese, which is where this money has got to end up coming from." That's Mike Huckabee, speaking recently to CNN, echoing the comments he made at the South Carolina Republican debate. So it's not actually a "rebate"; Congress is not returning some of our tax dollars, they're taking out a loan in our names to pander to us in election season. That $600 I'm "getting" in June is not a refund; I have to pay it back. To China. With interest.
Huckabee also astutely points out the trade deficit, noting that so many products people might choose to buy with their "rebate" come from China. “So I have to ask,” he added, “whose economy is being stimulated the most?”
The former Arkansas governor argues -- and I agree -- that if the government is going to spend $150 billion, they should start some kind of public works project. Pay that money to American companies, who will pay (and maybe even hire new) employees and purchase goods from American companies, and in the end the American people will get something tangible out of the deal (Huckabee recommends the national infrastructure, like bridges and highways). So the employees of those companies get put to work, get paid, and then they'll spend that money right into the economy.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson tried to rebuff Huckabee's claims, saying that the point of the stimulus package is to get money into the economy right away, and a public works project would take a long time to get going. You could say that's a valid point, except that the "rebate" checks aren't coming for five months and aren't going to help, anyway. I'd rather have a plan that worked (even if the effects weren't felt for a year) than a boondoggle that kicked in immediately.
Note also that Paulson did not try to rebut Huckabee's claims that it's all just a loan from China.
I am not stimulated.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Friday, January 25, 2008
Okay. This is Cool.
I like to check in with my Sitemeter stats every now and then. I'm less interested in the number of hits (averaging 130-150 real vists per day) than in how people find me, which I can determine by clicking on the "Referrals" link.
I am a top Google search result for the Hal Lindsey Report, and have also recently been found (repeatedly) by someone Googling "RELIGION IS A SCAM" and "Republicans Are Idiots."
By far, however, the search that lands more people on my blog is "final 5 cylons," or some variation thereof. Today I was found by someone using Google.de.
Ausgezeichnet.
I am a top Google search result for the Hal Lindsey Report, and have also recently been found (repeatedly) by someone Googling "RELIGION IS A SCAM" and "Republicans Are Idiots."
By far, however, the search that lands more people on my blog is "final 5 cylons," or some variation thereof. Today I was found by someone using Google.de.
Ausgezeichnet.
South Carolina
I want John Edwards to win South Carolina.
This has been a deeply distressing week for progressives. We have three talented, brilliant, qualified and capable horses in this race, which should be cause for confidence and optimism. In terms of policies, there is hardly any "daylight," as the pundits put it, between the front-runners. We should be like Democrats in a candy store: we can only pick one, but all our potential choices are good ones. (The Republicans, on the other hand, are looking for champagne in a fertilizer store.)
Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton doesn't see it that way. Frustrated -- that was the term she used to describe Senator Obama -- and scared that she's actually facing some competition in this race, she resorted to political theater of the cheapest variety, grossly distorting her nearest challenger's record and taking fragments of his statements out of context and spinning them 180 degrees. Her claims have been reviewed by every news agency in the country and found totally lacking in merit: it's obvious Obama doesn't agree with Ronald Reagan; he was always against the Iraq war; he was counseled to vote "present" on the anti-abortion bill by Planned Parenthood; and while he's admitted to some minor errors in judgment regarding his relationship with Tony Rezko, it was nothing on the order of, say, the Giuliani-Kerik partnership. Mrs. Clinton is not one to be discussing minor errors in judgment, especially since she has yet to apologize for her Iraq vote.
Obama naturally had to respond to Clinton's distortions, but it was disappointing and unseemly of a man who has promised us a different kind of politics to include jabs of his own at the former First Lady. Granted, his have all been true, but the tone of back-and-forth one-upmanship was unhelpful and unflattering to both.
Senator Obama currently leads in the South Carolina polls, but there's a giant undecided vote floating around out there tonight: 36%, according to a report I heard on NPR while driving home tonight. I am hoping those votes go to John Edwards. Senators Clinton and Obama deserve to be sent a resounding message that we are tired of politics as usual and are hungry for someone to transcend the fray. Frankly, we have bigger concerns than whether Hillary once served on the board of Wal*Mart. Not that anyone should vote for Edwards merely to spite the so-called front-runners; he's a fine candidate in his own right, and is my dream choice for Attorney General in the next administration. (Can you imagine an anti-torture, pro-labor AG? Drool!)
Okay, let's talk about the elephant in the room: Race.
This same NPR report was dissecting the polls and discussing that Obama has 75% of black support in South Carolina, but only 10% of whites. The question posed to the pollster was [in my paraphrase], "Does that not bode well for his national chances, if he can only gain 10% of the white vote?"
Ay caramba. So, essentially, what we're asking here is: if Obama wins South Carolina, does it count because they're only black votes? And this coming from NPR!
Look, folks. This is South Carolina. This is the state that still has the confederate battle flag flying on the grounds of the capital. And we're supposed to extrapolate his 10% support among whites in South Carolina to divine his national chances? After he won 95% white Iowa and finished a strong second in 96% white New Hampshire?
The big issue is not whether one Democratic contender is right and the others are not; they're all on the same page. The question is, who is going to go to the ruins of Washington left by the Bush administration and put it back together in a new and better way? Let's hear fewer -- how about no! -- meaningless personal barbs and more concrete visions for fixing this country. Yes, wonkiness doesn't make for great TV but this in-fighting only helps the Republicans.
* * * * *
I have been pondering lately whether I would be able to vote for Hillary Clinton if she were the Democratic nominee, and I've decided yes, I'd have to. I think actually in many ways John McCain might make a fine president, but there are other matters at stake: there's the Supreme Court, there's the DOJ, and there's the war. I'm not a fan of Hillary, but none of the Republicans are capable of doing the right thing on any of those fronts. This country and this planet cannot afford a president who still thinks there's anything left to "win" in Iraq. We can't afford another right-wing ideologue nutjob on the court, and we need an AG who will actually bring accused terrorists to justice, rather than letting anonymous people rot untried in prison on the basis of a rogue president's authority alone.
This has been a deeply distressing week for progressives. We have three talented, brilliant, qualified and capable horses in this race, which should be cause for confidence and optimism. In terms of policies, there is hardly any "daylight," as the pundits put it, between the front-runners. We should be like Democrats in a candy store: we can only pick one, but all our potential choices are good ones. (The Republicans, on the other hand, are looking for champagne in a fertilizer store.)
Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton doesn't see it that way. Frustrated -- that was the term she used to describe Senator Obama -- and scared that she's actually facing some competition in this race, she resorted to political theater of the cheapest variety, grossly distorting her nearest challenger's record and taking fragments of his statements out of context and spinning them 180 degrees. Her claims have been reviewed by every news agency in the country and found totally lacking in merit: it's obvious Obama doesn't agree with Ronald Reagan; he was always against the Iraq war; he was counseled to vote "present" on the anti-abortion bill by Planned Parenthood; and while he's admitted to some minor errors in judgment regarding his relationship with Tony Rezko, it was nothing on the order of, say, the Giuliani-Kerik partnership. Mrs. Clinton is not one to be discussing minor errors in judgment, especially since she has yet to apologize for her Iraq vote.
Obama naturally had to respond to Clinton's distortions, but it was disappointing and unseemly of a man who has promised us a different kind of politics to include jabs of his own at the former First Lady. Granted, his have all been true, but the tone of back-and-forth one-upmanship was unhelpful and unflattering to both.
Senator Obama currently leads in the South Carolina polls, but there's a giant undecided vote floating around out there tonight: 36%, according to a report I heard on NPR while driving home tonight. I am hoping those votes go to John Edwards. Senators Clinton and Obama deserve to be sent a resounding message that we are tired of politics as usual and are hungry for someone to transcend the fray. Frankly, we have bigger concerns than whether Hillary once served on the board of Wal*Mart. Not that anyone should vote for Edwards merely to spite the so-called front-runners; he's a fine candidate in his own right, and is my dream choice for Attorney General in the next administration. (Can you imagine an anti-torture, pro-labor AG? Drool!)
Okay, let's talk about the elephant in the room: Race.
This same NPR report was dissecting the polls and discussing that Obama has 75% of black support in South Carolina, but only 10% of whites. The question posed to the pollster was [in my paraphrase], "Does that not bode well for his national chances, if he can only gain 10% of the white vote?"
Ay caramba. So, essentially, what we're asking here is: if Obama wins South Carolina, does it count because they're only black votes? And this coming from NPR!
Look, folks. This is South Carolina. This is the state that still has the confederate battle flag flying on the grounds of the capital. And we're supposed to extrapolate his 10% support among whites in South Carolina to divine his national chances? After he won 95% white Iowa and finished a strong second in 96% white New Hampshire?
The big issue is not whether one Democratic contender is right and the others are not; they're all on the same page. The question is, who is going to go to the ruins of Washington left by the Bush administration and put it back together in a new and better way? Let's hear fewer -- how about no! -- meaningless personal barbs and more concrete visions for fixing this country. Yes, wonkiness doesn't make for great TV but this in-fighting only helps the Republicans.
* * * * *
I have been pondering lately whether I would be able to vote for Hillary Clinton if she were the Democratic nominee, and I've decided yes, I'd have to. I think actually in many ways John McCain might make a fine president, but there are other matters at stake: there's the Supreme Court, there's the DOJ, and there's the war. I'm not a fan of Hillary, but none of the Republicans are capable of doing the right thing on any of those fronts. This country and this planet cannot afford a president who still thinks there's anything left to "win" in Iraq. We can't afford another right-wing ideologue nutjob on the court, and we need an AG who will actually bring accused terrorists to justice, rather than letting anonymous people rot untried in prison on the basis of a rogue president's authority alone.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Airliners I Have Known & Loved
I like airliners.
I don’t know why. (Feel free to advance a Freudian theory.) Thanks to all the post-9/11 security nonsense and the general mismanagement of the airline industry I don’t particularly enjoy flying anymore, but I still love airliners.
When I was a young teen, I used to ride the bus out to the Portland Airport just to hang out and watch planes. (That was back in the day when you could get to the gates without a ticket and you didn’t have to take off your shoes and belt.) PDX in the ‘80s wasn’t super exciting, unless you had a thing for 737’s, 727’s and MD80’s. Me, I preferred the big ones. (Again, Freudian?) There was a TWA L1011 that flew daily to JFK via Seattle, but it was a redeye and was only seen at Portland late at night; likewise the old Hawaiian L1011s came in at night and left at dawn. When Eastern went belly-up there was an A300B stuck out on the tarmac for weeks. So life at PDX was pretty dull, until Delta started up a mini Asian hub with nonstops to Tokyo, Nagoya and Seoul using L1011-500’s. (The latter flight continued on to Taipei and Bangkok.)
See, I know where these planes went because I also collected timetables. I actually read them. Yes, I would sit and read timetables. Like, more than once. I read them so much that when updates came out, I would notice things, like, Continental reduced its daily flights from Wichita to Houston. So even though the planes from Portland didn’t go anywhere interesting, I loved poring over TWA’s flights to Europe or Eastern’s to South America or United’s to Asia. I had a particular passion for Continental’s Pacific routes; it was some weird thrill to know when the flight from Yap to Truk was. When Delta took over PanAm’s European routes and started flying to random places like Dubrovnik, I about had a heart-attack from excitement.
My collection, of course, was limited to tables I could pick up at boring old PDX, just the big American carriers. But one day, flipping through the yellow pages (this is how we surfed the internet in the 1980s) and looking at the airline ads, I had the brilliant realization that the yellow pages from a bigger city would have more ads. And the Multnomah County Library had the New York City phonebook. So I went downtown and wrote down the 800 numbers for all the foreign airline offices in New York and called and requested timetables. What must my parents have thought when schedules for Air Afrique and Cathay Pacific started coming in the mail? Screw Wichita; now I could memorize the available routes from Geneva to Islamabad.
I about hyperventilated anytime I got to actually travel through a big airport. In 1990, when my high school marching band went to Hawaii for a competition, I took off on my free time…and went back to the airport. That was where I saw my first real-live 747-400 (Singapore Airlines to Los Angeles via Taipei). While I was still orgasming over this milestone sighting, a second one pulled in right next to it, from Malaysia Airlines. That summer I traveled to Japan as an exchange student and about died at Narita; yeah, that was 18 years ago now, but I still remember seeing an Iran Air 747-SP and an Aeroflot IL-62, among others. Most people don’t remember (because they don’t care) the kind of plane they just disembarked from, let alone a plane they didn’t ride on two decades earlier.
JFK, of course, has an amazing variety of airliners, but the terminals are lousy for plane spotting. My favorite was Zurich; the airport has an open-air observation deck on the roof of one of the concourses, which puts you at right about cockpit-level on a 747. I was so homesick there that I used to stare at the New York-bound Delta 767-300’s with a seriously intense longing, as I huffed the fumes. Good stuff.
Wish there was a way to make money with this.
I don’t know why. (Feel free to advance a Freudian theory.) Thanks to all the post-9/11 security nonsense and the general mismanagement of the airline industry I don’t particularly enjoy flying anymore, but I still love airliners.
When I was a young teen, I used to ride the bus out to the Portland Airport just to hang out and watch planes. (That was back in the day when you could get to the gates without a ticket and you didn’t have to take off your shoes and belt.) PDX in the ‘80s wasn’t super exciting, unless you had a thing for 737’s, 727’s and MD80’s. Me, I preferred the big ones. (Again, Freudian?) There was a TWA L1011 that flew daily to JFK via Seattle, but it was a redeye and was only seen at Portland late at night; likewise the old Hawaiian L1011s came in at night and left at dawn. When Eastern went belly-up there was an A300B stuck out on the tarmac for weeks. So life at PDX was pretty dull, until Delta started up a mini Asian hub with nonstops to Tokyo, Nagoya and Seoul using L1011-500’s. (The latter flight continued on to Taipei and Bangkok.)
See, I know where these planes went because I also collected timetables. I actually read them. Yes, I would sit and read timetables. Like, more than once. I read them so much that when updates came out, I would notice things, like, Continental reduced its daily flights from Wichita to Houston. So even though the planes from Portland didn’t go anywhere interesting, I loved poring over TWA’s flights to Europe or Eastern’s to South America or United’s to Asia. I had a particular passion for Continental’s Pacific routes; it was some weird thrill to know when the flight from Yap to Truk was. When Delta took over PanAm’s European routes and started flying to random places like Dubrovnik, I about had a heart-attack from excitement.My collection, of course, was limited to tables I could pick up at boring old PDX, just the big American carriers. But one day, flipping through the yellow pages (this is how we surfed the internet in the 1980s) and looking at the airline ads, I had the brilliant realization that the yellow pages from a bigger city would have more ads. And the Multnomah County Library had the New York City phonebook. So I went downtown and wrote down the 800 numbers for all the foreign airline offices in New York and called and requested timetables. What must my parents have thought when schedules for Air Afrique and Cathay Pacific started coming in the mail? Screw Wichita; now I could memorize the available routes from Geneva to Islamabad.
I about hyperventilated anytime I got to actually travel through a big airport. In 1990, when my high school marching band went to Hawaii for a competition, I took off on my free time…and went back to the airport. That was where I saw my first real-live 747-400 (Singapore Airlines to Los Angeles via Taipei). While I was still orgasming over this milestone sighting, a second one pulled in right next to it, from Malaysia Airlines. That summer I traveled to Japan as an exchange student and about died at Narita; yeah, that was 18 years ago now, but I still remember seeing an Iran Air 747-SP and an Aeroflot IL-62, among others. Most people don’t remember (because they don’t care) the kind of plane they just disembarked from, let alone a plane they didn’t ride on two decades earlier.
JFK, of course, has an amazing variety of airliners, but the terminals are lousy for plane spotting. My favorite was Zurich; the airport has an open-air observation deck on the roof of one of the concourses, which puts you at right about cockpit-level on a 747. I was so homesick there that I used to stare at the New York-bound Delta 767-300’s with a seriously intense longing, as I huffed the fumes. Good stuff.Wish there was a way to make money with this.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Dump Huck
I confess.
Recently I'd been thinking that even though I wildly disagree with Mike Huckabee on a variety of issues, he might not be so bad, since he seemed plainspoken, genuinely humorous and sincere, qualities which cannot be ascribed to anyone else running for the office on the Republican ticket or to Hillary Clinton.
Yes, I genuinely entertained the notion that if Clinton won the Democratic nomination, my options would be Huckabee (if he's on the ballot) or abstaining. I don't think he's dumb; intellectually he's far sharper than the incumbent. He is right to have criticized our "arrogant" foreign policy and the president's "bunker mentality." He is right to have criticized Donald Rumsfeld's prosecution of the Iraq war. He is right to say that Americans would prefer to have a president who reminds them of the guy they work with, rather than the guy who laid them off. He is right to envision a radical overhaul of the tax code (even if his idea in practice probably hurts most the people he's trying to help). He is right to insist on not punishing the children of illegal immigrants. He might reject evolution, but he doesn't deny the impending disaster of climate change and the necessity of conservation and sustainable technologies. (If you go to his campaign website and look on the "Issues" page, the environment is the first subject he raises under the heading "Faith and Politics.")
And what to make of his easy rapport with sheep-in-wolf's clothing and liberal icon Stephen Colbert? He couldn't possibly misunderstand Colbert's lethally satirical parody of right-wing talking-points; was this the rare social conservative who could tap into the incredibly broad disgust with the Washington status quo and, instead of blaming the latte and chardonnay crowd for the nation's ills, actually court them?
But then came this article in The Nation, "The Real Mike Huckabee." Caveat: the premise rests largely on the unsubstantiated assertions of Arkansas Baptist minister Jay Cole, who claims that Huckabee is a firm believer in "End Times" eschatology. It is true that Huckabee has won the endorsement of Tim LaHaye, co-author of the Left Behind novels. Hello, red flag. The next president of the United States needs to have a particularly firm grasp of foreign policy, which already was one of Huckabee's glaring weak spots. The prospect, however, of having a president who believes that the Antichrist* will be manifested as the Secretary General of the United Nations is a dismal one. The last thing we need in the White House is a Christian Zionist who believes that Israel must be preserved and protected at all costs in order to provide a safe-haven for the prophesied "in-gathering" of the Jews so that they are all in one convenient location for Jesus to come back and destroy them. And what to make of the calls for conservation and green technology by someone who presumably believes that he might well be "raptured" off the earth before his term is up? If Huckabee's beliefs are in line with LaHaye's, then there are some questions that he should answer for the American public. (Slacktivist outlines them here.)
The proverbial final straw, however, was his comment regarding the confederate flag in South Carolina. To wit: You don't like people from outside the state coming in and telling you what to do with your flag. In fact, if somebody came to Arkansas and told us what to do with our flag, we'd tell 'em what to do with the pole; that's what we'd do.
Christopher Hitchens does a fine job deconstructing the political and historical fallacies in this boast, but I want to talk about something else.
Don't get me wrong; I was never so naive as to think Huckabee was a friend of the gay community, but forgive me for thinking a sincere bigot is preferable to a panderer who courts my vote and then consistently abandons me when the political chips are down. Rejection on misguided principle I can handle; betrayal for political expedience I resent.
Let's first address the states' rights issues to which he alluded; last year, both houses of the Oregon legislature passed a bill establishing domestic partnerships for same-sex couples in the state; the bill was signed by the Governor; a petition was mounted to refer the issue to the voters but was ruled invalid, according to well-established guidelines, by the Secretary of State for insufficient signatures. The law was to go into effect on January 1, but the Alliance Defense Fund, an out of state right-wing activist organization, filed suit on behalf of the petitioners and on December 28, 2007 Judge Michael Mosman, a Bush appointee, granted them standing and suspended the law pending a hearing. Would Huckabee, in this case, support the interference of an out-of-state group coming in and suing us for respecting the dignity of our citizens?
"We'd tell 'em what to do with the pole." So in addition to the ghastly racist pandering and historical revisionism, Huckabee proposes -- for laughs, no less -- that those who dare to speak out against the endorsement of an established symbol of hatred and oppression should be sodomized with a flagpole. This is a comment grossly unbecoming of either a presidential candidate or a Christian minister.
Mike Huckabee, I'm done with you.
And now a challenge to South Carolina's favorite son: do not let this outrage go unmocked.
* There is no such thing as "the" Antichrist. The Bible does not point to only one person as being the antichrist but speaks of a class of persons. John, in scripture references, speaks of "many anti-Christs" who embody the spirit of the anti-Christ 1 John 4:3). John wrote that, such anti-Christs (or opponents of Christ) would deny: "that Jesus is the Christ"; "the Father and the Son"; and would "not confess Jesus came in the flesh."
Recently I'd been thinking that even though I wildly disagree with Mike Huckabee on a variety of issues, he might not be so bad, since he seemed plainspoken, genuinely humorous and sincere, qualities which cannot be ascribed to anyone else running for the office on the Republican ticket or to Hillary Clinton.
Yes, I genuinely entertained the notion that if Clinton won the Democratic nomination, my options would be Huckabee (if he's on the ballot) or abstaining. I don't think he's dumb; intellectually he's far sharper than the incumbent. He is right to have criticized our "arrogant" foreign policy and the president's "bunker mentality." He is right to have criticized Donald Rumsfeld's prosecution of the Iraq war. He is right to say that Americans would prefer to have a president who reminds them of the guy they work with, rather than the guy who laid them off. He is right to envision a radical overhaul of the tax code (even if his idea in practice probably hurts most the people he's trying to help). He is right to insist on not punishing the children of illegal immigrants. He might reject evolution, but he doesn't deny the impending disaster of climate change and the necessity of conservation and sustainable technologies. (If you go to his campaign website and look on the "Issues" page, the environment is the first subject he raises under the heading "Faith and Politics.")
And what to make of his easy rapport with sheep-in-wolf's clothing and liberal icon Stephen Colbert? He couldn't possibly misunderstand Colbert's lethally satirical parody of right-wing talking-points; was this the rare social conservative who could tap into the incredibly broad disgust with the Washington status quo and, instead of blaming the latte and chardonnay crowd for the nation's ills, actually court them?
But then came this article in The Nation, "The Real Mike Huckabee." Caveat: the premise rests largely on the unsubstantiated assertions of Arkansas Baptist minister Jay Cole, who claims that Huckabee is a firm believer in "End Times" eschatology. It is true that Huckabee has won the endorsement of Tim LaHaye, co-author of the Left Behind novels. Hello, red flag. The next president of the United States needs to have a particularly firm grasp of foreign policy, which already was one of Huckabee's glaring weak spots. The prospect, however, of having a president who believes that the Antichrist* will be manifested as the Secretary General of the United Nations is a dismal one. The last thing we need in the White House is a Christian Zionist who believes that Israel must be preserved and protected at all costs in order to provide a safe-haven for the prophesied "in-gathering" of the Jews so that they are all in one convenient location for Jesus to come back and destroy them. And what to make of the calls for conservation and green technology by someone who presumably believes that he might well be "raptured" off the earth before his term is up? If Huckabee's beliefs are in line with LaHaye's, then there are some questions that he should answer for the American public. (Slacktivist outlines them here.)
The proverbial final straw, however, was his comment regarding the confederate flag in South Carolina. To wit: You don't like people from outside the state coming in and telling you what to do with your flag. In fact, if somebody came to Arkansas and told us what to do with our flag, we'd tell 'em what to do with the pole; that's what we'd do.
Christopher Hitchens does a fine job deconstructing the political and historical fallacies in this boast, but I want to talk about something else.
Don't get me wrong; I was never so naive as to think Huckabee was a friend of the gay community, but forgive me for thinking a sincere bigot is preferable to a panderer who courts my vote and then consistently abandons me when the political chips are down. Rejection on misguided principle I can handle; betrayal for political expedience I resent.
Let's first address the states' rights issues to which he alluded; last year, both houses of the Oregon legislature passed a bill establishing domestic partnerships for same-sex couples in the state; the bill was signed by the Governor; a petition was mounted to refer the issue to the voters but was ruled invalid, according to well-established guidelines, by the Secretary of State for insufficient signatures. The law was to go into effect on January 1, but the Alliance Defense Fund, an out of state right-wing activist organization, filed suit on behalf of the petitioners and on December 28, 2007 Judge Michael Mosman, a Bush appointee, granted them standing and suspended the law pending a hearing. Would Huckabee, in this case, support the interference of an out-of-state group coming in and suing us for respecting the dignity of our citizens?
"We'd tell 'em what to do with the pole." So in addition to the ghastly racist pandering and historical revisionism, Huckabee proposes -- for laughs, no less -- that those who dare to speak out against the endorsement of an established symbol of hatred and oppression should be sodomized with a flagpole. This is a comment grossly unbecoming of either a presidential candidate or a Christian minister.
Mike Huckabee, I'm done with you.
And now a challenge to South Carolina's favorite son: do not let this outrage go unmocked.
* There is no such thing as "the" Antichrist. The Bible does not point to only one person as being the antichrist but speaks of a class of persons. John, in scripture references, speaks of "many anti-Christs" who embody the spirit of the anti-Christ 1 John 4:3). John wrote that, such anti-Christs (or opponents of Christ) would deny: "that Jesus is the Christ"; "the Father and the Son"; and would "not confess Jesus came in the flesh."
Monday, January 21, 2008
Pork of the Beast
On my way to the grocery store this morning I heard an interview on NPR with the mayor of a small Louisiana town that just got its telephone exchange changed from the "666-" prefix because of its inauspicious "End Times" associations.
So while I was perusing the pork chops a few minutes later I felt I really had no choice but to get this one. It was a sign.
And now for no reason aside from an obvious "awwwww" factor, here's how the cats spend a frigid winter day in front of the fire.
So while I was perusing the pork chops a few minutes later I felt I really had no choice but to get this one. It was a sign.
And now for no reason aside from an obvious "awwwww" factor, here's how the cats spend a frigid winter day in front of the fire.
Martin Luther King, Jr. Day: Required Reading
1. "Huck's Free Pass," by Christopher Hitchens.
2. Barack Obama's address to the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, yesterday.
**Hat tip: At the Mountains of Madness
2. Barack Obama's address to the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, yesterday.
**Hat tip: At the Mountains of Madness
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
On the Reliability of Fortune Cookies
Ummm...turns out, not so much.
Which prompts me to recall a classic Simpsons episode from the 5th season, "The Last Temptation of Homer."
Mindy: What's wrong?
Homer: [crying] We're going to have sex.
Mindy: Oh, well, we don't have to.
Homer: Yes we do. The cookie told me so.
Mindy: Well, desserts aren't always right.
Homer: But they're so sweet.
Which prompts me to recall a classic Simpsons episode from the 5th season, "The Last Temptation of Homer."
Mindy: What's wrong?
Homer: [crying] We're going to have sex.
Mindy: Oh, well, we don't have to.
Homer: Yes we do. The cookie told me so.
Mindy: Well, desserts aren't always right.
Homer: But they're so sweet.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Support for Obama Slips, Poll Shows
In a recent unscientific poll conducted by the blog The Last Debate, results indicated previously enthusiastic support for Barack Obama's quest for the presidency in 2008 has waned somewhat within the small but vocal gay community of Raleigh Hills, a southwest Portland suburb.
"I ordered my bumper sticker over a week ago," said an angry blogger who asked only to be identified as "Andy." "If he can't even get me a bumper sticker in a week's time, then I have to say I worry about what other promises he may be unable to keep," said Andy.
When asked if this meant that he was transferring his support to Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, Andy spluttered, "Oh, hell no. But part of me is hoping that Gay Penguin revives his unsuccessful bid from 2004."
"I ordered my bumper sticker over a week ago," said an angry blogger who asked only to be identified as "Andy." "If he can't even get me a bumper sticker in a week's time, then I have to say I worry about what other promises he may be unable to keep," said Andy.
When asked if this meant that he was transferring his support to Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, Andy spluttered, "Oh, hell no. But part of me is hoping that Gay Penguin revives his unsuccessful bid from 2004."
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Finding Voices
On Tuesday night in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton claimed to have finally found her own voice. I guess it's going around.
* * * * * * * * * *
Project Renaissance is underway. The score for Bach's St. Matthew Passion has arrived and I've begun learning the aria "Mache dich, mein Herze, rein." Last week I spoke to the music director at church and said I wanted to offer it around Easter time, and he said "Great."
I picked the perfect piece, really. It sits beautifully for me and more than anything requires breath control and alignment; it's not a "big" sing and doesn't go higher than an E-flat, so it is totally non-threatening and practicing it is like physical therapy for the voice. It's also therapy for my mind; concentrating this hard, listening and feeling carefully, analyzing and experimenting, I swear it's causing a part of my brain to light up that's been dormant for five years. It feels really good. And it's nice to hear the old voice again.
Recently, though, I spent some time thinking about why I'm doing this. Part of what was so hard for me about the collapse of my career is that -- even to me, who was suffering from it -- acid reflux sounded like no big deal. Everyone has that. Have a TUMS, you know? Pop a Nexium already. And although no one ever said as much, I had an overpowering conviction that the general assumption was this was an excuse I was making for why my career didn't go anywhere; too deluded about my own talent and unable to admit that I just wasn't that good, I had invented some story about a minor health disorder to cover up my mediocrity.
I've been complicit in that fable, too; for the last few years, I've taken to explaining to family and friends that well, it was nice, it was a good ride and I loved every minute of it, but it was time to put that aside and get a real job. And that, my friends, is what's called A FUCKING LIE.
So, yes, a big part of it is that I have something to prove. It happens nearly every week in church; the person who decides to sit in front of me turns around at the end of the service to compliment my sotto voce crooning during the hymns and say, "You have such a beautiful voice, you should be in the choir!" And while that's nice, I have to confess that behind my polite smile I'm thinking, "You have no idea."
Then I began to worry -- and rightly -- that this was perhaps not the best motivation or spirit in which to present a piece at a church service, and that if I wanted the world to sit up and take notice of how great I am, I should probably consider a different venue. Still, I felt called, as one might say, to offer this piece in this place in this year.
What attracted me to this aria was its beauty; I loved it the first time I heard it. There is something positively plangent about it. Each gentle dissonance tugs at my heart. If one were to think of the Passion as a dramatic work, this is the piece that is sung while Jesus' body is brought down from the cross. Ironically, as I begin to study it, I'm noticing that the text directly addresses the conflict I feel between wanting to prove myself and wanting to humbly offer something for the church, and so it has become a personal prayer in its own right about shaping the rightness of my intentions.
* * * * * * * * * *
Project Renaissance is underway. The score for Bach's St. Matthew Passion has arrived and I've begun learning the aria "Mache dich, mein Herze, rein." Last week I spoke to the music director at church and said I wanted to offer it around Easter time, and he said "Great."
I picked the perfect piece, really. It sits beautifully for me and more than anything requires breath control and alignment; it's not a "big" sing and doesn't go higher than an E-flat, so it is totally non-threatening and practicing it is like physical therapy for the voice. It's also therapy for my mind; concentrating this hard, listening and feeling carefully, analyzing and experimenting, I swear it's causing a part of my brain to light up that's been dormant for five years. It feels really good. And it's nice to hear the old voice again.
Recently, though, I spent some time thinking about why I'm doing this. Part of what was so hard for me about the collapse of my career is that -- even to me, who was suffering from it -- acid reflux sounded like no big deal. Everyone has that. Have a TUMS, you know? Pop a Nexium already. And although no one ever said as much, I had an overpowering conviction that the general assumption was this was an excuse I was making for why my career didn't go anywhere; too deluded about my own talent and unable to admit that I just wasn't that good, I had invented some story about a minor health disorder to cover up my mediocrity.
I've been complicit in that fable, too; for the last few years, I've taken to explaining to family and friends that well, it was nice, it was a good ride and I loved every minute of it, but it was time to put that aside and get a real job. And that, my friends, is what's called A FUCKING LIE.
So, yes, a big part of it is that I have something to prove. It happens nearly every week in church; the person who decides to sit in front of me turns around at the end of the service to compliment my sotto voce crooning during the hymns and say, "You have such a beautiful voice, you should be in the choir!" And while that's nice, I have to confess that behind my polite smile I'm thinking, "You have no idea."
Then I began to worry -- and rightly -- that this was perhaps not the best motivation or spirit in which to present a piece at a church service, and that if I wanted the world to sit up and take notice of how great I am, I should probably consider a different venue. Still, I felt called, as one might say, to offer this piece in this place in this year.
What attracted me to this aria was its beauty; I loved it the first time I heard it. There is something positively plangent about it. Each gentle dissonance tugs at my heart. If one were to think of the Passion as a dramatic work, this is the piece that is sung while Jesus' body is brought down from the cross. Ironically, as I begin to study it, I'm noticing that the text directly addresses the conflict I feel between wanting to prove myself and wanting to humbly offer something for the church, and so it has become a personal prayer in its own right about shaping the rightness of my intentions.
Make yourself, my heart, pure;
I want to bury Jesus myself,
that He should forever more
have sweet rest in me.
World, get out; let Jesus in.
I want to bury Jesus myself,
that He should forever more
have sweet rest in me.
World, get out; let Jesus in.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Wait...Obama is Black?
Oh, my word, the digital ink being spilled over the issues of race and gender in the Democratic primary.
There is all manner of bizarre speculation about how these factors play into the decision making processes of the electorate but – even disparaging as I am about the average American’s knowledge of and interest in politics – I think they’re not giving us enough credit.
The dumbest of these ponderings has to be Gloria Steinem’s Op-Ed in today’s New York Times, which so certainly will be one of the most talked-about editorials in the entire political cycle, I won’t bother to review it in detail other than to say, whuh? Where does Steinem get off claiming that “Women Are Never Front-Runners”? Has she forgotten that up until last Thursday, and for about the last year, Hillary Clinton was “the front-runner”? And, as I write, she is ahead of Obama in the New Hampshire returns and so may be again?
Does she think we’ve all been living in some sort of vacuum and only discovered a week ago that we had a black man and a white woman in the race and started changing our opinions because there’s some unspoken agreement that black men get to be president first?
I also really can't fathom the suggestion that white folks are supporting Obama because "it's time" we had a black president. After 7 years of President Bush, with all of the problems facing this country (economy, war, security, civil rights), no one is saying "let's try a black guy." We're saying, "We need someone who can fix this country." We'd vote for a Martian, if s/he had a convincing plan for getting us out of Iraq, saving the environment and restoring our global credibility (and if it weren't unconstitutional). Obama's skin color is merely a bonus, a milestone on the long national road toward reconciliation after our shameful past. The same goes for Clinton's gender: a nice, and important, milestone. We'll get there, this year, or some other year. But right now, we've got bigger problems.
I am glad that Clinton did so well in the New Hampshire primary, honestly. Our electoral system has some pretty enormous flaws, and it would be a tragedy if the nominee was crowned after one primary and a really silly caucus. There's a lot of campaigning left, and that's a good thing.
Hillary Clinton is a totally viable candidate. She's smart enough, she's experienced enough, she's tough enough (and that's not a sexist comment; I'm sure we can all think of men who couldn't handle it, either...hi!), and she's got solid policies. I wouldn't let her drive my car, but she's capable of governing the country.
So, on to the next primary, and may the best man win.
There is all manner of bizarre speculation about how these factors play into the decision making processes of the electorate but – even disparaging as I am about the average American’s knowledge of and interest in politics – I think they’re not giving us enough credit.
The dumbest of these ponderings has to be Gloria Steinem’s Op-Ed in today’s New York Times, which so certainly will be one of the most talked-about editorials in the entire political cycle, I won’t bother to review it in detail other than to say, whuh? Where does Steinem get off claiming that “Women Are Never Front-Runners”? Has she forgotten that up until last Thursday, and for about the last year, Hillary Clinton was “the front-runner”? And, as I write, she is ahead of Obama in the New Hampshire returns and so may be again?
Does she think we’ve all been living in some sort of vacuum and only discovered a week ago that we had a black man and a white woman in the race and started changing our opinions because there’s some unspoken agreement that black men get to be president first?
I also really can't fathom the suggestion that white folks are supporting Obama because "it's time" we had a black president. After 7 years of President Bush, with all of the problems facing this country (economy, war, security, civil rights), no one is saying "let's try a black guy." We're saying, "We need someone who can fix this country." We'd vote for a Martian, if s/he had a convincing plan for getting us out of Iraq, saving the environment and restoring our global credibility (and if it weren't unconstitutional). Obama's skin color is merely a bonus, a milestone on the long national road toward reconciliation after our shameful past. The same goes for Clinton's gender: a nice, and important, milestone. We'll get there, this year, or some other year. But right now, we've got bigger problems.
I am glad that Clinton did so well in the New Hampshire primary, honestly. Our electoral system has some pretty enormous flaws, and it would be a tragedy if the nominee was crowned after one primary and a really silly caucus. There's a lot of campaigning left, and that's a good thing.
Hillary Clinton is a totally viable candidate. She's smart enough, she's experienced enough, she's tough enough (and that's not a sexist comment; I'm sure we can all think of men who couldn't handle it, either...hi!), and she's got solid policies. I wouldn't let her drive my car, but she's capable of governing the country.
So, on to the next primary, and may the best man win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
