Thursday, February 28, 2008
Someone please tell me this is a joke
If it's not a joke (and I don't think it is) then it's the creepiest thing I've seen in a long time.
The true cost of war
It's sad that we have to rely on the British press to give us information about the true cost of the Iraq war.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Slimy tactics from David Dreier
I got a phone call this evening inviting me to "participate" (you'll see why I put the word in scare quotes in a moment) in a conference-call town-hall meeting with David Dreier. It struck me as a bit odd that I would get this call, not only because I'm a registered Democrat, but also because I'd gotten no notice, and usually these "town-hall meeting" calls are announced in advance (and usually you call them, they don't call you). Out of curiosity I decided to stay on the line and listen in.
After a recorded intro from Dreier and a briefing from the phone company ("If you'd like to ask a question, press zero" etc.) I was hooked in to the "meeting" which was already under way, and had been apparently for some time now. There were no preliminaries. I was dumped straight into the middle of a discussion going on between Dreier and someone else who was explaining how mandated health insurance can actually put people's lives in danger, or something like that. I wasn't entirely clear on the reasoning not having been privy to the first part of the conversation, but Dreier sounded as if he'd just had a revelation. "Really? I had no idea things were this bad. You say that it actually costs 1000 lives a year?" The other guy responded, "Yes, I have the documentation right here. I can send you a copy if you like." To which Dreier responded, "Please do. I had no idea things were this bad. Thank you for bringing this to my attention."
I wish I had had the presence of mind to record the exchange because it was pretty transparent to me that it was scripted. There were none of the conversational stumbles and false starts that invariably occur in a real impromptu conversation. Every word from both Dreier and the other guy flowed smoothly and without hesitation, to say nothing of the fact that no politician in his right mind would ever endorse a claim that he'd never heard of before because if it turned out to be false he could end up looking like a fool. The whole thing was a sham, but it was a pretty well done sham, and there is no doubt in my mind that many -- perhaps most -- people who heard it would have fallen for it.
Someone should call Dreier out on this.
After a recorded intro from Dreier and a briefing from the phone company ("If you'd like to ask a question, press zero" etc.) I was hooked in to the "meeting" which was already under way, and had been apparently for some time now. There were no preliminaries. I was dumped straight into the middle of a discussion going on between Dreier and someone else who was explaining how mandated health insurance can actually put people's lives in danger, or something like that. I wasn't entirely clear on the reasoning not having been privy to the first part of the conversation, but Dreier sounded as if he'd just had a revelation. "Really? I had no idea things were this bad. You say that it actually costs 1000 lives a year?" The other guy responded, "Yes, I have the documentation right here. I can send you a copy if you like." To which Dreier responded, "Please do. I had no idea things were this bad. Thank you for bringing this to my attention."
I wish I had had the presence of mind to record the exchange because it was pretty transparent to me that it was scripted. There were none of the conversational stumbles and false starts that invariably occur in a real impromptu conversation. Every word from both Dreier and the other guy flowed smoothly and without hesitation, to say nothing of the fact that no politician in his right mind would ever endorse a claim that he'd never heard of before because if it turned out to be false he could end up looking like a fool. The whole thing was a sham, but it was a pretty well done sham, and there is no doubt in my mind that many -- perhaps most -- people who heard it would have fallen for it.
Someone should call Dreier out on this.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
EXPERIENCE IS NOT WHAT IT IS CRACKED UP TO BE
Senator Clinton's campaign has offered her experience as the main reason why we should vote for her. We now hear the same refrain from the Republican candidate for the office of the Presidency, John McCain. The both claim that Senator Barack Obama lacks the requisite experience necessary for the job.
It is my contention that the job of President is unlike any other and that an extensive resume is not what we should necessarily be looking at. If you look at a list of the worst President's you will find men with extensive backgrounds, far more extensive then the present candidates but yet they did not measure up.
For example James Buchanan who became President in 1856, was Secretary of State, an ambassador, a member of the House for 10 years as well as the Senate for 10 years. He along with Warrren Harding and our current President can lay a strong claim to the title of worst president. Buchanan was succeeded by a man who only had two years in Congress and had been in the Illinois State Legislature. His name was Abraham Lincoln. What a contrast! Harding who had been Governor of Ohio even admitted after his election to office that he was not fit for the office he occupied. Perhaps we can only go up from here with the Bush Presidency being the benchmark to compare to.
Leadership and vision are not qualities that necessarily come from experience!
It is my contention that the job of President is unlike any other and that an extensive resume is not what we should necessarily be looking at. If you look at a list of the worst President's you will find men with extensive backgrounds, far more extensive then the present candidates but yet they did not measure up.
For example James Buchanan who became President in 1856, was Secretary of State, an ambassador, a member of the House for 10 years as well as the Senate for 10 years. He along with Warrren Harding and our current President can lay a strong claim to the title of worst president. Buchanan was succeeded by a man who only had two years in Congress and had been in the Illinois State Legislature. His name was Abraham Lincoln. What a contrast! Harding who had been Governor of Ohio even admitted after his election to office that he was not fit for the office he occupied. Perhaps we can only go up from here with the Bush Presidency being the benchmark to compare to.
Leadership and vision are not qualities that necessarily come from experience!
Monday, February 25, 2008
Materials from yesterday's meeting
Copies of Andy Winnick's presentation at yesterday's meeting and supporting materials are available here in both Word and PDF formats. Included is a resolution that was passed by the Claremont Democratic Club that Andy included. I haven't read it yet.
Warning: the maps and charts document in PDF format is about eight times bigger than the Word version (24 MB versus 8) so you should probably use the Word version if you can.
Warning: the maps and charts document in PDF format is about eight times bigger than the Word version (24 MB versus 8) so you should probably use the Word version if you can.
Earmarks
Did anyone else see the Bill Moyer's Journal last Friday, 22 Feb? He had a very interesting segment on earmarks.
The PBS website has links to two organizations who track earmarks in the budget. Check out:
http://www.taxpayer.net/
or
http://sunlightfoundation.com/
From the first one I learned the following levels of earmarks from some politicians of interest:
Feinstein $295 M
Boxer $92 M
Hillary Clinton $342 M
Obama $92 M
Dreier $20 M
Schiff $12 M
McCain - ZERO
In many cases the congress people receive large campaign contributions from the companies who receive earmarks - so it can be just a legal way of bribing the congress.
This immediately ties the issue into Campaign Finance Reform. We've got to get public funding for politicians. It will be much cheaper than the $12 B of earmarks in the budget.
Today I sent emails to Dreier, Clinton and Obama asking for a list of their earmarks (you can also get a list from the first web URL). One of the sites says that Dreier is one of the few who actually publish their list of earmarks. It will be interesting to see what comes back.
Hillary's office says they only respond to people from NY. I replied that she is running for president and needs to reply to anyone.
Maybe you can email your congressman or candidate and ask them about their earmarks. Maybe we can embarrass them into reform - but they are hard to embarrass.
Rody
The PBS website has links to two organizations who track earmarks in the budget. Check out:
http://www.taxpayer.net/
or
http://sunlightfoundation.com/
From the first one I learned the following levels of earmarks from some politicians of interest:
Feinstein $295 M
Boxer $92 M
Hillary Clinton $342 M
Obama $92 M
Dreier $20 M
Schiff $12 M
McCain - ZERO
In many cases the congress people receive large campaign contributions from the companies who receive earmarks - so it can be just a legal way of bribing the congress.
This immediately ties the issue into Campaign Finance Reform. We've got to get public funding for politicians. It will be much cheaper than the $12 B of earmarks in the budget.
Today I sent emails to Dreier, Clinton and Obama asking for a list of their earmarks (you can also get a list from the first web URL). One of the sites says that Dreier is one of the few who actually publish their list of earmarks. It will be interesting to see what comes back.
Hillary's office says they only respond to people from NY. I replied that she is running for president and needs to reply to anyone.
Maybe you can email your congressman or candidate and ask them about their earmarks. Maybe we can embarrass them into reform - but they are hard to embarrass.
Rody
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Two laughs for the price of one
I'm not sure which is funnier, Mike Huckabee's appearance on Saturday Night live or the fact that CNN didn't seem to understand that it was supposed to be funny.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Take my house ... please!
Just in case you have not yet had your recommended daily allowance of irony today, the LA Times reports that despite the new year's clearance sale currently underway in the real estate market, rents are going up.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Stirring the pot
Since I don't seem to be generating enough controversy with my second-amendment rants, maybe I'll have more luck with this.
40 million people
Geroge Bush's approval rating has reached a new low of 19%.
The voting age population of the U.S. is about 215 million people.
That means that about 40 million people in the U.S. still approve of the job George Bush is doing.
George Bush will be out of office in less than a year. But those 40 million people will still be eligible to vote.
The voting age population of the U.S. is about 215 million people.
That means that about 40 million people in the U.S. still approve of the job George Bush is doing.
George Bush will be out of office in less than a year. But those 40 million people will still be eligible to vote.
See who's ahead in delegate counts
Curious about how many delegates your favorite presidential candidate has locked up? Then check out Salon.com's "Election results: Who's ahead in the delegate race?" It provides up-to-date counts of the Democratic and Republican delegates on a state-by-state basis, and even figures in super-delegates.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
On a local note...
I think it's a shame that the new La Canada town square development doesn't include any housing. I think the town and the developers have missed a golden opportunity.
Ends, means, and slippery slopes
We're off to a rollicking good start here! I'm picturing Rutger Hauer in Blade Runner after Harrison Ford has just dealt him a vicious blow with a steel pipe smiling and shouting, "That's the spirit!" Lay on, MacDuff!
So let me tell you a little more about my life story. In February of 1991 I was living in a little house on Chevy Chase boulevard in Glendale. Not the glamourous part of Chevy Chase, lower down, in the flats, where working people and graduate students live. Despite not being the most upscale of areas I never worried too much about safety because Chevy Chase was a very well traveled street, and I figured you'd have to be a fool to try anything with that many potential witnesses around. (In retrospect I have to wonder who is the greater fool, the fool, or the fool who assumes that there are no fools.)
One night I came home after dark and found that the light we kept on a timer had not come on. I figured that the bulb had burned out. As I came into the house I caught a hint of movement out of the corner of my eye. Sure enough, someone was climbing through the window! I shouted "Hey" and a split second later I heard a loud BANG and saw a muzzle flash. I screamed and hit the deck.
The next few minutes were a blur. I remember crawling over to the phone, dialing 911, and being really surprised at how quickly the police showed up. To the best of my recollection it only took them a minute or two, but that was enough. The burglar was long gone. In the aftermath it turned out that the gun was a '38, and the bullet had missed my left knee by about a foot. (It penetrated an interior wall, ricochet off a heating duct, and ended up being embedded in the far wall of the living room.)
The burglar had apparently been there a while. The house had been tumbled, and the CD player (a high-tech item back in 1991) was wrapped in a pillowcase all ready to go. While the police were dusting everything for fingerprints they got a radio call: "We got him."
They put me in the back of a squad car so that it wouldn't be obvious to the perp that I was there to identify him and drove down the block. Sitting on the curb was a young hispanic with his hands cuffed behind his back.
The truth of the matter was that I had no idea if this was the burglar or not. Everything had happened very fast, and the house was pitch black. And yet, the police must have some reason to think this is the guy, right? They wouldn't just arrest some random kid off the street, would they? So if I tell the truth I could be letting a dangerous criminal back on the streets, and his next victim might not be as lucky as I was.
Happily, I had a cop-out. The real perp had left fingerprints all over the house, and would have gunshot residue all over his hands. (One of the really striking things about having a gun go off that close to you is the smell. It's an acrid odor, not unlike burned hair. And it lingers for a long time.) So I told them the truth, that I had no idea whether this was the guy or not, figuring that if it were him they'd figure it out from the physical evidence. I like to think that I would have made the same decision even without that kind of fallback, but life has not yet faced me with that stark a moral test.
So I speak with the authority of an actual victim of gun violence (and, for what it's worth, as someone who has never owned a gun, and God willing never will) when I say that it is absolutely clear to me that the Second Amendment supports an individual's right to bear arms. The wording is abundantly clear: "...the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The same "the people" as in "We the People," as in "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...", as in "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It is particularly untenable to say that the Second Amendment is talking about state militias when the tenth amendment specifically distinguishes between rights reserved to the States OR to the people. And if you look at the historical context it becomes even more clear.
This is not to say that I do not support gun control. I do, for obvious reasons. Taken on its face, the Second Amendment protects people's right to own nuclear weapons, which I think is something everyone but the most hard-core member of the NRA would agree is a pretty bad idea. But the right way to fix this problem is not to pretend that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says. The right way to fix this problem is to recognize that the Second Amendment was written in a time when "arms" meant muskets, not AK-47's. Back then gun control was enforced by economics and the available technology. Nowadays we need a different mechanism. And that is why the Constitution includes procedures for amending it.
If we don't do it this way, if we decide that the ends justify the means when it comes to gun control, then we have no leg to stand on when someone else comes along as says that, say, torture is acceptable if it saves lives. Or that you have no right to privacy because the word "privacy" doesn't appear in the Constitution.
Robert Bolt hit the nail on the head in "A Man for All Seasons":
Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down (and you're just the man to do it!), do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
I recognize my neighbor's right to bear arms for my own freedom's sake.
So let me tell you a little more about my life story. In February of 1991 I was living in a little house on Chevy Chase boulevard in Glendale. Not the glamourous part of Chevy Chase, lower down, in the flats, where working people and graduate students live. Despite not being the most upscale of areas I never worried too much about safety because Chevy Chase was a very well traveled street, and I figured you'd have to be a fool to try anything with that many potential witnesses around. (In retrospect I have to wonder who is the greater fool, the fool, or the fool who assumes that there are no fools.)
One night I came home after dark and found that the light we kept on a timer had not come on. I figured that the bulb had burned out. As I came into the house I caught a hint of movement out of the corner of my eye. Sure enough, someone was climbing through the window! I shouted "Hey" and a split second later I heard a loud BANG and saw a muzzle flash. I screamed and hit the deck.
The next few minutes were a blur. I remember crawling over to the phone, dialing 911, and being really surprised at how quickly the police showed up. To the best of my recollection it only took them a minute or two, but that was enough. The burglar was long gone. In the aftermath it turned out that the gun was a '38, and the bullet had missed my left knee by about a foot. (It penetrated an interior wall, ricochet off a heating duct, and ended up being embedded in the far wall of the living room.)
The burglar had apparently been there a while. The house had been tumbled, and the CD player (a high-tech item back in 1991) was wrapped in a pillowcase all ready to go. While the police were dusting everything for fingerprints they got a radio call: "We got him."
They put me in the back of a squad car so that it wouldn't be obvious to the perp that I was there to identify him and drove down the block. Sitting on the curb was a young hispanic with his hands cuffed behind his back.
The truth of the matter was that I had no idea if this was the burglar or not. Everything had happened very fast, and the house was pitch black. And yet, the police must have some reason to think this is the guy, right? They wouldn't just arrest some random kid off the street, would they? So if I tell the truth I could be letting a dangerous criminal back on the streets, and his next victim might not be as lucky as I was.
Happily, I had a cop-out. The real perp had left fingerprints all over the house, and would have gunshot residue all over his hands. (One of the really striking things about having a gun go off that close to you is the smell. It's an acrid odor, not unlike burned hair. And it lingers for a long time.) So I told them the truth, that I had no idea whether this was the guy or not, figuring that if it were him they'd figure it out from the physical evidence. I like to think that I would have made the same decision even without that kind of fallback, but life has not yet faced me with that stark a moral test.
So I speak with the authority of an actual victim of gun violence (and, for what it's worth, as someone who has never owned a gun, and God willing never will) when I say that it is absolutely clear to me that the Second Amendment supports an individual's right to bear arms. The wording is abundantly clear: "...the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The same "the people" as in "We the People," as in "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...", as in "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It is particularly untenable to say that the Second Amendment is talking about state militias when the tenth amendment specifically distinguishes between rights reserved to the States OR to the people. And if you look at the historical context it becomes even more clear.
This is not to say that I do not support gun control. I do, for obvious reasons. Taken on its face, the Second Amendment protects people's right to own nuclear weapons, which I think is something everyone but the most hard-core member of the NRA would agree is a pretty bad idea. But the right way to fix this problem is not to pretend that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says. The right way to fix this problem is to recognize that the Second Amendment was written in a time when "arms" meant muskets, not AK-47's. Back then gun control was enforced by economics and the available technology. Nowadays we need a different mechanism. And that is why the Constitution includes procedures for amending it.
If we don't do it this way, if we decide that the ends justify the means when it comes to gun control, then we have no leg to stand on when someone else comes along as says that, say, torture is acceptable if it saves lives. Or that you have no right to privacy because the word "privacy" doesn't appear in the Constitution.
Robert Bolt hit the nail on the head in "A Man for All Seasons":
Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down (and you're just the man to do it!), do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
I recognize my neighbor's right to bear arms for my own freedom's sake.
I am shocked, shocked to learn that guns are used to kill people.
“I can't believe somebody would order from us again and do this…I still feel just absolutely in shock”- Eric Thompson
From www.topglock.com “ Eric Thompson, the owner of the Internet-based sporting goods and firearms retailer that has sold products to the shooters involved with the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University tragedies, says his unfortunate twist of fate is spurring him to take a more active role in protecting the public – especially young people – from future attacks.
Cho Seung-Hui used TGSCOM Web site www.thegunsource.com to purchase a Walther P22 firearm used in the Virginia Tech shootings last April. Just last week, Steven Kazmierczak, who killed five people at Northern Illinois University on February 14th, received two 9mm Glock magazines and a holster he ordered from the TGSCOM Inc. web site www.topglock.com.
“I’ve spent the past weekend feeling absolutely terrible that my company has been linked to both of these heinous crimes,” said Eric Thompson, president of TGSCOM Inc. “I assume it is just an unfortunate coincidence, but I also believe I now have a special responsibility to do all I can to try and prevent further loss of life.”
Thompson says that while he is pro-Second Amendment, he would like to see an open and honest discussion from both sides of the controversial gun control debate. To help facilitate that discussion, Thompson is planning to launch www.GunDebate.com as a location where people can “have a dialogue on the best way to prevent future tragedy.”
This seems like a worthwhile idea, but I have an additional solution for Eric Thompson’s anguish. Stop selling semi-automatic pistols and high capacity magazines over the Internet? Does the Second Amendment guarantee every tortured soul with a credit card the right to assemble an arsenal of mass destruction. Or give Cho Seung-Hui the right to purchase hundreds of rounds of ammo through Ebay?
The Second Amendment says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of a people to to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Courts have gone back and forth over whether “a people” refers to state militias or to individuals. A case can be made either way by reasonable people, but we should not allow arms manufacturers to use the Second Amendment as an excuse to sell whatever they want unrestricted by common sense. When folks rightfully fear their children will be gunned down at school or the mall, it is time for some sanity and some courage from our politicians.
Mr. Thompson who lives in Green Bay with his wife and three children has said one thing we can all agree, “All four major presidential candidates are in Wisconsin today, and I’d love to hear some real solutions from them – not just rhetoric.”
From www.topglock.com “ Eric Thompson, the owner of the Internet-based sporting goods and firearms retailer that has sold products to the shooters involved with the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University tragedies, says his unfortunate twist of fate is spurring him to take a more active role in protecting the public – especially young people – from future attacks.
Cho Seung-Hui used TGSCOM Web site www.thegunsource.com to purchase a Walther P22 firearm used in the Virginia Tech shootings last April. Just last week, Steven Kazmierczak, who killed five people at Northern Illinois University on February 14th, received two 9mm Glock magazines and a holster he ordered from the TGSCOM Inc. web site www.topglock.com.
“I’ve spent the past weekend feeling absolutely terrible that my company has been linked to both of these heinous crimes,” said Eric Thompson, president of TGSCOM Inc. “I assume it is just an unfortunate coincidence, but I also believe I now have a special responsibility to do all I can to try and prevent further loss of life.”
Thompson says that while he is pro-Second Amendment, he would like to see an open and honest discussion from both sides of the controversial gun control debate. To help facilitate that discussion, Thompson is planning to launch www.GunDebate.com as a location where people can “have a dialogue on the best way to prevent future tragedy.”
This seems like a worthwhile idea, but I have an additional solution for Eric Thompson’s anguish. Stop selling semi-automatic pistols and high capacity magazines over the Internet? Does the Second Amendment guarantee every tortured soul with a credit card the right to assemble an arsenal of mass destruction. Or give Cho Seung-Hui the right to purchase hundreds of rounds of ammo through Ebay?
The Second Amendment says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of a people to to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Courts have gone back and forth over whether “a people” refers to state militias or to individuals. A case can be made either way by reasonable people, but we should not allow arms manufacturers to use the Second Amendment as an excuse to sell whatever they want unrestricted by common sense. When folks rightfully fear their children will be gunned down at school or the mall, it is time for some sanity and some courage from our politicians.
Mr. Thompson who lives in Green Bay with his wife and three children has said one thing we can all agree, “All four major presidential candidates are in Wisconsin today, and I’d love to hear some real solutions from them – not just rhetoric.”
Monday, February 18, 2008
Not an auspicious beginning
Uuuurrrggghhhh...
To say that you humble webmaster is not at his best would be quite the understatement. I can't remember the last time I was this sick. I'll spare you the gory details. Suffice it to say there's more laundry than usual to be done in the Garret household tonight.
The first post is always the hardest because there's so much to to talk about, and it's hard to decide where to start. I see my role as webmaster to be a moderator, not to make this blog my own (I have my own blog for that). So I am going to try to leave my biases at the door, but I'm sure I will not always succeed. So thought I'd start by being really up-front about what some of my biases are.
My ancestors are German Jews. My grandparents' generation all fled from Germany to what was then Palestine in the early to mid thirties. It was still Palestine when my parents were born. They moved back to Germany in the early 60's, and my sister and I were both born there. We emigrated to Lexington, Kentucky, in the fall of 1969, when I was 5. So depending on how you count, I'm an American, a German, an Israeli and a Palestinian.
I moved to Glendale in 1988 to work at JPL, and I've been bouncing around the Glendale-Pasadena area ever since. My wife Nancy and I moved to La Canada in June of 2005, and we love it here. There's not a day goes by that I don't wake up and think how lucky I am to be able to live here.
I believe in freedom. That may sound like a platitude, and one of my biggest fears is that it is becoming one. Because of my family history I am keenly aware of how easy it is for a society to run off its rails. Adolf Hitler is today the very paragon of evil, so it is easy to lose sight of the fact that it was not always so. Hitler was democratically elected, and enjoyed widespread popular support among the German people, and even among some Americans. Before there was the Third Reich there was the Weimar Republic staggering under the weight of war reparations imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. Germany was poor and weak. Inflation at its worst ran at a rate so high it could barely be calculated, vastly worse than what is going on in Zimbabwe today.
Hitler rose to power on a promise of restoring Germany to its former strength and making the country secure from stealthy enemies. Substitute the word "terrorist" for "Jew" and there are eerie parallels between Germany of 1933 and America today. Now as then a disturbingly large (to me) number of people were willing to accept an increased level of government intrusion into their lives in exchange for "security". (I put the word in scare quotes because of course they were really not buying security at all, but only the temporary the illusion of security, which to my mind makes it an especially bad bargain.)
I've been strongly hinting at a certain amount of displeasure with the Bush administration, but make no mistake: I'm not a big fan of the Democrats either. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have become little more than lap dogs for the Administration. And even discounting the hysteria surrounding the so-called war on terror, Democrats are more than willing to restrict my freedoms in other ways. Gun control, for example, is plainly unconstitutional. I believe gun control would be a fine idea, but once you decide that the ends justify the means then it's very hard to close the resulting Pandora's box. If you want to pass gun control you have to amend the Constitution first. It's the mutual willingness on both the left and the right to do end-runs around the Constitution that has led to the evisceration of the Ninth Amendment. (Quick, do you even know what the Ninth Amendment says without looking it up?)
And I really wish they'd finish paving the top of Alta Canyada boulevard.
Ordinarily I'd go back and polish this to make it a little more coherent, but my body is staging a protest march and it's about to get ugly. So I'll have to leave it at that for now.
To say that you humble webmaster is not at his best would be quite the understatement. I can't remember the last time I was this sick. I'll spare you the gory details. Suffice it to say there's more laundry than usual to be done in the Garret household tonight.
The first post is always the hardest because there's so much to to talk about, and it's hard to decide where to start. I see my role as webmaster to be a moderator, not to make this blog my own (I have my own blog for that). So I am going to try to leave my biases at the door, but I'm sure I will not always succeed. So thought I'd start by being really up-front about what some of my biases are.
My ancestors are German Jews. My grandparents' generation all fled from Germany to what was then Palestine in the early to mid thirties. It was still Palestine when my parents were born. They moved back to Germany in the early 60's, and my sister and I were both born there. We emigrated to Lexington, Kentucky, in the fall of 1969, when I was 5. So depending on how you count, I'm an American, a German, an Israeli and a Palestinian.
I moved to Glendale in 1988 to work at JPL, and I've been bouncing around the Glendale-Pasadena area ever since. My wife Nancy and I moved to La Canada in June of 2005, and we love it here. There's not a day goes by that I don't wake up and think how lucky I am to be able to live here.
I believe in freedom. That may sound like a platitude, and one of my biggest fears is that it is becoming one. Because of my family history I am keenly aware of how easy it is for a society to run off its rails. Adolf Hitler is today the very paragon of evil, so it is easy to lose sight of the fact that it was not always so. Hitler was democratically elected, and enjoyed widespread popular support among the German people, and even among some Americans. Before there was the Third Reich there was the Weimar Republic staggering under the weight of war reparations imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. Germany was poor and weak. Inflation at its worst ran at a rate so high it could barely be calculated, vastly worse than what is going on in Zimbabwe today.
Hitler rose to power on a promise of restoring Germany to its former strength and making the country secure from stealthy enemies. Substitute the word "terrorist" for "Jew" and there are eerie parallels between Germany of 1933 and America today. Now as then a disturbingly large (to me) number of people were willing to accept an increased level of government intrusion into their lives in exchange for "security". (I put the word in scare quotes because of course they were really not buying security at all, but only the temporary the illusion of security, which to my mind makes it an especially bad bargain.)
I've been strongly hinting at a certain amount of displeasure with the Bush administration, but make no mistake: I'm not a big fan of the Democrats either. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have become little more than lap dogs for the Administration. And even discounting the hysteria surrounding the so-called war on terror, Democrats are more than willing to restrict my freedoms in other ways. Gun control, for example, is plainly unconstitutional. I believe gun control would be a fine idea, but once you decide that the ends justify the means then it's very hard to close the resulting Pandora's box. If you want to pass gun control you have to amend the Constitution first. It's the mutual willingness on both the left and the right to do end-runs around the Constitution that has led to the evisceration of the Ninth Amendment. (Quick, do you even know what the Ninth Amendment says without looking it up?)
And I really wish they'd finish paving the top of Alta Canyada boulevard.
Ordinarily I'd go back and polish this to make it a little more coherent, but my body is staging a protest march and it's about to get ugly. So I'll have to leave it at that for now.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
And now, a word from our sponsor
From Joe Mealey, president of the La Canada Democratic club:
Welcome to the La Canada Flintridge Democratic Club's new experiment in democracy. We've established a Virtual Town Hall for residents of La Canada and the surrounding areas to share their political ideas. We welcome you to express your opinions here, no matter what your political affiliation. There are only three rules: (1) use your real name; (2) be respectful; and (3) don't forget your sense of humor. Let's make this an open, no-holds barred forum to say what we really think on any and every issue, local and international. Who knows? We may even agree on something besides the outrageous cost of sewers.....
A note from the webmaster:
Hi, I'm Ron Garret, your webmaster. I'm going to be posting on this blog to get the ball rolling, but this is not my blog. (I have my own blog.) This is your blog. To post to it you will need to sign up for a Blogger account if you don't already have one, and then send me an email (at ron at flownet dot com) so I can add you to the contributor list for LCFVTS.
The whole point of this blog is to get people with opposing points of view talking about relevant issues, so if you disagree with something that is posted here, good! Sign up and let others hear your point of view.
Welcome to the La Canada Flintridge Democratic Club's new experiment in democracy. We've established a Virtual Town Hall for residents of La Canada and the surrounding areas to share their political ideas. We welcome you to express your opinions here, no matter what your political affiliation. There are only three rules: (1) use your real name; (2) be respectful; and (3) don't forget your sense of humor. Let's make this an open, no-holds barred forum to say what we really think on any and every issue, local and international. Who knows? We may even agree on something besides the outrageous cost of sewers.....
A note from the webmaster:
Hi, I'm Ron Garret, your webmaster. I'm going to be posting on this blog to get the ball rolling, but this is not my blog. (I have my own blog.) This is your blog. To post to it you will need to sign up for a Blogger account if you don't already have one, and then send me an email (at ron at flownet dot com) so I can add you to the contributor list for LCFVTS.
The whole point of this blog is to get people with opposing points of view talking about relevant issues, so if you disagree with something that is posted here, good! Sign up and let others hear your point of view.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)