Past Ruminations...

April 21-30, 2002

Regulate, adjust to all kinds of standards of the most developed and richest countries [in this context I believe he is talking about members of the European Union], . . . get rid of your sovereignty and put it into the hands of international institutions and organizations.

du Pont's take on Klaus' statement is the same conclusion I would have come to.

In short, flying one's national flag is becoming politically incorrect.

And what have we been doing, sometimes to the extreme, as in the 2002 Super Bowl? Flying the flag. So, why do the Europeans seem to 'hate us so much? One obvious reason is our sovereignty, which is admittedly a bit "in-your-face" at times. Another is our refusal to be controlled by international institutions and organizations; the United Nations comes to mind and even the European Union itself. I am remembering how the E. U. effectively voided several mergers of U. S. companies over the past two years and how that seriously rankled us.

Mr. Klaus makes one additional observation that bodes watching, since its implications go far beyond Europe and shed light on liberal politics in the U.S. after the fall of communism.

Regulation is for today's socialists what public ownership of the means of production and central planning were for their fathers and grandfathers.

He also says that the 1990s saw "a victory of new collectivisms."

When you think about the push towards regulation so prevalent in the Democratic party, can it be understood primarily as socialism under a new dress, communism without the red tinge? That is not to say that social responsibility is not a major component, but is that the excuse rather than the central tenet?  Ý

Humble sinner. Using language normally found in a sermon, President Bush spoke about the importance of faith at a a church-sponsored redevelopment program in South Central, Los Angeles.

Faith is a powerful motivator. ... I know first-hand what faith can mean in somebody's life, so I remind people I am just a humble sinner who saw redemption," he said.

Bush is considered the most overtly religious president since Jimmy Carter, who was ridiculed for saying to Playboy magazine that he was a sinner who sometimes had impure thoughts and committed adultery in his heart.

What is the difference between the two? It is the platform and the lack of specifics. A speech in South Central Los Angeles versus an interview in a soft porn magazine. A general statement about a change in the direction of one's life versus what amounts to a public confession in a venue that would only serve to titillate the magazine's audience.

The contrast is important, because it has to do with a sense of balance and an understanding of the requirements of your position. Jimmy Carter, though well intentioned, lacked both, while it appears President Bush has a firm grasp on the essentials.  Ý

Talking a stand. Finally, a leading Islamic cleric has stood up and spoken against suicide bombing. Surprisingly, I have heard nothing about it in the mainstream press. A search of both the New York Times and the Washington Post turned up nothing. My information comes from an article in the NRO (National Review Online) by Michael Ledeen. Here is the relevant information on an event from April 24 in Iran (emphasis added).

Few in that hall could have known what was coming: a fatwa issued by one of the country's most prestigious and revered religious leaders, the Grand Ayatollah Montazeri. His message was directed far beyond the boundaries of Iran, to all members of the Shia faith. It was a powerful and politically important message: Suicide terrorism is antithetical to the teachings of Islam, and those who practice it, and kill women, children, and babies, are doomed to eternity in hell. The struggle between the Palestinian people and Israel must be resolved by other means, above all by negotiations. A tumult broke out when the import of the statement became clear, but the parliamentary president permitted the deputy to read the fatwa in its entirety.

Montazeri's statement is a direct affront to the Iranian regime which has been both praising the Palestinian terrorists and calling for Iranians to volunteer as suicide bombers.

According to Ledeen, no Iranian publication or foreign news service reported the event. In his article, Ledeen moves on to the ongoing political and economic problems in Iran, using Montazeri's statement only as a lead-in to his larger story.

However, the significance of the Grand Ayatollah's statement and the danger it may place him in cannot be minimized. Montazeri has always been a leading dissident and thorn in the side of the more radical Islamic clerics in Iran. Yet, this statement goes well beyond Iranian politics and calls to task the entire Muslim world. The silence to his statements speaks volumes, both in the Muslim world and in the West.
 

(April 29, 2002)  Ý
Technology and Bill Gates. Bill Gates has published his view of our technology future in his written submission to District of Columbia Federal Court in the trial with the abstaining states. It is an interesting read.

Peter Coffee, eWeek's technology editor, in his latest Enterprise IT Advantage newsletter (April 29, 2002 Volume 2, Issue 16), sees Adam Smith's 1776 economic notion of the "invisible hand" at work here. The essence, taken from an article by Helen Joyce, is

Every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it...He intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.

Helen Joyce, a PhD mathematician and assistant editor of Plus Magazine, explores Smith's ideas in Adam Smith and the invisible hand, an article in Issue 14 of the magazine.

Joyce argues that we should let the "invisible hand" do its work because

Perhaps the strongest reason for leaving the allocation of effort and reward to the invisible hand is that when it misappropriates goods, it is likely to be on a small scale. More centralised methods of allocating goods are more prone to corruption and waste. 

Enron doesn't apply here since the issue was not any attempt by Enron to monopolize allocation and distribution, but its faulty business model and unethical hiding of its problems. You could even argue that the "invisible hand" worked here, since the problems were exposed.

Why is this issue important to anyone outside the technology sphere? Because Adam Smith's premise has been one of the foundations of the American capitalist economic system and to move away from it carries far reaching consequences. While Enron was exposed and companies are scrambling to fix their own similar problems, the same corrections don't occur in centralized command and control environments (read governments). The government is not effective in reforming itself and while citizens and the markets can change or even bring down companies, it is nigh unto impossible to affect the government in the same way.

There is a perfect example of this premise going on in my profession, technical writing and online help. The company with the largest market share, eHelp, sent out a marketing letter to programmers suggesting that their product would help them automatically produce their help system (not true, but it sounded good). The HATT (Help Authoring Tools and Technologies) group, where tech writers and help authors hang out (about 2100 of them) got wind of the letter and started grousing about it. It sounded to them like eHelp was saying you don't need writers to produce your help.

A representative from eHelp sent a perfunctory apology to the list, but then a second letter, saying the similar things was received by members of eWeek's mailing list, some of whom were help authors. That set off the HATT list again, followed by a second perfunctory apology.

However, some members of the list began complaining and lobbying for a retraction to the same email lists that had received the original marketing pieces. In addition, all of the past failures of eHelp started to be drudged up and reexamined, with new allegations beginning to see the light of day. What started out as a stupid, though common, marketing problem began to mushroom into a real issue due to poor handling.

How did eHelp deal with this? Did they calmly apologize for everything and let the furor die down (a good idea)? No. They logged a complaint with Yahoo Lists about the discussion going on in the HATT group. Talk about lighting a fire under dry tinder. What had been a small spat now escalated in a full-blown firestorm.

Why do I bring this up? Because it illustrates the power of free speech and democratic action in the marketplace. People have the power to effect and change companies. It is in the company's best interest to listen. Why do you think Microsoft has made security such a major issue within their company recently?

This leads me back to government? We need to be very careful about how much control we extend to the government, despite what the Democrats are telling us.

Government won't give back control once it has it and it won't listen to reason, despite legislative attempts to enforce change and voters efforts to change the direction of their representation. Popular voice is generally ineffective against government, even on a local level, except in the case of major issues, such as slavery or civil rights and even then it takes a major upheaval and crisis before government even attempts to listen. Government responds only to crisis management.  Ý

Being bland. A reader and longtime associate suggested that I was being a little too bland in my blogging (he knows me as expressing much more controversial and spirited opinions over the years than I have thus far). That may be true, but like everything in social settings, and this is a social setting, controversial and spirited expression of opinion are relative.

Let's see, what sort of opinions have I been holding back on?

Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church is going to hell in a hand basket. Wait. That's not controversial, at least to the majority of observers that I know. What is new is the attacks on conservative priests.

No, you can't be calling the church back to all that Bible claptrap. It just won't do. We can read it, but only selected parts and then it's just some opinions from a long time ago. They are not relevant today. Sin and all that repentance stuff--it's barbaric, medieval stuff and shouldn't be spoken of in polite company. Oh by the way, wasn't that movie about the Marquis De Sade, Quills, just divine? Wasn't his spirit indomitable and his tenacity courageous? At least that is what the reviewer said, and I agree. And what was with puritanical prudish doctor?

This accelerating trend of going after conservative priests will bear examining over the next few months, but it appears that the waters of removal are being tested to enable Bishops to rid themselves of any and all trouble makers (read true believers...) in the clergy. To quote Rodney King, "Can't we just all get along?" I guess not. How do you get along with abject evil?  Ý

Cloning. Cloning human beings is wretchedly evil (and the real precursor to serious genetic manipulation - transgenics here we come). Is this the last slope we can slide down and still be the human race? I can't wait for the sophistry to begin over what does it mean to be truly human. The question is already broached in television and movies and we (conservative Christians) are being made out to be the bad guys.

For cloning to be tried, abortion had to be legal. It was the essential precursor. How else can you get rid of the failures without legal repercussions. After all, they, I mean it, are just fetuses; suck them out and start over, or do a partial birth abortion and keep everything intact for study. After all, it is just a fetus.

Conspiracy theories. Does anyone really believe there isn't a larger agenda at work here? Fox Molder, where are you when we need you? Heck with chasing after non-existent aliens (the kind with space ships); go after the real ones, the ones at the root of evil and all conspiracies. Now that would be a real X File.

Are the men with the straight jackets on their way yet? This isn't as far out as it sounds. It is getting unacceptable to believe in a literal Devil and a literal evil. This is especially true in mainline churches, such as the Episcopal Church, of which I am a member. Anyone who takes C. S. Lewis' book The Screwtape Letters too seriously, who might believe it describes an objective reality, is headed for trouble in the future. They can always leave though. "Hey you, I thought I told you to abandon ship!"

They say you are not crazy if they are really after you. Well I believe the enemies of God are really after me. Really. Am I crazy? I  believe the Devil is real. I believe demons are real. I believe that the spiritual forces of evil and the conspiracies against God and his followers are real. I also believe that what is happening in the Episcopal Church and on the abortion and cloning front are part of a vast spiritual conspiracy of evil. Am I crazy. I bet there are some people who after reading this think so.

There now CT. Is that a little more controversial? I bet even you didn't know I was that crazy. That is the problem with being a political conservative and an evangelical Christian, it is so easy for you to appear off the wall and then be dismissed by the "serious people". So be it.
 

(April 28, 2002)  Ý
Drought. It is raining today. We need the rain. Maryland has been in drought conditions for over a year now. During the last three months, however, the rainfall has been above normal. That doesn't make up for the deficit, but it does reverse the trend.

Our lives go through similar cycles of drought. Sometimes things seem to just dry up. With the weather, we are at the mercy of the larger natural cycles and can do little to change the events, except engage in the conservation of precious resources. However, during times of personal drought we assume (at least the proactive among us) that we can change our personal environment and get the "rain" to fall again, almost at will. It doesn't always work that way. The vacations, the time off, the retreats, all of the various things we do to get the "rain" falling again, sometimes they fail us. As a result, there will be times when our only reliable course of action is to conserve our precious inner resources.

Sometimes we need to pull back and examine our goals and our direction to see if the effort is sustainable or if a course change is necessary. Sometimes we have to make hard choices. Sometimes it is time for things to change and it is the drought that forces those possibilities to be examined. Sometimes drought has a purpose in God's plan for our lives. Sometimes drought is a good thing.

(April 27, 2002)  Ý
Decisions. You cannot get away from decisions. Even if you resist making them, you fall prey to "decision by indecision" and a decision is still made, which will be whatever would have occurred if nothing was done. It is not exactly the same as making a real decision, since that process involves a whole order of intentions and subsequent actions. Not deciding sidesteps those elements and let's "nature take its course", so to speak. As a result, I guess you could say that there are at least three paths in all decisions: agreement, disagreement, and whatever would happen on its own, which, depending on the decision, will align with either agreement or disagreement.

Why is this distinction important? Because, you cannot escape decisions or the responsibility that comes with them. In Western law there is the concept of accessory to an action. For example, if I see someone committing a crime, and I don't say anything about it, I am considered in agreement with the action and an accessory, sharing in the guilt. Silence is assent to what is happening. It is the central issue surrounding the Catholic Church's current problems with priestly sexual abuse. Their silence makes them culpable.

One of the most famous cases in history, where this concept of silence meaning accent was played out, was the trial of Sir Thomas Moore of England. He refused to swear to King Henry VIII's Act of Succession and Oath of Supremacy, and his defense was based on silence. He argued that silence under the law had to be seen to be the same as if he had accented to the two acts. It did not matter what he truly thought, as long as he was silent about it. He maintained his silence for over a year, but on July 1, 1535 he was convicted of treason using perjured testimony. It was testified that he had spoken against the two acts and therefore broken his silence. He was beheaded on July 6.

So, you cannot sidestep the responsibility of decision. A decision will occur, even if by indecision you remain silent. Your silence interprets for everyone, even for your own heart, as accent to the course that played itself out, and is, in effect, your decision.
 

(April 26, 2002)  Ý
Having a life. Lots to say today. Earlier I talked about distractions, success, failure, and television. Now I am gearing down to the essentials. For lunch I read Peggy Noonan. Her topic was Karen Hughes, President Bush's chief advisor who is leaving the White House to return home to Texas and be with her family. It was a starting point for Peggy's larger discussion of what it means to have a life.

Much of what Peggy talks about is related to the September 11th effect, which for her fosters a deeper appreciation of that miraculous creation that swirls around us and we tend to take for granted.

And Karen Hughes, who was with the president that day and the days after, maybe she got a case of Sept. 11 too. And maybe it made some part of her want to be more immersed in life. Or more urgently aware that life is not only what you're doing right this second at the desk, it's also going on out there beyond the desk, it's going by like the wind and if you want to you can step out and feel it. 

Peggy also discusses the death of a friend on TWA flight 800 and how at odd moments she remembers that her friend is dead and her death makes Peggy appreciate even the common things more deeply.

And it made the boring common unremarkable thing seem to me more like a gift, more precious and worthy of attention and appreciation, and even love.

She then goes on to say September 11th intensified this feeling and she thinks it had the same effect on Karen Hughes.

This got me to thinking about how the death of someone or something important to us can intensify our lives. It led me to ask some deep questions and when I do that I get religious; I plunge my Christian depths.

It led me to Jesus Christ and Good Friday. Holy Week is still only a month ago and today is Friday. It led me to ponder his death and to question whether that event has intensified any of my feelings, focused any of my thinking, given me a greater appreciation of my life in the way the death of Peggy's friend on flight 800 and the subsequent events of September 11th did for her. Her article has given me a new lens and focused my vision on my essential Christianity, on the cross, and on the meaning of death and life. My mother died right after Christmas and I now think on her death and my remaining life differently. I hope I will be better for it.

Thank you Peggy.  Ý

Navigating in the fog.  As I reflection on my past nineteen days of writing, I find a common thread of discontent exuding from every nook and cranny of my expressions. I guess it is true. I am feeling more curmudgeonly than usual. It is not a way I enjoy feeling. Recently, while cleaning up some files, I came across a quote by one of my favorite authors, C. S. Lewis. It comes from his short, but important book, The Abolition of Man.

"We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful."

I was thinking that some of my discontent comes from a sense of frustration over never fitting in very well. Looking at the quote above, I would say that many of the men I have known in my life have had chests and pursued honor and have been roundly chastened for it. I have also known many men who fit Lewis' description.

What does it mean to have a chest? It's hard to say, since, for some of us, the foundations under which we stand, how we define the things that make us who and what were are, appear to have radically shifted over the last 35 or so years. It is not that we are so different now than what we were in our youth, but it seems that the world in which we live has markedly changed hue and now we don't fit the color scheme. I was reading an interview the with Jean-Marie Le Pen, the French "Fascist" that has Europe all abuzz in The Spectator, a right of center, British political magazine, published since the early 1800's. Warning. The drawing at the start of the article will be offensive to some. It shows a semi-naked French woman (representing France itself, possibly as a trollop) aghast to find herself in bed with Le Pen. What I found interesting was a comment made toward the middle of the interview by Mr. Le Pen.

‘It’s not me who has become extreme Right,’ he says. ‘It’s the whole of society which has become extreme Left. They put me in jackboots and a helmet and say I am Hitler. But they have been doing that for 50 years now. That’s the only way they can try to get me because I haven’t had my hands in the till.

Has the world really shifted or is this a self-serving analysis? Are we, at least the "conservative, right of center" we, viewed differently because the terms are redefined and like a spreading ooze the new definitions expand and engulf those previously excluded in a perverted form of inclusiveness? It is interesting to see how when someone is once labeled the actual facts seem to lose their place in the argument.  To illustrate the point, the writer, John Laughland, points out

Le Pen’s views on immigration are the same as Norman Tebbit’s, while his views on urban blight, social collapse and the decline of traditional values can be found every week in the columns of the Daily Mail or The Spectator. The Sun, for that matter, has spent the week enumerating Le Pen’s various hateful policies, such as closing the refugee centre at Sangatte or opposing the right of homosexuals to adopt children, but the obligatory photograph of Hitler with which it adorned the rant did little to distinguish the list from everything the Sun itself generally supports.

In no way do I support or espouse Mr. Le Pen's views. He appears to be historically so far right that "Fascist" may indeed fit him. I don't know enough about him and his views from an objective source to have a firm opinion. I only use him to illustrate a point, the point that the shifting views of society often redefine what is with labels from what was. Certain terms begin to lose objective historical meaning, while still carrying their historical emotional baggage, as they morph to the needs of a shifting social correctness. Mr. Le Pen claims, in essence, this has happened to him. It may or may not be true. However, in America, definitions are changing and terms are losing their historical groundings. Racist is one of those terms and fundamentalist, right-wing, and terrorist are others. Forget the dictionary, it seldom applies these days. The pigeons of literary criticism in the service of moral and political expediency have come home to roost. The words mean what you (those with the politically correct clout) want them to mean. Definitions are relative and defined in the crucible of the event.

What does it mean to have a chest? You tell me. Your definition is as good as mine, or maybe better, or so it seems. Webster, Inc. doesn't look like a good investment these days.  Ý

Success and failure. Friday mornings are a set aside for a regular Bible study. If you remember, two weeks ago one of my friends started me thinking about distractions. Earlier this week, I began examining the time I spend watching television, especially after reading an article by Michael Medved. I think the two issues are related.

I have this sense that television is one of the greatest distractions of my generation, that it drains more energy from our national productivity than any other mechanism, and that there is a inverse correlation between time spent watching television and success. As television viewing goes up, the success rate of things in our life goes down. Some people might argue that as failure occurs (success rate going down) we turn to things like television as a means of solace, salving our wounds, if you would. It isn't the cause, it is the effect.

Which of the two is correct? Maybe they both are. When we are in the process of failing at something, there is a temptation to throw in the towel and maybe not directly give up, but we tell ourselves we need a break from the pressure. We accept the premise of the McDonald's jingle and believe that we "deserve a break today." Things have gone badly so why not take some time off, veg out, give yourself a little reward.

There is a delicate balance that comes into play at moments like this. Taking restorative breaks (we may call them vacations, retreats, weekends, etc.) are an absolute necessity. What may be more important than we realize, however, is the importance of the thing we choose to do when we take that time off. One of the easiest ways to take that break we "deserve" is to watch some television, and then some more television, and then some more.

Before we know it we start to lose our balance. This is an easy thing to do when circumstances are tilting downward. We begin to fall (by incremental, but steady choices) into a spiral of destructive activity, a set of unproductive habits. For many people this appears to be increased and indiscriminate television viewing. We search the cable for anything worth watching, something to fill the moment. We might even realize something is wrong. We may even put it into words, using the parlance of the person looking up from the bottom of the deep well and say to ourselves that we have "messed up." But will it matter? Will we just go to bed and start the same cycle over tomorrow?

Truly successful people don't lose sight of their primary goal when they get frazzled or have had a series of difficulties or failures. When they take time off, it has a purpose: recovery and reenergizing of their efforts. They aren't rewarding themselves with a deserved break (that would be for success, not failure). Instead, they are like a track athlete taking a recovery period before the next race, or a hockey player coming off the ice to recharge for their line's next turn. It's all part of the plan to keep moving; it is truly just a break to get their breath.

So is watching too much television the cause or the result of the underlying problem? I think that most of the time it starts out as the result, a poor choice of a way to deal with some other problem in our lives. However, it eventually becomes the cause, the slippery slop that seems oh, so non threatening, as we descend into the abyss. After all, we aren't taking drugs or getting drunk. What is so bad about a little entertainment.?
 

(April 25, 2002)  Ý
How about them O's. To you non-Baltimoreans, that's the Orioles, as in our major league baseball team. They are showing signs of life and they might have a few really good young players.

Baseball. I like baseball. It is a relatively slow, methodical game, punctuated by moments of abject confrontation and sheer frenzy. In the midst of the ever-increasing rat race of my technology driven life, it is a siren call back to an earlier time, a more relaxed way of looking at things. It also has rules and umpires. That's important. The rules have been fairly stable for a long, long, time, with only minor variations on their interpretation causing minor changes. The only exception to that would be the designated hitter in the American League, but then that is a topic for another time. The essentials of baseball have remained unchanged since the beginning: a bat, a ball, four bases, three outs, innings, and a winner and a loser. It's almost spiritual in its simplicity and it's downright democratic in its meshing of nine players into a single interdependent unit.

Football is form of warfare. Baseball is a form of cooperative art. Now I enjoy football, watching it and playing it. But baseball is in another universe all to itself.
 

Appeasement. The underlying premise of the 1930's was appeasement. If we just give them what they say they need, what is "fair", then the problems will go away. For some this comes from a combination of two wrong-headed beliefs: the basic goodness of humanity followed by reason rules; if only we can talk through the problems, we will find a solution. Humanity is neither basically good, nor is it ruled by reason. Would that it were so, but history and the Bible prove otherwise. For others, appeasement comes from an essentially pacifistic nature, believing that violence solves no problems; it only creates new and more virulent difficulties. Laying aside the fact that this approach doesn't deal with the essential philosophical nature of creation, which on many levels is "violent", and God's historical use of violence in both justice and retribution, there is at the root of pacifism a reliance to some degree on the wrong-headed beliefs of the first approach. To be a true pacifist you must at some point rely on the hope that those doing the attacking will listen to reason and in doing so discover their "better" nature, see the wrong in what they are doing, and stop. Good luck!

Why is appeasement an issue today? It is the basic approach by many to the Arab-Israeli, Islamic radicals-Western culture (exemplified by the United States) situations. If only we give them (Arabs, Palestinians, Islamicists) what they rightfully deserve, if only we stop the "cycle of violence", If only we understand their needs, if only <insert your reason here>, then the problems will go away. Right. I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you. It's a bargain.
 

(April 23, 2002) Ý
Selective prosecution. Where is Amnesty International, the UN, the European Union, and others when politically motivated killings occur at the hands of the Palestinians? In an article in the Washington Post this morning the danger of even talking to Israel is graphically noted.

With a three-week curfew lifted in Ramallah and no Palestinian police on the streets, three Palestinians were dragged from their car and shot in the arms and legs this afternoon in the city's main square. Masked gunmen yelled to the crowd that the victims were collaborators with Israeli occupation forces. A mob formed and blocked ambulances. At least one of the victims was finally spirited off to a hospital on the rooftop of a taxi that careened down the street.

Where is Muslim outrage at this "lynch mob" behavior? Where is Jesse Jackson, Amnesty International, and the others who decry vigilante justice? Look at how the average Palestinian reacts.

No one in the crowd objected to the violence. Many were smiling. Men whistled their approval on the street and women yelled from rooftops. Young children wandered past the sticky pool of blood on the ground and stared. Local reports later said one of the men died.

"No problem," said a 16-year-old boy standing nearby. "They deserved it. They talked to Israel."

They talked to Israel. This sheds some interesting light on the accusations against Israel over their actions in Jenin "refugee camp". How is it possible to enter into dialog with people, asking them to leave, to point out who is not a terrorist and who is, as some have suggested, when if you even talked to the Israelis you would be shot.

One woman, out of the entire gathering, appeared to disapprove.

But a 20-year-old woman who walked quickly past the crowd disapproved. "What will the world think when they see this?" she asked.

She didn't disapprove of the shooting and killing. She was only worried about what the rest of the world might think. She need not fear. While it may be reported, it will not be championed; no action will be taken. Political correctness in Western thought doesn't extend to condemning murder of people who talk to Israelis. It seems obvious that even Western liberals consider dialog with the Israelis, except the kind where Israel raises its hands in surrender to Yasser Arafat, worthy of death, just not death as result of judicial process; no that would be entirely unacceptable and worthy of the most vehement protest.

Reforming my visual habits. As a result of reading Michael Medved's article on the intellectually debilitating effects of television (see Media devolution below) I have decided to begin limiting my television viewing. In order to accomplish that, I needed to examine how many hours I actually watch TV. The survey I took was enlightening and for me surprising. I go from 24 hours on a light week to 36 or more (sports being the largest variable) on a heavy week (almost a normal workweek!). Included in that number are movies watched on the television whether from the network/cable source or tapes or DVDs. That puts me well below the 74.4 hours a week cited in the article, but still, from my perspective I spend a lot of time being amused. It is no mistake that people often call sitting in front of the TV "vegging out".

This cannot be good for my life, my marriage, or my spiritual well being. As a Christian, I know I don't spend 24-36 hours a week in study and prayer and if you look at the reality of that, its appalling. Even if you are not religious, what could you be accomplishing in your life or for your family if you cut in half your television viewing?

I am going to talk with my wife this evening about the two of us taking a vow to spend one hour in prayer and study for every hour spent in front of the television. Just thinking about it, I can see how tough that will be to accomplish, but on further thought, what does that say about the state of my Christian life and my "addiction" to amusement? <developing>
 

In 1986, Neil Postman wrote a book, Amusing Ourselves to Death in which he discussed the replacement of discourse in the 18th- and 19th-centuries with image and immediacy in the late 19th- and early 20th-century. Television in the last half of this century finally brought the death knell to cohesive disquisition for most Americans.

While not discussing bread and circuses or Postman's premise directly, there is a disturbing article by Michael Medved relating the amount of television viewing with a host problems and pathologies. His focus is the Black community, but only because

African American households to turn on the television set for 21 hours a week more than their white neighbors.

Is this just a problem for lower income or inner city Black children. No it is not.

Professor Edward Gordon of Yale University has spent years analyzing the perplexing inability of black children from even the most successful families (those with reported incomes of more than $75,000 a year) to keep pace with their white counterparts on standardized tests or school success. He recently told the New York Times that one possible explanation for this discrepancy involved the much heavier television viewing among even upper middle class black families.

However, the handwriting is on the wall for all of us, not just Black Americans.

A massive new 17-year study at Columbia University Medical School, however, shows that among males who watch "significant" amounts of television, the likelihood of violent criminality increases between 16 percent and 116 percent.

What does this mean to me, aside from the need to limit the hours our children spend in front of television? I can tell you from my own anecdotal evidence that agitation goes up in direct correlation with vegging in front of the television. There have been times, when due to a convergence of sports, particular programs, and a movie or two, that I have spent over 10 hours in front of the television over one continuous period. Thinking back, I remember that I was generally irritable toward the end of that time frame and tended to be belligerent with my wife when she asked me to do something. I can remember commenting to myself, "Where did that come from?" as I sought a source for my unprovoked hostility. I think that now I know; it was the television viewing. I don't know the why, but I think I have a handle on the what.

Wack-A-Mole reporting. There is an ancient Japanese proverb saying "The nail that sticks up will be hammered down." Japanese children are taught this aphorism from an early age and it has been one of the reasons that some sociologists give for the lack of risk taking within Japanese culture.

In America, risk taking and being a nail that sticks up appears to part of our national identity. There is no nail sticking up above the boards these days quite like President George W. Bush. When the hammers that seek to knock his nail down fail, as most of his critics have these days, but instead are themselves battered, it is time for them to search out another approach to hammering down the upstart Republican president. One way to do that is convince everyone that the nail is not a nail at all, but something weaker and less substantial.

Today the Washington Post has an article on its On Politics page by Karen DeYoung and Walter Pincus that attempts to do just that. Titled Crises Strain Bush Policies: Friends, Foes Find Lack of Coherence in Foreign Affairs it gives lip service to the president's strong stand post 9/11, while now accusing Bush of being unsure and befuddled. A good sample is a quote by "one informed Mexican source" speaking of the progress on Mexican trade agreements, but fitting the tone of the entire article.

the Bush administration has been absolutely disastrous in terms of even trying, even making an effort, to keep them on track. . . . Nothing is moving. Everything is paralyzed.

The article moves on to a quote by James B. Steinberg, former deputy national security adviser under President Bill Clinton who is at the Brookings Institution where he heads up the foreign policy program.

the Bush team has not figured out "how to handle multiple foreign policy challenges."

Interesting comment coming from an oh so foreign policy adept Clinton administration appointee.

It is not that I am saying that the president and his administration might not have problems, or that the concern over the decision process of the administration shouldn't be critiqued. However, this article isn't it. There is almost no individual analysis; instead it sounds like a politically motivated article in which a series of tried and true apparatchiks are paraded forth to bolster a weak argument. I especially love the poignant quote from "one informed Mexican source." The rule from the fourth estate these days seems to be expect more, get less.
 

(April 21, 2002) Ý
It is raining, a cold spring rain, with the temperature in the 50's, and it is damp with a chill in the air.

An X Files ending. I wasn't an X Files fan from the beginning, but a group of friends got me interested and I have followed it over the years. Things have been slowly building to a climax as we approach the close of the series.  Tonight began the last five episodes, with the previews intimating that someone would die. (Spoiler to those who taped it and haven't seen it)

The episode had a thrown together feel to it, with nowhere near the well timed pacing that has been a hallmark of the series. True to past experience the hints proved a sort of red herring. It turned out to be not just someone, but three someones who died tonight; they killed off the Lone Gunmen! All three of them. I am sure they intended the end to be a solemn closing, with Scully giving a sort of elegy, but it didn't have that kind of feel to it. It was more surreal than solemn and I had to restrain an almost incredulous chuckle.

The ending did however kill off any possibility for the three near do well hackers to be used in any resurrection of their earlier spin-off series or be a factor in any future X File movie, which is too bad. They always added a bit of ginger to the proceedings.

Oh well, I don't own the characters.