Margaret Cho shares a story of regrettable unkindness today, about a boy named Tobias whom she hurt in a way that stays with her still. Such deliberate but uncalculated meanness—not foot-in-mouthity, or forgetfulness, or other unintentional slights and insensitivities in which we all engage, but a direct and intrepid lash of malice that gives way to an immediate, crimson-cheeked scorching shame—seems a particular mark of childhood. I remember being on the receiving end of seemingly inexplicable and unexpected meanness, but, reading Margaret’s piece, I remembered more clearly a boy named Charles.
Charles was slow. That’s what he was called—not retarded (which is what kids in the special education classes were called then), not special needs, not learning disabled, not autistic or ADHD or any other sort of helpful descriptor that might have given some insight into what made him different, or why he was enrolled in regular classes. Looking backwards, I have no idea what his actual issues were; at the time, to the rest of us, the chubby kid in the soda bottle bottom glasses, who just seemed especially goofy and annoying in kindergarten, seemed catastrophically immature by about third grade, and gravely misplaced by about fifth.
Charles (sometimes Chuck, but usually Charles) was sweet; if he had any sense that he had reason to feel shortchanged, the ever-present grin on his face didn’t divulge it. He was happy all the time, and just wanted to be liked and included. Most of the kids were mean to him for just that reason, I think—his perennial cheerfulness, even in spite of their attempts to exclude him, made them feel that much guiltier.
I was never mean to Charles in elementary school, although I never went out of my way to be nice to him, either. I stood up for him if ignoring him turned into picking on him, but it was just out of principle, not out of any fondness for Charles. The truth is, I hated him. He clung to me because I wasn’t mean to him, and because he adored my mom. My mom was around the school a lot, and most of the kids knew her because she painted popular characters on the walls—Sesame Street down by the kindergarten classes and Disney by the older kids’ classes. And every time she was at the school, Charles would find her and give her a hug, and because she knew he needed lots of hugs, she was always happy to give them.
Sometimes, we’d see Charles out in public. He’d scream my mom’s name and run over for a hug. Inevitably, some kid from school would be around, too, snickering. It embarrassed the hell out of me every time, and I’d hate him a little bit more.
Right through high school, Charles would always yell at me every time he saw me in the halls: “Hi, Melissa! Tell your mom I said hi, okay?”
“Okay, Charles. I will.” Red-faced. Steaming. Mad at him because I was embarrassed of myself, for being mad at him. The illogical circularity just made me madder. At him.
The last day of senior year, kids were milling around taking pictures and signing each other’s memory books. Somehow, signing yearbooks had become uncool. Charles came up to me with (of course) his yearbook and asked me to sign it. “You can be the first one to sign my yearbook, Melissa!” he announced, far too loudly, as was his way.
I will never understand why I didn’t just take his book and his marker and write something nice to him and sign my name.
“No,” I said flatly, and shook my head.
His face dropped, crushed, and I just stared back at him. I know he must have wanted to ask me why, but he read it in my stony face: I wouldn’t have put my name in that book for a million dollars; if I could have ripped out the page with my picture, I would have.
Eventually, he just walked away.
The story should end there, because I don’t deserve redeeming, but the truth is, I found Charles awhile later and asked if I could still sign his yearbook. It’s a hazy recollection, not nearly as accessible as the memory, the feeling, of myself being so needlessly cruel. I’d probably think it was a wholesale creation of my remorseful psyche had I not seen Charles once more, when I was visiting home from college. After screaming at me and hugging me in the middle of K-Mart, just like old times, he told me he would always remember me because I was the first one to sign his yearbook. I wish he were able to remember me for something I had done out of kindness, rather than guilt.
Do you have an unkindness that you regret?
Question of the Day
Von wo das zur Hölle diesem Pinguin machte, kommt?
This has to rank among my favorite news stories of all time:
A train driver caused delays on a German rail line after mistaking a giant toy penguin for a dead man in a tuxedo.This story has everything you could want—drama, intrigue, humor, and a happy if mysterious ending. David Lynch must immediately option the film rights and cast Udo Kier as the enigmatic owner of the stuffed penguin who embarks on a dark and disturbing sexual affair with Deutschland Rail’s Lost and Found manager, Helga.
Passengers were left stranded in Neuwied after Udo Vergens pulled the emergency stop when he saw what he thought was a man lying face down and wearing a black and white tuxedo.
Officials who came to investigate found only a man-size soft toy penguin lying on the tracks.
A Neuwied police spokesman said: "We are at a loss to explain the presence of this very large penguin.
"We would think you would notice if you lost something like this."
“We are not powerless. Otherwise, we wouldn't be we the people.”
Check out this piece in the Eugene, Oregon Register-Guard, authored by a professor currently working abroad.
Hat tip to Granuaile at Walk That Plank, who notes it’s one of those pieces that everyone should read, then send it to everyone they know, who should send it to everyone they know. and so on and so on.
It Sucks to be the King
In a rare display of regard for the truth on Saturday, the WaPo took a breather from sucking Bush off and pointed out he’s something of a, um, liar:
President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.Not to be pedantic or anything, but the administration has been using that argument for a lot longer than a couple of days, and I think it would be fair to say that, in pointing out that it was utter bullshit, the WaPo was scooped by the entire liberal blogosphere. Nonetheless, that a major paper finally picked up on the whole “truth” meme is good news…and sent the administration scrambling. After five years of not being held accountable for anything, they weren’t prepared for the WaPo’s vicious weekend onslaught.
Neither assertion is wholly accurate…
Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.
By yesterday, the White House had issued their rebuttal—Setting the Record Straight, which is essentially a regurgitation of the same nonsense we’ve heard for years, amounting to talking points attractive to their base, but nothing substantive to thoroughly rebut the very real dilemma one faces after cooking intelligence to fearmonger the country into supporting a war of choice, and then getting busted. Repeatedly. (Today, Raw Story reports on 2001 testimony from George Tenet which further weakens the White House’s case against its detractors.)
How serious is this, really? Well, if you believe the polls, Bush is on the ropes. The Nov. 9 NBC/WSJ poll showed that 57% of Americans believe Bush deliberately misled them in making his case for the war, and Zogby’s Nov. 4 poll showed that 53% of Americans want Congress to consider impeaching Bush if he did deliberately mislead the public. If the situation in Iraq doesn’t significantly improve and thereby rekindle support for the war (an unlikely event, by any deduction), support will instead continue to dwindle—and that means more and more former gung-ho supporters are going to be looking for someone to blame, which could mean real trouble for Bush.
That’s the problem with kingmakers—they can be a king’s undoing, too.
Cool
What’s particularly interesting about this is that it would circumvent the legislation designed to undermine gay parenthood, such as bans on gay adoption, and strengthen the argument for legalized gay marriage. It would also, however, likely have the effect of seeing more crazy-ass legislation restricting fertility assistance as was recently proposed in Indiana.
The Guardian on Sunday had a story that simply has to be read to be believed about the growing scientific interest in making babies from stem cells, a process that would eliminate the need for both male and female reproductive material to contribute to the process.Unless they also manage to create a synthetic womb in the meantime, I suspect gay dudes will also still need to lease some female reproductive assistance.
While the technology is being developed specifically for couples who suffer from infertility, it could someday also be used by postmenopausal women and same-sex couples. In short, according to the Guardian, in either two to four years or five to 10 (depending on which pack of Dr. Frankensteins you believe) gay couples may be able to have a baby using both of their -- and only their -- genetic material.
Can't wait for the wingnuts to go completely nutzoid over this one.
MoDo
I don’t like Maureen Dowd. And it’s not for any of the reasons one usually hears from people who don’t like her, which usually have something to do with her either being too feminist or not feminist enough, or too feminine or not feminine enough, or something else that vaguely or overtly stinks of sexism. The reason I don’t like Maureen Dowd is because the same pithy snark she now directs at Bush to liberal applause, she used in 2000 to help elect him.
LeMew (with help from Bob Somerby) has got a great post on this very topic, which I highly recommend, especially if you, like me, have lines like “Does he think, going into 2000, that this will give him a romantic glow, or a romantic afterglow? It reminds me of Jackie Kennedy whispering in Teddy White’s ear about ‘Camelot’” seared into your brain for all eternity, rising to the surface every so often and piquing a furious frustration as you contemplate how different things could have been…
Just a reminder
Racism is alive and well in this country.
Nationwide, Asian students say they're often beaten, threatened and called ethnic slurs by other young people, and school safety data suggest that the problem may be worsening. Youth advocates say these Asian teens, stereotyped as high-achieving students who rarely fight back, have for years borne the brunt of ethnic tension as Asian communities expand and neighborhoods become more racially diverse.
"We suspect that in areas that have rapidly growing populations of Asian-Americans, there often times is a sort of culture clashing," said Aimee Baldillo of the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium. Youth harassment is "something we see everywhere in different pockets of the U.S. where there's a large influx of (Asian) people."
Racism against Asians is something you rarely hear about in the mainstream press. For some odd reason, it often seems to be ignored or dismissed. For example, remember Abercrombie & Fitch's delightful racist shirts? There was appropriate backlash and boycotts, and Abercrombie pulled the shirts.
The T-shirts, some of which show smiling men with slanted eyes and conical hats, will be pulled from all of the company's 311 stores in 50 states, company spokesman Hampton Carney said Thursday.
"We're very, very, very sorry," Carney said. "It's never been our intention to offend anyone."
Oh, of course not. How could you possibly forsee offending anyone with benign shirts like this one?
I was amazed these ever got past the drawing board, but I suppose I shouldn't be too shocked. After all, this is the company that doesn't want you working on the sales floor unless you fit "The Abercrombie Look."
Katie Hollenbeck strolled the corridors of Carousel Mall trying to decide where she would like to apply for a new job. The junior graphic arts major walked into the Abercrombie & Fitch store, took one look at the female employees behind the counter and walked out. "They were all tall, skinny white girls, and I didn't feel appropriate for the job," she said. The intimidation that Hollenbeck, and many others feel, when walking into the retail-clothing store may not last for long. Abercrombie is about to undergo a major image change that won't drop the gorgeous models from the payroll, but will work to end alleged discrimination by hiring more female and minority employees.
Abercrombie has agreed to settle a class-action discrimination lawsuit brought on by nine former employees who claimed they were fired, asked to work in back storage rooms or put on overnight shifts because they didn't fit into the "Abercrombie look" enough to work on the sales floor during regular business hours.
Read: Fit, beautiful and white.
Anyway, my point is, when A&F did this, the protest/boycott was organized, promoted and carried out by Asian activist groups; most were student groups from Stanford and Berkeley.
Fast forward to this year, and apparently A&F still haven't learned their lesson:
Abercrombie Pulls Sexist Shirts
In response to growing outcry from young women and girls across the country, Abercrombie & Fitch agreed Friday to stop selling two T-shirts many have called offensive and sexist.
The clothing giant also agreed to meet face-to-face with a group of 23 Pennsylvania teens who organized the local-turned-national "girlcott" of A&F stores.
(snip)
The two shirts removed as part of Friday's settlement contain the slogans, "Who Needs Brains When You Have These?" and "All Men Like Tig Old Bitties."
Arnet said those were the two deemed most offensive by the teen organizers. Other shirts in the same line include phrases like "Muck Fe," "I Had a Nightmare Last Night I Was a Brunette," and "Blondes Are Adored, Brunettes Are Ignored."
The usual thick-headed, bigoted stupidity from Abercrombie and Fitch. (Call me a tinfoil hatter, but it wouldn't surprise me if this was an intentional publicity stunt.) But here's the kicker:
Almost immediately, the teens' actions grabbed the attention of the Today Show and FOX News. As news spread, other girls and young women around the country quickly jumped on board.
Two days later A&F contacted Arnet and agreed to pull two of the offensive shirts from the shelves.
(snip)
National women's groups lauded the teens' actions. Illinois state Sen. Steven Rauschenberger, a Republican, introduced a resolution demanding that Abercrombie stop selling demeaning T-shirts in its Illinois stores.
Quite a buzz, eh? So my question is this: Where were Rauchenberger, FOX News and The Today Show when Abercrombie's ignorance and bigotry was directed at Asians? I guess when it doesn't have the "they're-suggesting-sex, won't-someone-please-think-of-the-children" angle, we can't expect too much.
Why, when racism is directed against Asians, does the general mindset seem to be "Take care of this yourselves?" Why does racism against Asians seem like a "lesser problem?" (For example, think of the uproar that would have occured if Abercrombie had done a pickaninny/watermelon shirt.)
Obviously, racist violence against Asians is getting worse. Racist, stereotyped Asian cariactures are still very common... just keep an eye on your television. By inoring the problem, or seeing it as "their responsibility," we only allow it to get worse.
(Image updated; click here to see more. Tip 'o the Energy Dome to Eric Cheng. She came from Planet Cross-post, I knew she came from there...)
Here It Is, In Black and White
SCOTUS nominee Sam Alito does not believe abortion is a constitutionally protected right, among other positions likely to give me an ulcer:
Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, wrote that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion" in a 1985 document obtained by The Washington Times.(I would have thought someone as smart as Scalito would have done more on his application than copy the entry for “Activist Judge” out of the encyclopedia.)
"I personally believe very strongly" in this legal position, Mr. Alito wrote on his application to become deputy assistant to Attorney General Edwin I. Meese III…
"It has been an honor and source of personal satisfaction for me to serve in the office of the Solicitor General during President Reagan's administration and to help to advance legal positions in which I personally believe very strongly," he wrote.
"I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."…
"I believe very strongly in limited government, federalism, free enterprise, the supremacy of the elected branches of government, the need for a strong defense and effective law enforcement, and the legitimacy of a government role in protecting traditional values," he wrote.
"In the field of law, I disagree strenuously with the usurpation by the judiciary of decision-making authority that should be exercised by the branches of government responsible to the electorate," he added.
I certainly hope Joe Biden and the other “moderate Senate Democrats” who have been so eager to rule out the filibuster identify this as the possibly “extraordinary circumstance” they (inexplicably) didn’t expect, and get serious about vetting this candidate before they bring out the cigars to celebrate giving Bush another undeserved bipartisan victory.
Random Stuff…
…that I think is interesting, but haven’t had the time about which to write:
John Edwards admits he was wrong about the war.
Forrester blames Bush for his defeat in NJ.
Santorum reverses his position and says ID doesn’t belong in classrooms.
Africa elects its first woman president. Cool.
O’Reilly Spews Defense of Previous Spewage
As you may recall, a couple of days ago, Bill O’Reilly offered up San Francisco to al-Qaida as punishment for their passing a ballot measure urging public high schools and colleges to prohibit on-campus military recruiting, culminating with the invitation: “You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.”
Not surprisingly, San Franciscans were none too pleased:
One of the ticked off was San Francisco Supervisor Chris Daly, who Friday called for O'Reilly to be fired.I love it. Not only does he make a generally jackassed statement that would offend any American with a lick of sense, but he also chooses as his prime target a building shaped like a hose to honor some of the city’s first responders. Brilliant.
"For an anchor on a major station, Fox News, to be saying those kinds of things, it's just not OK," Daly said Friday. "It was just over the top."
Agreeing with Daly was San Francisco firefighters union president John Hanley, and not just because the hose-shaped tower is a tribute to firefighters.
"Who is this guy, O'Reilly?" said Hanley, who identified himself as both a third-generation San Franciscan and military veteran. "I've got guys fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm a veteran myself. What's he talking about?"
Then O’Reilly, consummately irrepressible in his jagoffitude, was given the opportunity on a conservative San Francisco radio show to, oh, I don’t know, explain or perhaps even apologize for his latest bout of verbal diarrhea, but instead chose to defend his statement by noting it was not controversial and “needed to be said,” because San Francisco “has absolutely no clue about what the world is,” and its “left-wing, selfish, Land of Oz philosophy…is an absolute intellectual disgrace.” (For a real stunner, go read the whole thing. ThinkProgress also has an audio link if you can stomach it.)
Now, I don’t know about you, but if a sense of decency and a functioning capacity for reason didn’t prevent me from offering up national sacrifices based on those who engage in what might rightly be deemed an absolute intellectual disgrace, the first on my list would not be the residents of San Francisco.
Workers’ Rights Initiative
As part of a weekend salon, Ezra wanted to know:
...what's your progressivism? And none of this vague, Stronger at Home, Respected in the World BS. Give me four or five policies that should define the Democratic Party's agenda and the theme that ties them together. The only constraint? They have to be focused on shifting power from the corporation to the individual, the employer to the employee. It's a new progressivism, but using progressivism's old, and far too neglected, definition.What’s my progressivism? It’s being pro-choice.
Pro-choice is a phrase most closely associated with abortion, but the belief in giving people choices is really the core of a progressive philosophy, and when I’m asked what I would do to shift power from the corporation to the individual, the employer to the employee, my immediate response is to give workers choices—and in so doing, return to their hands a little bit more of the much-touted freedom that politicians are always talking about.
1. Being dependent on one’s employment for healthcare is no kind of choice, particularly when extended illness legally allows an employer to terminate one’s employment—thereby also terminating one’s healthcare benefits, further exposing an already vulnerable person to further financial and physical distress. Universal healthcare, on the other hand, opens up a world of choice for workers; not only will employment decisions cease to be contingent upon healthcare coverage, but entrepreneurship becomes less risky and ergo more attractive.
2. Compensation reform is also desperately necessary—a livable minimum wage, restructuring and expansion of overtime categories, mandatory minimum severance for no-fault terminations, job security in case of illness or family emergency, and family leave guarantees. The lack of these protections is causing nothing less than the chronic abuse and exploitation of American workers, as they have assumed all the responsibility for their continued employment, in spite of a myriad of external circumstances they can’t possibly control. The conventional wisdom, even among many liberals, is that such responsibility isn’t meant to be shared; that’s what a paycheck is for. But that isn’t what a paycheck is for—a paycheck is for services rendered. When an employer and an employee enter into a contract together, the responsibility of making sure both parties are secure in that contract ought to be shared by both parties. I know that sounds wacky to most Americans, but that’s because we made a devil’s bargain for the fattest possible paychecks instead of the most secure jobs, and now the majority of workers has ended up with neither.
3. Close corporate tax loopholes. Duh. But, I’m pro-choice across the board…so how about offering tax incentives to corporations who adopt worker-friendly policies like flex-time, comp-time, tuition reimbursement, etc.? How about an incentive for corporations who start each employee with four weeks of vacation, bringing us in line with most of the rest of the world? Don’t laugh—this is my best progressive policy suggestion. You see, American workers travel abroad much less than any other first-world workers—and a big part of the reason is lack of vacation time, which we end up using for sick days, the-kids-are-sick days, gotta-take-the-car-into-the-shop days, go-to-the-dentist days, and all that other stuff, because we don’t have proper allowances for such things, and we’ve got less vacation time than anyone else to start. By the time we get around to taking a vacation, a long weekend on the coast is about all we can do with the time we’ve got left. (And that's only those who have vacation time as a benefit.) But the thing is—Americans who do travel abroad (the infamous 17% or so that have passports) are inevitably more progressive than is the general population. They’re more open as a group to concepts like universal healthcare and family leave than is the general population. Seeing the world opens eyes. Give people the choice to explore the world, and they’ll choose progress at home.
(Crossposted at Ezra's place.)
Question of the Day
All right, now that we’ve complained about the rudeness of strangers, today’s question is: What is the kindest thing a stranger has ever done for you?
I could come up with a list a mile long of all the generous things that strangers (including many, many, many of my fellow Shakers) have done for me, but the one that sticks out most clearly in my mind was just a split-second thing…
I was approaching some train tracks at night on a country road that wasn’t lit, and the tracks had no gates. I stopped, rolled down the window to listen, craned my neck in either direction, and was just about to drive across when a car on the other side of the tracks flashed its headlights at me. I paused for just a moment, and in that moment, a train going a zillion miles an hour flew in front of me. My heart just completely stopped for a moment or two.
I don’t know how I missed seeing or hearing that train coming, but the driver in the other car was paying attention and sussed out that I was ready to roll into its path. Taking the moment to flick those headlights quite literally saved my life. I still think about that all the time, for some reason. It happened 15 years ago.
Numerous kindly Brits have also pulled me out of the path of oncoming traffic, usually careening black cabs, after I’ve looked the wrong way before crossing the street. My Londoner Andy alone probably deserves a medal. (Unless you’re of the mind I deserve crushing, in which case, not so much.)
Bleh
These are my choices?
If the 2008 presidential election were held today, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) would snuff Senator John Kerry (D-MA) 53% to 35%, and sneak ahead of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) 44% to 42%, according to a Wall Street Journal poll released Friday…A lot can change in three years. Let’s hope a lot does.
At this point in the game, Clinton crushes all other Democratic hopefuls. The erstwhile First Lady pulls 41% among Democrats to 14% for Edwards; Kerry draws 10%, Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) 5% and Wesley Clark 4%. Mavericks Giuliani and McCain lead Republican field with 34% and 31%, respectively, while Senator Bill Frist (R-TN), Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) and Senator George Allen (R-VA) draw 5% or lesss.
What the hell is wrong with O’Reilly?
Via MediaMatters, O’Reilly has decided to offer San Francisco to Al Qaeda, since San Franciscans passed a ballot measure urging public high schools and colleges to prohibit on-campus military recruiting:
From the November 8 broadcast of Fox News' The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:Good grief, what a bloviating buffoon. It’s no wonder he hates MediaMatters and the blogosphere so much, since they’ve exponentially increased awareness of the insane spewage that comprises his radio show. He says all the really wacky shit there; the constant circulation of transcripts from his radio program undermine the (dubious) pretense of moderation he uses on his television show. And he’s such a sneaky, lying turd that he’ll rebut items that reference his radio transcripts with footage of his television show. I get the feeling he likes to have his little radio outpost of extremism that doesn’t get tons of attention while he parades himself, even if unconvincingly, as Mr. Pragmatic Everyman on the telly every night.
O'REILLY: Hey, you know, if you want to ban military recruiting, fine, but I'm not going to give you another nickel of federal money. You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium, and I say, "Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead."
And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.
The 210-foot Coit Tower was dedicated in 1933 and contains a museum and murals that depict working life in 1930s California.
Wasn’t he talking about retiring soon? When can we expect that, exactly?
And by the way, the mere extension of a hypothetical in which he is president is practically enough to turn my office into a vomitorium.
(Crossposted at Ezra's place.)
Friday Blogrollin'
In lieu of new additions, I’d like to recommend the blogs authored by those who have served, in honor of Veterans Day:
(The Fixer and Gordon)
Armchair Generalist
Daily Kos
Democratic Veteran
Linkmeister
Me4President
Life After Combat Boots
The Fulcrum
Why Now?
The Supreme Irony of Life…
Grumpy Old Man
Ramblings from My Mind
Radical Russ
Today in Iraq
Main and Central
DebsWeb
Thank you for your service.
(I know that's nowhere near a complete list, so if you're a blogger who's served, please let me know in comments, and I’ll add you to the list.)
Restoring Integrity
President Bush will use the occasion of his Veterans Day speech today to stick it to the Democrats for charging that the White House misused intelligence to gain support for the Iraq war.
Nice tactic. With any luck, he will create some new Democrats out of some old veterans.
I think, “Support the troops! (Unless it’s politically expedient to trash dissenters instead.)” will make a lovely bumper sticker.
Hmm
Steven E. Jones , a Brigham Young University physics professor, has written a paper claiming the WTC collapses were likely caused by explosives and is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation "guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations.”
I admit I find this really intriguing. I know there are a lot of conspiracy theories about this, but it really bothers me that the official explanation is that fires caused structural damage that caused the buildings to collapse. Even wood frame buildings can burn for longer without collapsing. I remember reading about a hotel that was in flames for nineteen hours without collapsing.
Anyway, nothing will come of this, I’m sure, and maybe Jones is just a crackpot, but I still find this stuff pretty interesting. Especially because little things like how George Bush's brother owned the company in charge of security for the WTC never made the news. Call me a tinfoil hatter, but that seems like a pretty amazing coincidence. It certainly seems like something that would have been worth mentioning, even if only as a curiosity.
Question of the Day
Following on the heels of the lively discussion in the It’s not that I don’t like kids… comments thread, what other acts of public rudeness drive you to the brink of insanity?
I could probably name about a dozen, but the first one that comes to mind is tailgating. It drives me insane, not only because it’s so pointless, but because it’s also so unsafe.
Holier Than Thou
Ez offers up an interesting post on the Dems’ religion conundrum:
It's bad enough that Democrats believe they've got to fake faith these days, transforming casual spiritual commitments into essential components of our beings. Worse, however, is that these theological costume parties come off as obviously inauthentic, meaning Democrats who want to compete in certain races simply have to be longtime believers, sincere theists like Kaine or Clinton. That's a worrisome precedent.That last bit is the rub, isn’t it? Of course, one doesn’t have to explicitly state, or even imply, that the beliefs by which one lives aren’t important enough to vote on, in the course of making the point that religious people don’t have the market cornered on morality. And even though every politician—including the great Christian Bush himself—makes careful mention of the faithless (typically coming at the end of a list like “Christians, Jews, Muslims…” and tacked on as “and non-believers” or “and even people who don’t practice religion”), there doesn’t exist in politics, or anywhere in America, for that matter, much real support for the notion that one can be ethical and faithless at the same time.
Political office should not be restricted to anyone, not veterans, not believers, not men, and not Democrats. Quite a few folks in this country have a casual relationship to religion and that shouldn't be a disqualifier for office nor a negative when the DCCC or DSCC goes out scouring the countryside for potential candidates. Worse then losing some elections is celebrating the idea that we can win them by just nominating enough altar boys who never hung up their frocks. And while that's not what folks are explicitly saying, it's bubbling just beneath the surface. Democrats need to find a way to overcome the religion gap by delegitimizing a private issue as a relevant litmus test for success in the public sphere. I don't know how to do that, and you certainly can't tell anyone that the beliefs they live by aren't important enough to vote on, but it's something to think about.
A peculiar state of affairs, considering that a ragtag band of secular humanists has never set off for foreign lands with conversion—and failing that, war—on their minds, and that jails are full of men who read holy books.
That’s not to suggest a superiority of the faithless, but an equivalency, at least. While the suggestion that there are good and bad people of every religion isn’t considered very controversial, proposing that an agnostic or atheist candidate might be as moral as a devoutly religious one still ruffles lots of feathers—even among many Democrats. A faithless candidate can’t win, we’re told, which is no doubt correct, but the Dems’ awkward embrace of religiosity is moving us further away from the time when such a candidate could win. Ez again:
That Kaine had to deploy Jesus to deflect attacks is, in fact, a bad thing. His positions should be able to stand without the son of god propping them up. Tim Kaine without the church-going background should be as appealing as Tim Kaine with it. That it's not so is a precedent we should be giving serious thought to.Indeed.
