I ran across this post on Ales Rarus. I like when the blogmaster over there digs up the good G.K. Chesterton quotes, noting how relevant they still are.

Also, I would like to thank Anthony for the useful suggestion to start a category index on the sidebar. This will, hopefully, allow readers to choose posts they will appreciate more, in case some of what I write isn't up their alley.

I had tried categories earlier ( a couple months ago), but my ineptitude with coding (in tandem with my impatience) was enough of a stumbling block to kill that effort. This time, however, it seems to have worked. Thanks again for the advice.

I was just a little curious again, so I went around looking for bits and pieces about Memorial Day on the world wide web.

I came across this piece on the history of the holiday, which I thought was interesting, as I often do when I realize how little I actually know about a subject. Anyway, I linked to it in case anyone else wants to read up on the subject. I noticed there are many other pieces on Memorial Day, but I thought this one was a fairly easy read, while still being informative.

Also...

Since it is Memorial Day, I wanted to say the following, even though it may not be entirely on point. And this isn't political, as I've noticed neither of the major parties has really done much on this front, but here it is.

Why don't we compensate people better for serving in the military? I personally have known several people who have gone off to serve, whether in the current conflict or in the past, whose families have been left in dire straits due to the meager salary of the average service person. And my complaint doesn't stop there. It continues on to the arena of retirement and medical benefits, in which many cuts have been made over the years.

It always seemed to me that those who are put in harm's way for our sake should be well compensated. We give our politicians lavish compensation packages compared to what the average soldier receives on active duty. Why is that? What is so inherently risky about spending just a part of the year in full-time session, while being whisked around to fund-raisers and dinner meetings with lobbyists?

I'm not saying those who serve in political positions don't deserve to be compensated, but given the imbalance, I don't see why they should be paid so well when our foot soldiers are barely getting by.

That said, I hope you have a good Memorial Day.

I have decided, after far too much deliberation, that the Verdana font will be used on the Smedley Drafts portion of the site, as it has been on this page. It's not what I'd call urgent news, but I figured for some people the old Perpetua font might have been a stumbling block to reading the poetry index. I'd hate to think it's the poetry people don't like...

"The way the days and nights pass by
you don't understand -
- falling like rain through your hands."
-Fountains of Wayne

So my posts have been more sporadic the past few days, and to any regular readers I would apologize, but I'm not sure if anyone is that dependent on my blog habit, except, of course, me.

Which brings me to a response I received to the Blog Hop post. (At least I assume it was in response to that; the sender didn't specify, though he/she did offer a pithy review of this little web log.):

"Some of your stuff is okay, but your all over the place from one day to the next, and some of the stuff is just not that interesting..."

That's just an excerpt, and there was no name given.

But the point is, I do try to be somewhat relevant, but generally I write about what comes to the forefront of my mind and begs to be let out. If that isn't interesting to someone else, the best I can do is offer an empty apology (because I wouldn't really mean it). This is simply an extension of an ages old habit, which is to express myself through the written word. Sometimes people like it; sometimes they don't, but mostly they don't bother to tell me what they think -- which is absolutely fine.

A little while back I started caring a little too much whether people were visiting, what pages they were visiting, and why. I had upgraded my website tracking to the premium package offered by Webstat, trying to analyze who was visiting, when, why and for how long.

Then I started to realize it was too much information to have, especially given my stated disinterest in monitoring my visitors, so I downgraded again. Now I just know how many people are visiting, and a few other general bits of information -- like I said before about curiosity, it's another one of my habits.

Still, thank you to the somewhat anonymous reader who took a few moments to send me a little more detailed feedback. It's no disrespect to you or anyone else, but I will probably continue writing some more stuff you don't really care for, with some other "okay" stuff sprinkled in from time to time. That's all for now.

"Dover Beach" by Matthew Arnold.

This is one of those classics I was forced to study in high school and then again in college. I think by the second try at it, I had finally developed more of a feel for the poem.

I recently started a blog experiment that has transformed my sidebar into even more of a cyber-strip mall. I have slowly begun to realize that I don't like the overcrowded look of it too much, so I made a few changes to the main blog page yesterday (though the appearance of the archive pages still looks the same as before, for now).

But back to the experiment: I saw this thing over on Ales Rarus from BlogHop.com. It's a way for people to give a blog a quick rating (see the bottom of the sidebar). I guess the decision to place it on this page sprung from my curiosity, as I wondered what kind of impression an average visitor was getting from this log.

The possible answers range from a dark green smiley (for readers who love the blog) to a red frowning face (meaning the reader hates the blog).

The problem I've found with this method of feedback is that I have no idea where most of the votes are coming from or why they are being selected. This is similar to a curiosity I had about posting poetry online a few months back; I got mostly positive feedback, but in most instances I couldn't establish whether the feedback was from someone who actually appreciates poetic form or from someone who felt like encouraging me simply because I made the effort.

And there have been a small handful of online correspondents whose opinions take on a little more weight because I have a general sense of their perspective, but it's hard to know where a stranger's opinion is coming from. Granted, in verbal responses to both poetry and blog offerings, there is usually enough detail to help me figure out why someone likes or dislikes what I write.

But in the case of this Blog Hop polling system (amid the flattery I feel that most of the early responses are positive), I really have no clue what to make of the responses. I have no idea why the votes were cast as they were, nor who cast them, which leaves me without knowing whether I should even be pleased or not with the results.

Which is intriguing mostly because Blog Hop purports to be a resource through which web surfers can determine which blogs are worth reading. But when I sampled some sites on their "Best" list, I noticed that most of them were not blogs I would enjoy too much. Then again, my tastes may be somewhat acquired. Still, I guess the idea of reader-rated blogs is a decent enough scheme, and perhaps it's even useful outside the realm of theory.

I'll probably keep the poll at least a few more days before I give up on the idea. Curiosity is, after all, one of my worst habits.

To atone for any appearance of siding with the trial lawyers in the above entry, I am completing the process of sandwiching it between two separate links to other blogs who illustrate examples of why I also fear over-regulation. This time the link is to this Cziltang post.

Saw a movie yesterday. Actually, it was a documentary called Supersize Me. This was basically, for those who haven't heard of it yet, the real-life story of a courageous man who committed himself to the all-McDonald's diet for a full month.

I thought it was an interesting film, mostly because it didn't confine itself to picking on fast food restaurants. Director Morgan Spurlock, the brave lab rat, along with forcing himself to eat only things that could be bought over a McDonaldland counter (under intensive medical monitoring), also delved into several other aspects of our obesity-challenged society. He examined institutional contributors such as the average school lunch and lack of common knowledge on what types of foods are actually healthy. I used to think nobody could be ignorant enough to not understand that too much fast food is unhealthy, until I saw a few man-on-the-street type interviews in which the subjects obviously had no clue. Then, as less common aspects of processed foods were uncovered, I started to realize that I really didn't know that much either.
One inconsistency that was brought up was the idea that many McDonald's restaurants have no readily available nutritional information, either posted or in pamphlet form. Such information is always available on the web, which is nice, unless you're in one of the majority of American households without access to a personal computer or the internet (keeping in mind that many of the lower income folks without these resources are among those more likely to frequent a fast food joint).

Another intriguing inconsistency is that while no fast food company has been successfully sued for causing obesity, Congress saw the need to pass a law prohibiting such suits. Which leads me to wonder, if this type of court case is so baseless, why the need to pass legislation that categorically outlaws it? It seems odd that the U.S. legislative body has seen fit, in this isolated instance, to specifically protect a group of corporations that coincidentally fall under the same lobbying umbrella. Hmmm...

Overall, the film was interesting, and informative, with a touch of humor. I don't believe, as some viewers might, that we need to spend much governmental energy protecting people from their own bad habits, but I do think that people can protect themselves by learning more about the effects of what they do to their bodies. I say this as someone who has made his share of visits to the land of the golden arches (and knows he probably shouldn't), and I can say this little documentary is likely to affect the frequency of my future visits.

I ran into this interesting (scary/interesting) future scenario over at Anthony's weBLOG. It's kind of tangential to the next piece...

I actually wasn't trying to pile on with the many Gates Haters out there when I posted about the blog endorsement from Bill Gates -- not that I have any problem with people making fun of Microsoft. In fact, I quite enjoy making fun of Microsoft, and somehow I think Bill Gates isn't that affected by what we little people are saying anyway...

"Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion."
-Dwight D. Eisenhower

So, it appears that while Michael Moore doesn't have enough allies in the American film industry, the folks at Cannes are loving his work. I don't know about the veracity of Moore's claims that the refusal of big American cinema to carry his film is indicative of any conspiracy, but I do think it should be allowed to be seen. Judging by this review on the BBC site, it seems possible many viewers of his latest documentary might agree with Disney's decision to drop the film.

Still, his brand of dissent should not be muzzled by anything other than the market itself. Which is why Moore should seriously consider following the example of another Hollywood insider who recently bucked a great deal of critical controversy to bring his film to the public. I am, of course, referring to Mel Gibson's gamble on The Passion of the Christ, which has now taken a perch among the highest grossing films ever. I'm sure there are many Hollywood executives who are now regretting not backing Gibson's film. Gibson risked a lot to make the movie, and he is now reaping much more than he risked in the first place.

So, if Michael Moore truly believes in his most recent work, he's probably got the cash to help bring it to the American audience. I'll probably see it, mostly because I've noticed among all the interesting absurdities in Moore's body of work, there are sure to be a handful of intriguing concepts to keep my mind buzzing for a day or two, right up until I dismiss most of it as the spawn of an overactive director's imagination.

So, if there's anyone out there fearing the release of Fahrenheit 9/11, I hope their paranoia is not so great as to lend credibility to Moore's charges. And if you believe in your cause - I'm sorry, I meant to say film - Mr. Moore, I'm sure you can get it released, probably even before election day.

I stumbled across this interesting monologue over at USS Clueless yesterday, and I decided it made me think a little, so I'm posting a link to it. Maybe you'll see what I mean.

I really wanted to comment on the official passing of blogs as a tool of the independents, but my schedule has precluded me from being among the first million or so people to bemoan Mr. Gates' blessing on the art of blogging.

Now I have to find something else to write about...

"Sick" by Shel Silverstein

This was one of my favorite poems when I was a kid, from the writer who is probably most responsible for my early interest in poetry.

I believe I previously mentioned my longtime friend Bob and his Survivor journal (though that was months ago), and I have also plugged his short story site (also on the sidebar). A while back, he started another journal called Deep Dark Secrets, which seems to be shaping into an interesting little literary review.

The one thing I can say about Bob when it comes to reading is that he probably reads more in a typical year than I have in my whole life, so his opinion on a books will grounded in a wide range of reading experience. Just thought I'd mention it.

I came across this piece while waiting for an exhaustive download to complete last night.

In the midst of the revulsion I feel towards the man when my pc crashes, or I happen upon one of those sites that comes up weird in anything other than Internet Extorter (I assume that's what "IE" stands for), I do acknowledge he may not actually be the devil.

So I give Bill Gates a pat on the back for his philanthropy, while still refusing to pay for any of his mediocre software.

I was at the mall the other day, when I saw something interesting: In the mall food court was a trash receptacle that opens when someone walks in front of it, using the kind of sensors they have on most automatic doors. Then after the person has dumped the trash from their tray in the can and walked away, the flap on the can closes, and you can hear the sound of the trash in the can being compacted. I must have sat in my chair staring at this for a good two, three minutes. (It just doesn't take too much to amuse me, that's all.)

On the opposite end of the sanitation scale, I went to the movies the other night and noticed that upon being set free from the theater at the film's end, a sizeable crowd descended on the restroom area (as is normal). Here's the disturbing trend: of the dozen or so guys who went into the men's room about the same time I did, I only saw one other guy bother to wash on his way out. Just thinking about it, I was looking at some of these men rushing past the sinks as if there had been a fire. Some of them were fairly well-dressed and looked like the kind of folks who would know better. I guess you never can tell...

I was browsing my links, when I came across this Glutter post, which I must admit, caught me a little off-guard (given my previous visits to Yan's site).

I recently purchased a new pair of sneakers online. I bought them because (a) I could use a new pair of comfy shoes to knock around in, and (b) I wanted to support a good cause.

Good cause, you say? Yes, because the shoes I purchased were marketed under a line of apparel known as "No Sweat." This means that the items are guaranteed to have originated from a factory where workers make a living wage, as opposed to being made in sweat shops.

They were still manufactured in a foreign country, but the "No Sweat" line focuses on the outsourcing and off-shoring of manufacturing jobs (many of which have long since departed U.S. shores) from a different angle than movements that focus solely on prohibiting companies from operating in third world countries.

This is, of course, the argument that is often made by those who support "free trade." The theory is that even though these largely non-industrial nations don't currently have very high labor standards, with time, workforces will progress to a point where they can "encourage" the labor market toward better compensation. Under this model, all these non-industrial countries will eventually provide more favorable environments for their workers. The problem with this argument is that little is being done by the typical big business interests who support free trade to foster these positive environmental changes.

So I decided, rather than butt my head up against a wall, I'd support an enterprise that takes a proactive role in improving labor conditions. The shoes I bought, while incredibly basic in appearance (think Chuck Taylor), are pretty comfortable, and were made in Indonesia by members of the Confederation of Indonesian Employees Unions, Textiles, Clothing & Leather. They sold for $35 a pair.

I previously preferred buying New Balance shoes, partly because I thought they were as well-made as any other sports shoe, and also because up until a couple years ago, they offered an extensive selection of shoes actually made by American workers. But even the valiant folks at New Balance eventually caved to the financial pressures of such an effort. I still own a pair of American made shoes from them, and I have to say they were surprisingly inexpensive for shoes manufactured in the U.S.

Anyway, the folks over at No Sweat offer several different apparel options for anyone interested. I'm not just trying to heap shame on those who support border jumping corporations like Nike and Levi Strauss; I have the optimistic feeling that given the option, there are many people who would prefer purchasing goods made under ethical conditions to buying goods made in sweat shops by workers working double and triple time without the basic protections that we in America take for granted.

Just a thought.

(Slight correction on the New Balance situation: They do still make several different models of athletic shoe in the U.S., though that number seems to be ever-diminishing.)

"So she woke up, woke up from where she was lying still,
saying: I gotta' do something about where we're going."
-U2

I had a conversation recently wherein the person with whom I was talking was speaking of a certain turning point in his life, one spurred somewhat by the 9/11 terror attacks. He was explaining how it had motivated him to start living a healthier lifestyle. One segment of his lifestyle adjustment was taking up the habit of running.

I remember feeling some of the same pangs, the need to get more out of my life, in the months following 9/11. Some of the byproducts of that time period were short-lived. Others are still with me. One life change after 9/11 included the desire to take more photographs of the people in my life. For about a year I took hundreds of photos of family and friends at special gatherings, as well as during the more normal times. I still take photos sometimes, but not nearly so much as I used to. Another such change that followed closely after the attacks was that I opted to go back to school. I decided that I wanted to make more of things, and I am still on that path.

I guess, as I was thinking of this subject, I was wondering how many people had experienced similar pangs in the aftermath of 9/11. It must have been an incredibly common thing for people in the wake of such momentous happenings, to feel the need to do more. And beyond that, I wondered what kinds of resolutions other people had made, and whether or not those resolutions have endured.

The truth is, since having the conversation I mentioned at the top of this post, I have rediscovered a certain level of resolve, both to stick with my school ideas and also to get back to some of the other resolutions I had that have been shuffled to the side.

I wouldn't mind hearing a few responses from other folks who were also inspired to make positive changes in the past couple years since that day. I know this isn't the type of controversial topic that draws a record number of comments or emails, but I was a little curious about it. Do with it what you will. Good day.

A couple weeks ago, at the 130th running of the Kentucky Derby, horse racing's most prestigious single event, Smarty Jones made more than a handful of my co-workers several hundred dollars each. I confess to a little regret, at least temporarily, that I didn't suspend my own reservations about gambling to take part in the race track profiteering. Especially as a Philly guy, I was thinking about it, but I didn't.

The truth is, up until today, I'd never even seen an entire horse race, unless you count the staged contests in the movie Seabiscuit, which offers interesting parallels. It's not a mirror image story, but it's similar in that a it involves small horse from an unheralded venue with an unheralded jockey, going undefeated in the first eight races of his career. He even had to overcome a devastating injury along the way. And his victory at Pimlico today was similar in margin to the images of the race between Seabiscuit and War Admiral at the same track seventy years ago. And the third-place horse today was ridden by the same jockey (three-time Kentucky Derby winner Gary Stevens) who made his acting debut as the jockey who rode Seabiscuit in the showdown with War Admiral.

So this was the first time I've ever watched a real horse race, and there was some exhilaration as I saw Smarty just run away from the rest of the field down the stretch. I'm not sure if that means I like horse racing. Maybe I was just happy to see a horse from the hometown track win another big race and take another step toward the elusive triple crown.

"We Real Cool" by Gwendolyn Brooks

"Revenge is often like biting a dog
because the dog bit you."
-Austin O'Malley

In the world of sports, there is a term used to describe displays of overconfidence, whether by words or actions. For instance, a player on one team might suggest to a reporter that he doesn't believe his team can lose to their next opponent, or perhaps he'll make a gesture or a play in a game that shows up the other team. The opposing team may take such words or actions to heart and be more motivated to defeat the offending player's team. In the world of sports these types of statements or actions are routinely referred to as "bulletin board material."

This phenomenon is not limited to the sports arena. Historically, there have been many events that could be characterized as analogous to bulletin board material. One such event that has recently been re-introduced through motion pictures is the story of the Alamo. "Remember the Alamo" was a cry that fired up the troops in Texas as they chased Santa Ana, at least according to the story. Pearl Harbor was another such moment in history; so, too, was September 11, 2001.

Unfortunately, recent days have furnished both sides in this war on terror with far too much bulletin board material. I've narrowly dealt with the prison abuse scandal in Iraq and the video-recorded beheading of an American, both of which are among the least necessary, yet most sickening, examples.

When we speak about things that might have contributed to September 11, 2001, we have been warned too often not to consider the possibility that we may have been in any way complicit. While I generally haven't seen anything yet that would justify the killing of a few thousand innocents, I don't really believe the cause of any tragedy is worth considering if we're not willing to consider every angle. So, while I would not advocate placing blame for 9/11 on our government, I do believe it would be disingenuous to categorically squelch any suggestions to the contrary. And, though there have been no such allegations entertained at a governmental level, allegations have certainly been leveled.

But this isn't about blame anymore. It's more about understanding that, regardless of fault (or intent), actions have consequences. This doesn't justify the cowards who have had a hand in murdering innocents at home or abroad. It also doesn't justify the weak-willed soldiers who took part in the prison abuses. We just need to understand that the pictures that came out of Abu Ghraib are important to a militant movement that will gladly scrape up as much motivation as it can find. While they are embarrassing to us, they are vital to al Qaeda.

But by the same token, the brazen beheading of an innocent American contractor, whose only goal in Iraq was to help rebuild their war-torn infrastructure, can also provide motivation -- just like the vision of airplanes colliding with skyscrapers.

I saw a blurb on the news yesterday about one of the militant websites. There was a screenshot from the site in which there were photos from Abu Ghraib, and these words were featured in English:

"WE NEVER FORGET"

As atrocities mount and I find my head increasingly crowded by so many tragic, indelible images, I'm starting to notice we have that in common.

P.S. > I had written most of the preceding post prior to experiencing the misfortune of hearing a thirty second audio clip on a drive time radio show yesterday. Having heard the audio footage of the last segment of the video, the surreal combination of a dying man's screams of agony and the mercilessly ironic chant of "Allah akbar" ("God is great") triggered a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach unlike any I'd ever felt from simply listening to audio. I do not intend to view the infamous video that so many people have apparently flocked to download; I'm still wishing I could somehow un-hear the sounds in that short clip on the radio. It was bad enough that I can now say with certitude I will never forget it, but I wish I could.

Before you go on to the next item, I hope to apologize if the subject matter has become temporarily morose. It is never my intention to dwell on depressing subject matter, but I tend to write the words that are begging to be loosed. And let's face it, these days aren't the happiest in terms of world news, so this is what's been pouring from the mental floodgates.

I promise I'll soon be back to lighter, more inane topics, like presidential politics and the frustrations of the creative process.

And now back to what's really weighing me down...

"All cruelty springs from weakness."
-Lucius Annaeus Seneca

I could be referring to the recently publicized images of abused Iraqi inmates in Abu Ghraib Prison, as that was humiliating, not only to the Iraqis, but also to the more honorable Americans serving there; but I'm not stuck on that right now.

I'm currently referring to this story: images were shown on a militant website linked to al Qaeda -- the video of a Philadelphia-area man being cruelly executed, apparently for the world to see. I'm always interested in the way these types of militants feel so brash, especially when hiding beneath masks.

Everything about the way they operated suggests a certain self-awareness that what they are doing is wrong. There certainly isn't anything to suggest that the masked men in the web video are in any way morally superior to the moronic soldiers in Abu Ghraib, many of whom were at least brave (or stupid) enough to bare their faces in front of the camera -- which, if nothing else, helps assure eventual justice for their sick-minded actions.

It says something that they seldom have qualms about targeting the civilian Americans in Iraq, or even putting Iraqi civilians in harm's way to protect themselves. I feel a lot of anger when I see stories like this, and I even occasionally question the need for us to tread so lightly, while the enemy throws caution and humanity to the wind -- but I do understand the need for us to operate on a higher military level. I do understand that a disturbing segment of the world's population will not spend much effort criticizing those from whom this type of behavior is commonplace, while they will carry the grudge against our missteps far longer.

Perhaps it goes with the job of being who we are; perhaps it's cultural; perhaps it goes far beyond what I could ever understand about the part of the world in which our armies are currently stationed. This spectacle seems to suggest that there is much I'll never comprehend about the extremist element from which these masked cowards were spawned.

But then, I'm just a little upset right now. I'm sure tomorrow I'll get over it, right? Whatever the case, my prayers go out to the Berg family, along with the families of all other victims in this war.

"Hypocrisy in anything whatever may deceive the cleverest and most penetrating man, but the least wide-awake of children recognizes it, and is revolted by it, however ingeniously it may be disguised."
-Leo Tolstoy

I believe it's been said that we are often annoyed by the faults of others that mirror our own. If so, it may that I'm beginning to grasp why the imprecise regret expressed by our President irritated me (as hastily observed in last Thursday's post).

I suppose, after all, it's one of humanity's more powerful negative tendencies to try to avoid blame. More to the heart of the matter, by avoiding blame, we are usually trying to avoid a consequence -- the consequence of accepting responsibility, and by extension, the consequence of action.

In the case of the previously mentioned prison abuse scandal, the consequence of a straightforward admission of guilt could be costly, whether politically, financially or otherwise. In my case the easiest example of dodging blame (though far from the most recent) is the story of Giraffe.

Giraffe was, by at least one account, an bad influence on me as a child. This was a bad rap though. Giraffe was, well, a giraffe, but unlike other giraffes, he could easily be carried around by a small child. His hide was curiously similar to plastic, and overall, he was innocent-looking enough. I remember once being scolded by my mother for a strange trail of coffee grounds on the floor. My reply to this inquisition was, "Giraffe did it." According to my mother's account, this was my response to several accusations regarding the many crimes of my early youth. Though I can't quite see how I could have attempted to frame my most imaginary friend with such charges, something tells me my mother's version of events is fairly accurate.

The reason I bring this up is to illustrate my sordid past escapades in attempting to displace blame for things I had done. I was seeking to shirk responsibility for my actions. Some people might read about these childhood sins and think it ridiculous to try to compare them to current events like the Iraqi prison abuse scandal. That is what makes it relevant here. We are (hopefully) trained as children to accept responsibility for things that we do, only to learn later in life, that as the stakes climb higher, this principle becomes dispensable.

Unfortunately, my attempts to justify my actions and displace fault didn't just stop the second my old friend Giraffe retired to the old toy bin. Even now, there are situations that arise where I need to remind myself of the importance of accountability -- especially in this age of so many bad apologists.

Perhaps the most disturbing element to this trend of justification and blame dilution is how socially acceptable it's become. We use things like money and political aspiration to justify not accepting blame for the things we've done. Our society accepts this trend as practical, and therefore it bears no shame, even when it is nothing but shameful.

And we go on trying to teach the children to be responsible, while we, as adults, continue to scramble for avenues to escape responsibility -- irrationally expecting our words to somehow drown out our actions.

That is why I retreated to my own childhood example. The effort to train our youth is undermined by accepting such poor behavior at such high levels. The thing about childhood that we often forget is that while children aren't as sophisticated as we might think we are, it is their tendency toward simplicity that allows them to easily see when we're not integrating our actions with the rules we espouse. In that sense this could be about any one of the millions of things adults do, while trying to train younger people not to do the same -- but for today, it's just about accountability, or the lack thereof.

"Before you get sold, you get bought for a song."

I went up to New York City last Friday with my brother-in-law to catch FOW in concert at the Roseland Ballroom in the heart of the theater district in Manhattan.

The first opening act was the Robbers on High Street, a local NYC band that apparently had a following (judging from the people around me that seemed to know the words to their songs). They were musically competent (which I suppose is a compliment), but nothing really jumped out at me, as far as being interesting -- and that's not really the point of this post anyway.

The second opening act was Evan Dando, formerly of the Lemonheads. He was a bit of a treat. He opened his set with about a half-dozen numbers that just included him and his beat up acoustic guitar, which sounded much better than it looked. Then he was joined by his bassist and drummer for another five or six tunes, these with a little more energy. The acoustic part of his performance was thoroughly entertaining, and that was without him playing anything I could recognize, though I was definitely thinking about buying his CD, if it only included the opening song he played (the chorus included a line about lying "about being the outdoor type."), but it didn't, as I wasn't that crazy about paying two-and-a-half bucks to withdraw cash from the in-house ATM -- but I may hunt him down in the local record store later.

The headline act, Fountains of Wayne, was also thoroughly fun. They demonstrated an appreciation for Rock history, whether by incorporating the great guitar riff from the end of "Layla" into one of their first couple songs, or by playing a little Steve Miller later on in the show. My bro-in-law commented that he was a little surprised to hear them jam as much as they did, as their studio work tends to be fairly short and tight (I assume that's what he meant?).

They were, of course, extremely tight, though I didn't think they acted that way. Not to say they were dancing around like crazy men, but I got the general impression that they were enjoying themselves well enough, and that's a sense I like to get from a band when I see them in concert. They managed to fit about twenty songs into the mix, though they didn't play a couple songs I would have liked to hear (namely "Troubled Times" and "All Kinds of Time"). But that was only an extremely minor disappointment, as the rest of the show was pretty phenomenal.

The crowd was very into it, with a consensus of the audience singing along with every song (making me wish I had been more familiar with the body of their work, but I did know a majority of the songs). On our way into the city we expected people our age to represent a small minority of attendees, but we were pleasantly surprised to see that we were more or less in the majority, as most people there appeared to be at least in their mid-twenties on up. There was, of course, a noticeable contingent of teenagers (one of which was in our group of four) -- and it's always encouraging to see young people that appreciate well made music.

All in all, it was a great show, and I'm especially happy to report that Fountains of Wayne (btw, we even got to see their namesake as we drove through Wayne, NJ, on the way up) is definitely not one of those bands that I would disappointedly label a "studio band." They definitely held their own in a live setting. If you're reading this and you didn't heed my previous call to sample their newest album (Welcome Interstate Managers), I still highly suggest you do; if you're really lucky, maybe they'll be coming to a venue near you soon.

I got to see a great Fountains of Wayne show last night in New York, and I may offer a review later, along with another, more self-critical look at accountability (reference to Thursday) -- I wrote it out in longhand while away from my computer yesterday, so it may take a few hours to fully edit and transfer to Blog, but it will be here relatively soon. Later...

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

-The Second Coming by W. B. Yeats

One of my favorite lines from one of my favorite poems. I sometimes view the war on terror this way, but I wouldn't want to limit its meaning to just that.

I watched the President on television as he spoke about the America he knows, and how the prison abuse scandal in Iraq doesn't represent the United States.

I can feel much the same way about my country. I think it's a wonderful place, no matter how many nagging flaws there are. Yes, I even see the irony of how people in Iraq now protest against the very forces that gave them that right. And I acknowledge the good results that have come out of the decision to remove Saddam. But the detached musings of our President gave me a certain bit of aggravation.

While it's all good and well for our morale to be reminded that what we've done has redeeming qualities, at some point we need to be mindful of the perception we create. I'm not saying we should cower with respect to what the people of the world think of us, but we need to recognize when to accept a certain level of responsibility for what's being done on our watch.

In other words, even as we know that prison torture isn't a common occurrence in our culture (and probably not even common in the prisons we're running in Iraq), when it does happen, the worst thing we can do is try to shift blame, or pretend as if we aren't responsible for it. We are responsible for it, and now that we know about it, we are especially responsible end it and serve justice on the guilty. And as a tip to the Commander-in-Chief, you don't win any respect by passing the buck; it only weakens your apology when you get all misty about the America you know, speaking as if you have no affiliation with the armies currently patrolling the streets (and prisons) of Baghdad.

I think the President meant well, but the Arab world isn't going to have a change of heart over hearing a half-apology from a world leader who sounds more like a child trying to avoid responsibility.

And by the way, if I sound annoyed, then I guess I'm writing this correctly.

People who couch situations in terms of good vs. evil need to be especially careful about their conduct. We shouldn't preach about the American ideals of justice and then try to find ways to disown fault when it's rightly ours. This is a great deal of the reasoning many Arabs have for not trusting the U.S. When you put yourself up as "the good guy," you have to understand that there's a high level of expectation inherent to the role.

Perhaps the most annoying element to the past few days has been the effort on the part of several conservative talk hosts to cast the dim light of moral relativity on this bubbling scandal. I can't believe how many talking heads have brought up the comparisons to the rampant torture and abuse from the days of Saddam Hussein, as if we should be proud that at least we're not as bad as him. This message is just the wrong one to send in this situation. It simply doesn't suffice to try to make excuses for your own atrocity by comparing yourself to those you've already branded as evil. All that does is make you less evil.

And less evil isn't good enough.

I recently added one rhyme to the about a girl page. The last one on the page is one of the lyrics my brother-in-law recently set to music, and it has drawn rave reviews from the only other person I've allowed to hear it so far.

In the email in which my brother-in-law put me to shame about the whole McDonald's thing, he also sent me a link to the website of my new favorite candidate for 2004 -- though I'm sure many have already seen it, as the web counter on his site is already showing over 1.3 million hits. This one may be a better choice than even Tony Blair...

I was wrong about McDonald's. This link from DietRiot.com was brought to my attention (thank you). My mistake was in not being up to date about the McDonald's menu changes; according to a reliable source in the fast food industry, the world's most popular burger joint no longer sells "shakes." A year or so ago the shift was made not only to add milk to the ingredient list, but also to add "milk" to the name of the item on the menu board. Thus there is now milk in a McDonald's milkshake, and I was officially wrong, or at least outdated, in my assertion that milk was not part of the mix, so to speak. I apologize to McDonald's and anyone else who was offended by my factual carelessness. The only thing I really dislike about fast food in general is the flavor of deep fried potatoes, an aversion that dates back to my tour of duty in the Burger Kingdom as a teenager.

I swear to anyone who will listen that it was not my intention to mislead. Nor was it my intention to bash the entrepreneurial efforts of those who distribute fattening foods for profit. That's not my game, really -- though I still maintain that someone at Krispy Kreme made a deal with the devil to get people to actually buy those things they call doughnuts. I have never personally cared for the taste of their products, and I suppose the whole craze escapes me -- kind of like the boy band movement.

But the point, lest we forget, is that I was indeed wrong. This is just my attempt to prove that I'm not too good to admit it. That's all for now.

P.S. > Okay, so there was milk, even in the pre-2002 shake recipe, but experiential evidence suggests that it was not in significant enough portions to cause adverse reaction in a lactose intolerant friend of mine who had previously attempted to ingest a true milkshake (one made from the classic ingredients of milk, ice cream and flavoring extract) without nearly as much success. This has left me (still) believing that the portion of milk in the old recipe was not nearly as substantial as one would find in a traditional soda shop milkshake. But that's just my observation. My fast food manager friend's comments aside, I will no longer deal in this brand of rumor-mongering. That really is all for now.

I just found out they opened one of those Krispy Kreme doughnut shops in the neighborhood. I don't have anything especially insightful to say about that, except, why call it Krispy Kreme?

I mean, most doughnuts that are crispy are not exactly fresh, and if the cream is crispy (or is "crispy" somehow different from "krispy?"), well, that doesn't seem right either. But then, they might be talking about something other than what I would call cream (recognizing that "kreme" may be an entirely different entity, and not just the product of marketing people who can't spell). God knows that other dairy inspired items have been cleverly labeled, such as when McDonald's refers to "shakes", in what I always thought was just an abbreviation of "milk shake" (which may also mean something entirely different, if a certain pop song means what I think it does). It turns out, McDonald's purposely omits the word "milk", as there is none in what they call a "shake."

And this has nothing to do with Krispy Kreme doughnuts, except that I can't figure why there is so much clamor every time one of these places opens up. I could never convince myself to like them in the first place -- but that's probably to my benefit, isn't it?

By now, I'm sure everyone's had a chance to hear of the controversy over Nightline's airing of Ted Koppel reading the names of the dead U.S. service people in Iraq. The folks at Sinclair Broadcasting had made a preemptive decision not to air last night's episode on the ABC affiliates they control. Senator John McCain sent Sinclair a nasty letter, criticizing their decision not to air the reading. And so it went.

I agree whole-heartedly with Senator McCain's condemnation of Sinclair broadcasting. I think the folks at Sinclair missed the point when they issued criticism of Nightline, alleging that the show was merely seeking to help turn public sentiment against the war. If we can't bear the ugly sight of war's reality, and our disdain for it is so strong that bringing attention to the fallen military people would turn us against the war, then whose fault would that be?

If in honoring those we, as a nation, have lost, we manage to change our mind about war, then that is no more than an honest change of perspective. I, for one, don't think facing the tragic, heroic sacrifice of our troops will dent the morale of anyone who truly believed in this effort to begin with. It hasn't shaken my feelings of support for their continued bravery.

On the other hand, if Sinclair's purpose in partially preventing the airing of last night's reading was simply to insulate White House policy (several Sinclair execs are financial supporters of the President) from any further criticism such imagery might spur in certain circles, then all this makes perfect sense.

But the reading of these names is not inherently political, and the idea that such a reading could change a few minds about war (or the way an administration is viewed) does not taint its journalistic integrity. To steal a line from one of ABC's competitors, they report; you decide. If we're afraid that airing the truth will hurt our cause, our cause may have bigger problems.

For what it's worth, I think we absolutely need to be honest with ourselves about the price of war -- that's the only way to know if we really support it.