[sociopolitical] 

I stumbled across news of "The Loan Shark Prevention Act", thanks to Eschaton. This resembles the kind of amendment activity I mentioned in my 2/28 post when Congress was debating the "Consumer Credit Card Company Protection Act of 2005."

Unfortunately, such redemption for that greedy little bill never materialized. But while I'm on the subject, I also noticed a story in today's Philadelphia Daily News, on page 11 (sorry, I couldn't find an online link to it) about a response by the state of Pennsylvania to the recent Brookings Institute study that focused on poverty in Philadelphia.

The article, entitled "Rendell aims laws to help the poor", included news of possible measures to crack the vicious cycle of multi-generational poverty that seems to run in many inner-city families. One or two of the solutions in the article were ideas I pushed in my 2/28 post. Though I'm sure they didn't get any ideas from me, I'm glad to see some of these things, like beefing up financial education for school kids, mentioned as part of a more comprehensive course of action. Here's a brief excerpt:

"The report said that low-income families in Philadelphia pay higher prices for cars, appliances and other necessities -- and higher interest rates on a variety of loans -- than higher income families. Poorer families lack access to financial information ...

"State officials also are working to integrate financial education into existing reading and math programs in public schools."

The article also mentions potential regulations regarding "payday" loans, which routinely charge interest of 400% or higher. It's nice to see someone in government taking action on these types of issues; now I only hope there's enough pressure behind the pols to keep them moving.

NOTE: Though I couldn't find a link to the aforementioned Daily News story, they do also have this featured editorial which lightly traces some of the same points.

 [sociopolitical] 

"Sleep, sleep tonight,
and may your dream be realized..."
-U2

Dragonballyee posts Rev. King's Mountaintop speech (given the day before he was assassinated), which I think is a nice way to commemorate the anniversary of his passing.

 [personal/blog] [sociopolitical] 

This via Dan Gillmor:

San Francisco May Regulate Blogging

I guess they figure since the federal government has yet to step in and regulate online speech, someone's got to do it, right? If this passes, it'll give me another reason to thank God I don't live in San Francisco.

 [personal/blog] [sociopolitical] 

As we mourn the passing of a Pontiff, I'd like to echo much of the admiration others have shown for his 26 tenure. He was a man who sought compassion for the least of us, lived forgiveness, yet adhered to some of the most strict Church principles -- sometimes in the face of popular and political criticism. Instead of acting a salesman, he lived a life of stewardship, recognizing that the Church's purpose wasn't just to comfort parishioners, appease popular demands or cozy up to governments, but to follow the will of God.

Whether or not you agree with the message of John Paul II or the Roman Catholic Church, you should recognize that his leadership was based on principle. This, in an age of churches (especially in the West) that seem more motivated by filling membership rolls and collection plates than following Christian teachings. Here in America, if you aren't Catholic, chances are you attend a church that makes major decisions based on democratic rule or membership sentiment (if you attend church at all). This makes most churches into social clubs run by their members, rather than led by their leaders.

Over the past several months, I've been seriously considering the Roman Catholic Church for my own practice of Christianity and worship. It's in part because of the rigidity of the structure, because it doesn't sway or cave in to popular pressure. But it's also in part because of the example of forgiveness that I mentioned a couple days ago, in my last post on the Pope. His leadership wasn't swayed by public outcry, yet it was compassionate.

Perhaps nothing is more integral to Christianity than practices like compassion and forgiveness. These are certainly the two most important lessons one should take from the life of Christ; they are also two incredibly important lessons to be learned from the life of Karol Józef Wojtyla, Pope John Paul II.

God bless him, and may he rest in peace.

 [sociopolitical] 

"I saw a man who was holding the hand
that had fired a gun at his heart..."
-Steve Taylor

It appears the Pontiff is "fading serenely." Here's what I'll remember most: a legacy of forgiveness.

 [sociopolitical] 

Conservative direct-mail firm buys Schindlers' list

Who's to say everyone who sides with the Schindler family is automatically conservative? Or pro-life, for that matter?

 [sociopolitical] 

Local Schiavo family threatened

In case you needed a good blueprint for proving you're an absolute idiot...

 [sociopolitical] 

Your Law Suit is Junk, Mine Seeks Justice

-from Wampum, what Dan Gillmor refers to as "chapter and verse" on the hypocrisy of certain champions of tort reform. I have my own set of thoughts on tort reform, much of which I've scattered throughout other posts (here is one of them).

 [personal/blog] [sociopolitical] 

I get email at the address available on this page. Sometimes it's from people who actually want to offer feedback or suggestions for this site; other times, it's just spam.

Penis enlargement, online drugstores, run-of-the-mill porn sites, and every couple days, one of those polite, if grammatically-challenged, foreigners asking me to help them invest some money by sending them my bank information; they don't even make me bat an eyelash anymore. I've seen pretty much everything, or at least, I thought I had.

Sometimes I get emails from other webmasters who think I'd enjoy their site, and they want to know if we could exchange links. My linking policy, vague though it may be, is rarely contingent upon reciprocity. Usually, I link to content that I find in some way fascinating, whether or not the linked page links back to this one. A few days ago, I received what appeared to be such an email for someone's Geocities site. I went to visit the web page from their email, and I was immediately shocked by what I was seeing.
Now, as I said, I've been exposed to a good sampling of your average inappropriate web content, but this was exceptional. The page in question contained some extremely inappropriate images of underage children -- and not of the "I swear she looked seventeen, officer" variety -- the titling of the site suggested very clearly that this site specialized in "artistic" images of 5 to 13 year-old girls. Almost as noticeable as the site itself was a disclaimer that this site was not in violation of the law.

I'm not a legal expert on what constitutes child pornography, but whether or not what I was seeing fit that definition, I knew I didn't want to know anyone who found these sorts of images enjoyable, even as "art."

I promptly emailed my ISP, and then the (hopefully) good people at Geocities, and finally I sent a message to the people at Cyber Angels, just in case the first two didn't work. What scared me the most about this site is that it had slipped through the parental control software that runs on my machine (a machine which is used by my young niece from time to time).

Thankfully, I finally received feedback that the offending site had been disabled, and indeed it has, so now I feel a bit more secure in writing about it, though I still won't publish the url. I guess I'm haunted by the statement that was on the website in question, the one that boldly claimed the site was not illegal, that all children had been photographed with their parents' consent (which made me feel a whole lot better), and that it was strictly for artistic purposes, despite the fact they were charging a high monthly membership fee, and had sickeningly suggestive captions accompanying some of the front page photos.

I have to say there wasn't a whole lot of authoritative content available from my ISP to tell me where to go -- in fact, I never actually got a response from my ISP. I did end up finding Cyber Angels via Yahoo search, but I'm wondering if anyone else out there who's more security savvy would be able to suggest other good sites for reporting possible cases of exploited children. I'd like to add a couple links to the sidebar for this purpose.

Feedback is appreciated. Thanks.

 [sociopolitical] 

The Culture of Guns

Tom Carter, an retired soldier himself, ruminates on the topic of last week's school shootings in Minnesota and the the gun lobby's response.

 [sociopolitical] 

Some Creditors Make Illegal Demands on Active-Duty Soldiers

This New York Times story courtesy of the same kind of folks who brought you the new bankruptcy rules. I came across this tidbit via the Daily Kos.

 [sociopolitical] 

Dan Gillmor comments on the way business leaders are evaluated.

 [sociopolitical] 

TALLAHASSEE — Republicans on the House Choice and Innovation Committee voted along party lines Tuesday to pass a bill that aims to stamp out "leftist totalitarianism" by "dictator professors" in the classrooms of Florida's universities.

The Academic Freedom Bill of Rights, sponsored by Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, passed 8-to-2 despite strenuous objections from the only two Democrats on the committee.

The above excerpt from a story in the Independent Florida Alligator may be the tip of the iceberg as it pertains to solving our widespread educational funding problems.

Imagine if, instead of having the classroom ruled by some authoritarian tyrant, we brought the concept of democracy to a new level. Imagine what we could save on education if we instituted a system whereby a classroom majority would decide which theories are correct and how classes are conducted, instead of wasting all that money on things like books and qualified educators.

I have to go now. The soundtrack in my mind is fading to a Pink Floyd song...

 [sociopolitical] 

Okay, I admit it; the title line was borne of an urge created by the new tag line at Ales Rarus, as well as my love for that old song by Stealer's Wheel. There wasn't any real substance to the "jokers to the right" part, at least not when I stubbornly decided to use the adapted song lyric.

But in the substantive segment of this post, I wanted to point out two shining examples of the liberal search for moral values clarification, so to speak. One was found courtesy of Karl Martino, who linked this Jim Wallis interview from Mother Jones. The other is an American Spectator feature on Democratic Virginia Gubernatorial hopeful Tim Kaine. It starts something like this:

"Meet Tim Kaine. His views on abortion are roughly in line with those of George W. Bush. He thinks John Kerry spent too much time on the campaign trail talking about windsurfing and not enough time talking about God.

"And the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is spending an unprecedented $5 million to help him get elected governor of Virginia. ..."

Both articles are interesting and indicative of the ongoing shift in non-conservative politics.

 [sociopolitical] 

Try as I might, I just couldn't convince myself not to weigh in on the current Schiavo crisis brewing, both in the Sunshine State and in the federal courts. Call this my IRWGTBATTSSB post...

I may have already stated, either here or in someone else's comment section, that I favor the idea that when there is doubt as to a person's viability we should err on the side of life -- if for no other reason than the alternative is much less reversible. My feelings on sanctity of life issues are a deeply held portion of my personal philosophy and faith. Yes, I do find it a bit ironic that I've already echoed a sentiment recently voiced by our illustrious President, especially because I think that his idea of the "culture of life" is to mine what Swiss cheese is to American cheese (or any other variety of cheese without the holes). If it were my decision, and clearly it isn't, I'm not sure what I would do, but I've always been less than satisfied with the idea of removing certain forms of life support from folks who are capable of breathing autonomously. That's just my opinion, and I'm sure many others differ on the matter.
That said, could we please stop making our arguments for or against the removal of Terri's feeding tube by resorting to the same old political trick of demonizing one side or the other? If we're going to air the personal business of the Schindler's or the Schiavo's, could we at least attempt to be respectful? Maybe I'm not as cynical as some people are, but what if neither side is the devil in this matter? What if they're all just trying to do what they think is the right thing? What if we allow that Michael Schiavo could actually be a half-decent person who isn't merely trying to murder his wife? What if we stop talking about Terri's parents like they're merely conducting an exercise in parental selfishness?

Could one party, or perhaps both parties, in this matter be misguided or wrong? Absolutely. But how many of the millions of spectators cheering this conflict on from such distances actually know anything about the situation besides the basic undisputed facts of the case? So, in the absence of evidence of either side being evil or purely selfish, can't we at least stop with the vitriol?

And finally, can we dispense with the naive notion that all of the dozen jurists who heard this case over a period of years in different venues are part of some paranoid conspiracy? Can we accept that the posturing by Congress, however pure or opportunistic their motives may have been, was at best futile, and at worst abusive. There is a reason we have judicial review as part of the constitutional structure of our government, no matter how many lawmakers or pundits want to label any sitting robe-wearer with whom they disagree as an activist judge. Whether or not the courts have made the proper moral decision in this case, the consistent judicial rulings on this matter at least instill in me the notion that this isn't just the work of one or two wacky leftist judges. The most conservative judges are as likely (if not more) to bristle at the thought of Congress writing laws tailor-made to force the judiciary hand.

That's probably a bit more than my two cents, but I had to get it out of the way. Now I'll just say that my thoughts and prayers go out to Terri Schiavo and all the folks affected by or involved in the decision whether or not to end her life.

I also recommend reading some of the recent posts on this subject over at Ales Rarus, or perhaps Tom Carter's post on it, or even this born-again liberal post, for other nuanced perspectives. There's some good discussion going on in the blogiverse, as long as you can weed out all the character assassination and name-calling.

[personal/blog]  [sociopolitical]  [stories]  [writing/literature] 

Tattered Coat has thoughts on several political causes and activities, both locally in Philadelphia, as well as nationally. Among these happenings, Matt laments the scaling back of Philadelphia's free library system, which includes not only fewer hours of operation at most branches, but also the eradication of qualified librarians at most branches.

Sure, some people may think anyone with a modicum of intelligence and interpersonal skill can fill a librarian's shoes, but consider the following recollection from my own experience at a local Borders store a couple years back:

I was looking for a copy of Charlotte's Web to give to one of my nieces as a gift. After looking through the sprawling children's section for a few minutes, I decided that it might be better to ask one of the customer assistance folks in that section for a little help.

I approached a fresh-faced young woman who was behind a computer station in the midst the children's material alcove. She was in the 18 to 20 range and had the look of one of those hip youngsters just quaint enough to be employed by a cool bookseller like Borders. Just as I approached, she was accosted by a young man about half her age, who asked her where he could find Around the World in Eighty Days. She asked the boy who wrote the book he was looking for. He didn't seem to be able to push the author's name to the tip of his tongue, so I chimed in the name of Jules Verne.

The book girl looked up at me, apparently surprised that a passing stranger would know such a thing. She then started typing into her computer workstation. A few brief seconds later, she informed the boy that Borders apparently didn't carry that book. Incredulous (not just me, but the inquiring boy as well), I leaned a little over her desk and quickly noticed why she couldn't find what the boy was seeking; she'd entered the words "Jewels Vern" as her search terms. I politely corrected her spelling and she proceeded to find that there were a whole bunch of different titles in stock that had been authored by this mysterious Verne fellow. She then pointed in the direction that the boy would have the most luck finding his book, and she turned to me.

She marveled at how I could know so much about books. Rather than say something to make her feel like a total idiot, I explained that I'd majored in English in college (a lie, but one told to spare her fragile, if naive, psyche). This made perfect sense to her, as she explained that she was only studying sociology. She thanked me for helping with the boy's book, and then she asked if she could help me find something. I gave a soft "no thanks" and went back to searching the children's section myself, not wanting to find out if she'd have similar trouble spelling E.B. White's name.

For days after, I wondered about the sorry state of professional bookselling, that we couldn't find college students familiar with names like Jules Verne to staff the information desks at major bookstores.

As if that wasn't bad enough, just imagine the horror that would have overwhelmed me if this episode had happened at the local library.

This isn't to condescend to anyone out there who would have been just as lost as the girl in the store, because to be honest, I grew up reading a lot of books; it's entirely possible I'd be more familiar with this information for that reason alone. The point isn't whether the typical person knows a lot about books, or even whether or not the typical person should. The point is that the person directing a city's knowledge-hungry youth around the local library should know at least this much.

And as Matt points out, in a city (and state) that sinks hundreds of millions of tax dollars into lavish pro sports complexes we should at least have few million lying around for something as socially redeeming as a decent public library system.

 [sociopolitical] 

Tom Carter offers his take on why we should give the Wolf-man a chance, which inspired me to dig up other columns on the issue, both pro and con. Here's a small handful of what I found:

Sheep in Wolf's Clothing:Why Paul Wolfowitz may be a good choice ...

Wolfowitz To Rule the World (Bank)

Why Wolfowitz?

 [sociopolitical] 

Slogans: Good. Policy: Bad.

Will Durst offers some thoughts on the White House PR push that has brought Karen Hughes back into the mix. He caps it with a list of slogan suggestions for the new campaign; my favorite so far is "Aren’t You Glad You Use a Free Market Economy? Don’t You Wish Everybody Did?" (Guess you'd have to have a background on my love-hate relationship with the free market concept to get the irony there.)

[sociopolitical] 

US Senate mulls right-to-die case

It seems national legislative efforts to save Terri Schiavo are now in full swing, but as I was perusing this news story, I couldn't get past the one terminology question: why do we refer to certain people as "invalids"?

I can't say it ever occurred to me before that a person who is generally limited in motor capacity can be somehow described as the opposite of:

1. Well grounded; just: a valid objection.
2. Producing the desired results; efficacious: valid methods.
3. Having legal force; effective or binding: a valid title.
-Source

This is less a philosophical complaint than a basic curiosity that just popped into my head.

 [sociopolitical] 

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

Cziltang's latest post deals with popular misconceptions on the topic of respect, or more to the point, the way so many of us confuse respect and civility. For what it's worth, I agree with him (doesn't always happen), and I couldn't have said it better.

 [sociopolitical] 

Bankruptcy Protest: A Coalition

I suppose I already informally joined the coalition (as of my 2/28 post), but in case anyone was still wondering which side I take on whether or not this bill is good legislation, here it is: I oppose this bill.

I don't oppose it because it holds individuals responsible for their own debts. I oppose it because, as I mentioned in an earlier post, it doesn't attack half of the real problem. When a company consistently engages in bad lending practices, the result tends to be higher rates of bankruptcy filings. If consumer bankruptcy were truly threatening the health of the lending industry, don't you think they should have the initiative to look at the role their own practices play in the bankruptcy problem? They probably should, but what they've done instead is go full force in favor of a legislative solution that attacks only consumer behavior, while completely ignoring the irresponsible practices they (the lending institutions) routinely engage in.

This reminds me of the NHL owners in their current labor dispute; they rail on and on about how they're losing money, and still they continue to pay their players far too much. Their solution? Make the players sign a binding agreement that officially limits player's rights. It's certainly a whole lot easier than practicing discipline in the way they hand out money. And that's why the NHL owners pursue a salary cap agreement -- they know that as a group, they lack the discipline to run their businesses responsibly. While not perfect, it sounds like a pretty fair analogy to this situation. Why can't the lending institutions simply apply more discipline to the way they do business? Wouldn't that alleviate a significant number of bankruptcies right there?

That's my most essential problem with this bill. The parties that set lending policies are the ones complaining the system's broken -- doesn't it logically follow that they should look first at the policies they set that have essentially broken the system?

That's what has me scratching my head about this whole thing.

 [personal/blog] [sociopolitical] 

Fred Clark at Slacktivist has been posting some pretty well thought out stuff on the current bankruptcy bill in Congress. If you're interested in the subject (and most people should be), I encourage a visit to his blog, but I especially like this grass-roots method of fighting the credit card madness:

Free Your Campus

 [sociopolitical] 

(Note: The Glenn Reynolds link in the first paragraph of this entry originally pointed to the wrong Instapundit post. That has been fixed, now that I am back from a weekend in blog purgatory, and it should jibe more clearly with the rest of this post now.)

I really thought I was painting myself into the most liberal of corners on this bankruptcy bill, right up until yesterday, when it occurred to me just how many non-liberals are against it too. I direct anyone who hasn't read it yet to Glenn Reynolds' post on it yesterday. I don't do this to suggest that I'm justified by the Instapundit's agreement with my position, but rather to rejoice in the fact that even conservatives can see how one-sided the so-called Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 really is. By the way, I've been reading up on it, desperately trying to find the "consumer protection" provisions in this bill ...

Even realizing that this apparently wasn't a simple conservative/liberal debate, I still marvel at the number of Democratic senators who piled on in yesterday's vote.

To be fair, I want to offer a glimpse into the mind of someone who isn't so outraged by the bankruptcy reform bill. Cziltang shares his perspective on the situation. While I don't agree with him, his position is reasoned and not nearly as annoying as some politicians I've listened to who've defended the bill as if it had nothing to do with a tremendous lobbying effort on the part of credit card companies.

I called and emailed both my senators in the last round of this matter, so why not do the same with my trusty congressman? It could work, right?

 [sociopolitical] 

Senate defeats minimum-wage plans

It seems that two different versions of efforts to raise the federal minimum wage have failed.

I find it hard to make a purely political argument for raising the minimum wage, but I have no trouble advocating it anyway. I believe it would have a positive effect on so many people -- thus I believe it should be done. There are too many people who can't make ends meet in our society, no matter how honest and hardworking they are. There are also too many people who voice the idea that a person should have a post-graduate degree to simply get by. These are problems, and I don't understand why more people don't see them as such.

But still it's good to see some politicians are pushing back as others in Congress are fighting to protect big business by dismantling bankruptcy protection for consumers. It seems only fair that everyday people should get something out of the deal.

 [personal/blog] [sociopolitical] 

Thanks to Karl at Philly Future, I came upon Dan Gilmor's post on the Apple court decision regarding bloggers as journalists.

I share Dan's fears on this subject. Having studied journalism a bit, I'm extremely uncomfortable with the court's ideas of what constitutes a "legitimate" journalist -- it suggests a little too much on the regulatory side. Dan, who is a former "legitimate" journalist and does a fine job "imitating" one on his blog, shouldn't be automatically barred from the same protections he enjoyed when he wrote for newspapers simply because he writes for his own website now.

Of course, many people might want these protections without following the same rigors that ethical journalists need to follow. While we shouldn't limit legitimate journalism to just those who write for major news organizations, we also shouldn't confuse anyone who has an blog and an opinion with a journalist.

Some bloggers are just as legitimate as any other journalists; others aren't. Some want to be; others don't. I don't consider myself a journalist, mainly because I deal almost exclusively in my own personal opinions on matters. But if I were to engage in what I know to be legitimate journalistic practice, whether as a reporter for a major news outlet or as a simple blogger with a basic journalistic background, I'd like to think the constitution would still protect me to a reasonable degree.

Of course, Dan's post goes on to discuss further threats to online free speech, including the fray over some alterations to FEC rulings, another part of the ongoing issue about which anyone concerned with our most basic rights should be concerned.

Whatever your view of the haphazard manner in which many online pundits gather and disseminate their information, journalism isn't something that can be rightly limited to just those who labor under the umbrella of major news organizations, especially when so many major organizations don't seem to adhere to basic ethics anymore.

[sociopolitical] 

THOSE %$#@-ING #%@$ AT THE FCC

Above is the title of (and link to) this past Thursday's column by Michael Smerconish in the The Philadelphia Daily News. It's his take on the recent spate of FCC fines (and non-fines). It especially focuses on the glaring inconsistency and hypocrisy with which so-called decency rules have been applied over the past couple years, and how those applications seem to have been driven not by static benchmarks, but by organized protests.

[sociopolitical] 

Slacktivist put together a more comprehensive (and coherent) post on the currently-debated bankruptcy reform legislation than I happened to muster in my last post. Just wanted to point it out. Some of the comments are worth notice too.

He notes an E.J. Dionne column on the current reform proposals that aptly differentiates between bankruptcies brought on by careless spending and those wrought by expenses like medical/prescription bills and other legitimate family crises. It's a distinction worthy of discussion by all who are truly concerned with family values.

Incidentally, Fred also highlighted one of the links from his comments to an Angry Bear post that I previously referred to in my vague endorsement of his comments section...

 [rants]  [sociopolitical] 

Today is the day they start debating a bill that would make it harder to get relief from creditors. A proposed measure, which may as well be sponsored directly by the nation's kind-hearted lenders (you know, those sweet institutions willing to give a credit card to anything with a pulse?), will make consumer bankruptcy rules much more stringent than they currently are.

Please understand, I'm not advocating that we should all be able to simply skip out on our debts no matter what, but I do find it insidiously hypocritical that the same forces pushing hard to collect every last penny they lend have also strongly resisted tighter standards on how they lend.

So maybe the lenders themselves don't want to be "unfairly" restrained by a modicum of fair lending procedures. How about making intensive high school courses on personal finance and credit mandatory for all students -- it's becoming clear that some kind of training on these issues is as vital as reading, writing and 'rithmetic.

And while you're formulating the course, throw in some highly involved retirement planning theory.

You see, I actually like the idea of encouraging people to be more responsible for their own ways and means, but it seems like every measure being pushed in this arena right now should be coupled with an honest endeavor to educate people on how to avoid becoming one of these unpleasant statistics. It seems that while we're doing away with all the safety nets, we might as well also do something to make the safety nets less necessary. And while we're at it, why not balance the scales by also restricting corporate bankruptcies and frivolous lawsuits?

I've yet to really get wound up about how beneficially one-sided both this current bankruptcy reform effort and the recent tort reform measure are going to be. They only restrict the rights of consumers. They don't do anything at all to protect consumers from corporate bankruptcy or frivolous lawsuits by corporations, both of which cost more public money than the combination of consumer bankruptcy and class action lawsuits.

It's sad that we boast of such "reforms" when we're really only attacking the lesser part of the overall problem, almost always the part of the problem that doesn't have as many professional lobbyists on the payroll.

 [sociopolitical] 

Susan J. Douglass wrote a scathing piece on financial institutions, many of which are involved in lobbying for privatized social security accounts, using current credit practices as a partial predictor for what the future social security might be.

"Just imagine -- the same financial interests that gouge you now, have indecipherable rules in their microscopic agreements, enjoy no regulation and can do whatever they want to screw the average American will soon control our retirements. Priceless."

I happen to agree with much of her argument, especially as it pertains to credit card lenders preying on the most financially vulnerable on one end and lobbying against bankruptcy protection for all but the most wealthy on the other end. Of course, I find it a little disgusting already that we as a nation seem to survive financially on an ethic of revolving debt.

The more financially responsible among us might be tempted to look down on those who are less fiscally responsible, but keep in mind what would become of those of us in the investor class (and more pointedly, to the banking industry) if all consumer credit were paid off tomorrow. I know that's not going to happen, but maybe we should all be disturbed by the amount of wealth in this country that counts solely on the financial irresponsibility of everyday Americans.

There's something uniquely unhealthy about such dependency.

[sociopolitical] 

Spy's Eye View

Dame Stella Rimington is the real-life inspiration for the female "M" in recent James Bond films. She became the first woman to head the British spy agency MI5, and according to Sandip Roy's column, she's not quite sold on the concept of a war on terror. This article also dips into one aspect of the "Yellow noise" post towards the end.

[personal/blog]  [sociopolitical] 

Following Gannon-gate isn't one of my usual pastimes, but I came across this CNN interview via The All Spin Zone. I think it's telling that a guy with dubious-at-best press credentials who's been pretty much sponsored by Republican partisans can't just come out and admit what side his bread's buttered on, or why he felt the need to use an alias.

[personal/blog]  [sociopolitical] 

"In desperate times, you know everybody's part;
it's your own lines you'd like to forget-
-'til what you were meets what you've now become,
grins and says, 'Hey, haven't we met?'"
-Bill Mallonee

What is normal?

I have heard many people bemoan the lack of normalcy -- in their jobs, the people they meet, and in everyday life -- but I'm not always sure what they mean. Is there really such a thing as normal? Aren't things always changing, society always shifting, gradually sliding to new places on the scale? Isn't normal whatever we happen to have grown used to?

Case in point: I was watching CNN yesterday afternoon, when I noticed the streamer at the bottom of the screen informing me of the current terror threat level, which -- surprise, surprise -- was sitting at yellow. Again. It's been so long since I'd seen it at anything below yellow that I was almost thinking that yellow was the color for "everything's just peachy; everyone just go about your business without any worries." I had to look it up when I got home to find that yellow actually means "elevated: significant risk of terror attacks." Then I had to give myself a refresher course on what other colors were on the chart.

I did already know that yellow was the color for "elevated," but I was mildly surprised to be reminded that there were actually two colors, not just one, beneath yellow in the hierarchy of the DHS color code. I actually forgot that there was a color blue on the chart -- which may be just as well, because what are the chances we'll ever see it again in the daily briefings? And green? -it seems relatively safe to assume that we won't be hearing that color called in the near future (if ever). Perhaps the fact that blue and green remain on the chart is a testament to the inexplicable optimism of an agency that never seems to have any good news, but I can't recall what it was actually like before yellow became a way of life in America. Would I recognize the sensation of a day without the specter of yellow or orange in our lives? Would you?

If the President's many warnings about the ongoing nature of the War on Terror are accurate, shouldn't the government come to grips with the reality that, while it may technically signify "elevated" risk, yellow is the new normal. Like it or not, that's the way it comes off to the general public, if they're even paying attention. Your average citizen doesn't see the terror threat level at yellow and scramble to find ways to be more observant or vigilant; he simply looks at it and says, "oh, look, it's yellow again. Hmmm..."

Face it, people hardly wince on the occasions the level reaches orange, which I believe is the color right beneath end-of-the-world red. I'm not suggesting these color-coded warnings should be simply disregarded; in fact, I strongly feel they should mean more, because once we've all become numb to the effects of yellow status, what's the point? And for those who do live in constant fear of the "elevated" threat of terrorism, what kind of life is that? Bruce Schneier, an author and security technologist, wrote an essay on the subject wherein he makes this parallel to the vague earthquake threat that people in California live under:

"According to scientists, California is expecting a huge earthquake sometime in the next 200 years. Even though the magnitude of the disaster will be enormous, people just can't stay alert for 200 years. It goes against human nature. Residents of California have the same level of short-term fear and long-term apathy regarding the threat of earthquakes that the rest of the nation has developed regarding the DHS's terrorist threat alert."

He makes other equally (if not more) compelling points about the approach taken by other countries, like Israel, whose history with combating domestic terrorism is much longer than our own. They don't use color-codes. He also argues that by maintaining a ubiquitously elevated terror threat level we help instill a brand of fear in our more responsive citizens not unlike the fear many terror groups seek to inspire.
I lament that this is the new version of normal. I hate admitting that the incessant terror warnings have worn on me quite a bit, but they have. Like most people, I can't live in a constantly fearful state, dreading what might possibly go wrong if the worst happens. It's almost necessary to good health that I ignore the constant alerts, that I wait for something more substantial than unspecified threats and vague warnings.

It could also be likened to parents who resort to yelling at their children. It works once in a while, but when it becomes a constant, kids adjust and learn to tune it out -- in some cases, they tune it out as a necessary defense mechanism. The problem comes when the parent resorts to yelling to warn his child of truly imminent danger. The child who's gotten used to being yelled at every time he ties his shoes the wrong way, or spills a glass of milk, will be more likely to dismiss the urgency of parental hysterics, even if the hysterics are to warn the child of oncoming traffic.

The same happens when a government elects to speak in a constantly raised voice. Some of us still flinch, but most of us have managed to tune it out. Now what happens when the danger truly is imminent? Too many people were joking about the last orange threat level -- will red be taken that much more seriously? Or have we gotten so used to the myriad unnamed dangers that we'll just shrug it off like we already do with the ever-present yellow?

Has our government gotten into the practice of crying wolf? Should the local traffic report announce that the auto accident threat level has been raised to elevated every morning and afternoon during rush hour? Should McDonald's announce a heart attack threat level of high as the customers walk in the door? Should we wear bells when walking down a hallway at work, just to remind everyone else of the risk of collision as we walk around corners? Maybe, maybe not.

I may not have all the answers, but I'm seriously wondering if, in the absence of a credible and imminent threat, I need to warned every single day of my life about the possibility of a terrorist attack. While I know I can't speak for everybody else, there's a certain indelible image forever on standby in my head: it's the image of an airplane striking a tall building. If the government chose to stop warning me on a constant basis, would I ever really forget that? Isn't that the only thing I really need to remain aware of the possibility of another terror attack?

I'm not saying I don't want to be warned when there's real news for the DHS to report, but in the meantime, I could really do without all the yellow noise.

[sociopolitical] 

Wal-Mart Agrees to Pay Fine in Child Labor Cases

This from the New York Times, chronicling a most improbable tale of child labor violations by the gold standard of labor law compliance in the retail industry.

"Labor Department officials said most of the 24 violations covered by the settlement involved workers under age 18 operating dangerous machinery, including cardboard balers and chain saws. In the agreement, Wal-Mart denied any wrongdoing."

Well, of course they denied any wrongdoing. How dare those anti-business zealots in the Bush Labor Department besmirch the fine reputation of America's finest corporate citizen!

On behalf of all U.S. taxpayers, I would like to offer my sincerest apologies to the big blue retailer for the inappropriate actions of an activist labor department. I demand that my tax dollars be better spent -- on things like welfare measures to supplement the sub-poverty level compensation packages Wal-Mart lavishes on its "associates."

It's things like this that make me feel ashamed to be an American.

[sociopolitical] 

"There's No Crying in Baseball"

Sean Gonsalves has published this piece over at Alternet. In it he deals with the question I've debated with others many times:

"Is it acceptable for blacks to use the n-word while whites are morally castigated for it?"

I have to admit, while I have generally thought of the rampant use of the n-word by some black people as being a double standard, I never really thought of it in the context of some of the slurs that other ethnic groups sometimes throw around jokingly.

I'm not entirely sure whether all ethnic slurs carry equal weight (not my area of expertise), but Gonsalves makes an excellent case that those of us white people who rail against the use of the n-word by blacks may also be guilty of a double standard, at least if we don't also rail against inside use of slurs among other ethnic segments.

[sociopolitical] 

Looking for Love Doesn't Take Long

This WebMD article I just stumbled upon explains a lot to me. We've all heard people give the politically correct answers when asked about who they would or wouldn't consider dating, but this article suggests political correctness flies out the window rather quickly when we see either favorable or unfavorable physical traits.

I always knew this was true, but it's nice to see a study that comes right out and admits it, even if people aren't that honest about it.

I'm sure I'll have another Valentine's