I've been helping out a friend I met through town politics, who occasionally needs rides and other favors because he's disabled and has recently lost his longstanding support network. I'm not always able to help, but it's been a privilege to do so whenever possible.
Today I was rewarded for this very modest casting of bread upon the waters in a way I can only describe as wicked awesome:
That's right: I got to attend ALCS Game 6 in Fenway Park! I just got home and I'm fried and wired and tired, but the short version of the story is... Sox Win!
I took a bunch of pictures, which I'll post when I get a chance, but now I'm going to bed. If the Sox win tomorrow, and if the World Series goes at least six games, I'll have an even more ecstatic post in a week and a half... because the same friend has tickets reserved for Game 6!
...well, a couple weeks ago, actually. I wasn't going to post the X-wing rocket video, because everyone else in the blue-eyed world had. But then I found out [PaulHarvey]the rest... of the story[/PaulHarvey]:
In another context on another blog, my online acquaintance (I would say "friend" if I weren't afraid it would be presumptuous) Saramerica asserted that nothing informative rhymes with Harvard. Ironic if true, eh? But I had Tom Lehrer's The Elements to offer as refutation. When I went looking for a suitable YouTube version to post, I found this, which made me smile:
I've been more or less sputtering incoherently at the president's veto of the bill to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program. It's one thing to send criminals to the death house by the carload, but I would've thought, despite his veto threats, that even this craven, heartless man couldn't really look the country in the eye and condemn large numbers of innocent children to sickness and death.
Even large numbers of Republicans (though, sadly, apparently not quite enough to override the veto) saw the human necessity of this measure, and in any case, I wouldn't have thought the lives of our children (actual children, that is, as opposed to the just-barely-not-children we're sending to die in Iraq) would be beyond political posturing. But Eric Alterman saw the issue more clearly than I did. He understands that "Bush's argument is explicitly ideological. He wants children to get sick and die in order to prevent what he believes will be a slide toward what he calls 'socialized medicine.'" At some level, I know the right is all about ideology, but it's hard for me to hold in my head just how important ideological purity is to them. It's because I'm a liberal, I suppose, and somewhere in my heart is the ineradicable notion that my counterparts on the other side are more or less like me, and have merely somehow (innocently, no doubt) ended up believing differently than I about public policy. I think I fall into this trap &mdash and other liberals and progressives do, too &mdash because, as Alterman points out, liberalism itself is not "self-consciously ideological" in the way conservatism is:
Liberals are often understood to be "pro-government" or even "pro-taxation" but this reflects a fundamental confusion between ends and means. Liberals believe in "government" only insofar as it is necessary to achieve necessary goals, including public welfare, investment, redistribution, defense etc. Conservatives, on the other hand, argue against government as a matter of principle: the less government involved, the better, period.
Even, it seems, when less government translates directly into less health care for children who need it.
Of course, even a cursory look at the Bush (or Reagan or Bush 41) budgets will instantly reveals that the right doesn't really want less government; they just want less of the parts of government that actually help people. That stuff is socialism, don't you know? But when government spends untold billions in support of policies that kill people or rape the environment, that's just good old-fashioned American capitalism.
Please, if you're reading this and you're represented by a Republican member of the House, call them and ask them to vote to override the president's veto. Surely some of them still have some shame.
OK, I promised I'd post about my return to model rocketry, in a contest held a week ago Sunday at my local rocket club, CATO. Well, I was waiting for the contest results to become official, but they still haven't been posted, so I'll go ahead and report what I think the results were. I competed in four competition events sanctioned by the National Association of Rocketry (NAR): Open Spot Landing, in which you try to land your rocket as close as possible to a predetermined spot in the field; 1/4A Parachute Duration, in which you try for the longest timed flight with a rocket launched on a 1/4A power motor and recovered using a parachute; 1/2A Streamer Duration, in which you try for the longest timed flight with a rocket launched on a 1/2A power motor and recovered using a streamer; and A Rocket Glider, in which you try for the longest timed flight with a rocket launched on an A power motor and recovered intact by gliding.
I competed representing my NAR team, The Tappet Brothers (yes, named after the Car Talk guys!), which consists of me and my buddy Andy Jackson, who runs his own small rocket kit company, Aerospace Speciality Products... but since we were the only team represented, we were (which is to say I was) combined into the division for individual adult competitors. Here's what I think our results were:
Open Spot Landing: Last I checked, I was in second place... but there were other flights after that point, so who knows. Interestingly, the target spot was marked by a life-size cutout of Austin Powers, which randomly blurted out digitized Powers-isms like "Do I make you horny, baby?" Too cool!
1/4A Parachute Duration: These models are very small, and the trick is to get the parachute to open after having been jammed into such a tight space. I didn't master that trick: Both flight attempts came down with partially wadded up 'chutes. Even so, I think my total time was good enough for second place, or at least third.
1/2A Streamer Duration: I had two solid flights here, and I'm pretty sure I won this event.
A Rocket Glider: The trick here is that what makes a rocket stable during boost is not the same as what makes a glider fly well... so the model has to change inflight to transition from stable rocket boost to good gliding flight. I used a model called the Xebec IIIA, designed by long-time competitor George Gassaway, in which an elevator tab pops up after the rocket motor burns out. I had one good flight (little over a minute) with this model, and needed only the shortest possible qualified flight on my second attempt to win the event. The second flight was great -- it disappeared out of sight after flying for over 5 minutes, and it was still up in a thermal (rising warm air), not coming down. But there was a problem: Because the second flight behaved differently in flight than the first, observers on the ground thought the motor might have been ejected from the model, which is grounds to disqualify the flight. In such cases, procedure is that contest officials request the model be returned to the judges for inspection. Since my model flew away (otherwise perfectly legal), I couldn't return it for inspection, and the flight was disqualified. I had to settle for second place.
All in all a great day. There's something really satisfying about returning to a cherished hobby after a long absence. I can't wait to go flying again!
Say it ain't so! Today comes a Newsweek article (via MSNBC.com) about Democratic presidential candidates sucking up to evangelical Christian leaders. The very notion &mdash embodied in the accompanying photo of Barack Obama chatting with Rick Warren &mdash chills my blood.
I understand the tactical politics involved: Evangelicals are quite correctly disenchanted with the Republican frontrunners such as Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mit Romney, none of whom truly embodies evangelical values. Even the folksy Fred Thompson has a racy history, and is none to reliable (from the evangelical point of view) on abortion. So perhaps, with the right approach, Democrats can, if not win over evangelicals outright, at least persuade them to stay home in November. I get it.
But at what price is this tactical advantage gained? The alliance forged between evangelical Christians and secular conservatives since the Reagan administration is arguably what got us into the mess we're in... the mess some of us hope to at least begin reversing by sending a Democrat to the White House. However disaffected they may be with their erstwhile secular partners, it seems unlikely that evangelicals will suddenly align themselves with the public policies favored by most Democrats. Almost as an inherent consequence of their beliefs, it seems to me that evangelicals lean toward authoritarianism and away from personal liberty.
I understand that America is a religious country; I'm not suggesting it's possible (even if it were desirable) to run a completely secular political campaign. But if we must appeal to people of faith, let's appeal to those whose doctrines emphasize charity and social justice &mdash values that harmonize with those of liberals and progressives &mdash rather than people whose religious beliefs deemphasize "good works" in favor of biblical inerrancy, divine authority, and enforcement of Old Testament mores.
Update: Someone who read this post asked me if the singer was me. Would t'were I was that talented! No, that's Roy Zimmerman, whose work I've posted here before, and who I learned of through Pharyngula. I should've included a hat-tip in when I first posted this.
Well, the rocket contest I mentioned in Wednesday's post, which was scheduled for today, has been postponed due to iffy weather. With luck, it will happen tomorrow instead, and I'll surely post about it... but in the meantime I'm stuck at my computer desk, with a dreary view out the window.
I guess since I'm referencing Wednesday's posting, this is probably a good time to make a bit of a disclaimer: I mentioned that I'm involved in the ongoing municipal election campaign in Vernon. Well, I want to make it clear that this is my personal blog, and is in no way connected to the campaign. I'm going to generally avoid talking about the Vernon elections here directly, but in any case I want to make it clear that whatever I do say here is strictly my own thoughts and words. You won't find campaign announcements here, or press releases, and I will never use this space to speak for the campaign or the Democratic Town Committee. (I will, however, add some links to the DTC website, Mayor Marmer's site, and any candidates' blogs to my blogroll, or the convenience of any readers who might be interested.)
Now that I've gotten that off my chest, I'm going to get ready for tomorrow's rocket contest!
A couple days ago I got notification that someone had actually posted a comment to this months-dormant blog, and it remind me that I've been meaning to restart my postings here. Or re-restart, I should say: This isn't the first time my online wordfield has lain fallow.
I'm going to have some things to write about: After laying off model rockets for a year or two, I plan to make my return next week at a contest being held my old club, CATO. This is in preparation for going to NARAM-50 next year, the national competition that marks the half-century anniversary of model rocketry as an organized hobby.
That's all for tonight... this time 'round I'm going to try again to master the art of the frequent short posting, as opposed to waiting until I have the time (and inspiration) to write long essays.
Way back when I started this blog, I mentioned (and stated in my profile) that I was into model rocketry. Well, I've been on a bit of a break from rocketry, but one of my goals for this year is to get back into the hobby. Soooo... I'll likely be adding some rocketry sites to my blogroll, and posting on rocketry topics, including my projects.
Cosponsored by the Aerospace Industry Association (AIA) and the National Association of Rocketry (NAR), TARC is an annual contest intended to get students excited about careers in aerospace. It's also a heck of a lot of fun. I volunteered for the range crew in 2004 and 2005 (I couldn't make it last year), and I'm going back in May of this year. Maybe I'll bring back another movie.
Pi Day... or should I say π Day?... is almost over. What's that? You've never heard of π Day? Neither had I until I read Alan Boyle's MSNBC.com CosmicLog science blog for today.
Strictly speaking, you should celebrate π Day at exactly 1 minute before 2:00 (am or pm will do, unless you're on a 24-hour clock).
3/14 1:59
Get it?
Do check out the link to CosmicLog; in addition to linking the official Pi Day site, there are a plethora of interesting π-related links to dig through. One I found especially interesting was this one (though linking it from a π Day post rather gives away the puzzle).
Anyone want to help me organize a π-mile run next year (see #5 here)?
Yesterday's riff on the Nixonian resonances of Alberto Gonzales' statements about the political purge of U.S. Attorneys was a quick blast that barely scratched the surface. This probably won't get much deeper, but I can't let the subject go so easily. This is not just about the current scandal; it's about an administration that has consistently put its own interests above those of the nation and the people. It's about the unitary executive and the intimidation of U.S. citizens in the service of not only a so-called New American Century but a permanent Republican majority. It's about rewarding friendscronies and punishing political enemies and, in this case apparently, about turning the nation's "legal department" into a personal political dirty tricks unit the likes of which we haven't seen since Tricky Dick climbed aboard that helicopter.
In the stories and discussion over the last few days, much has been made over the fact that U.S. Attorneys "serve at the pleasure of the president." Well, a West Wing fan like me can't help but have a soft spot for that phraseology...
...and I do understand that when the people vote for the president, they are, in part, voting for the people they expect him to appoint. Any president must, of course, have the ability to bring in his (or, someday, her) "own people." But staffing up at the beginning of an administration or a term with people dedicated to supporting administation policies is a whole 'nother kettle of horses of another color from purging your "own people" either because you want to open up resume' buffing slots for unqualified cronies (the marginally least awful of the various reasons suggested) or because they've prosecuted members of your own party or because they've (in your view) failed to prosecute members of the opposition party vigorously enough.
I'm not naive: I know that the executive branch is political, and that even the position of U.S. Attorney is a political one. Using the tools of office to vigorously pursue the policies on which he campaigned is not only a president's right; it is his duty. But there's a difference between pursuing legitimate policies and turning the nation's law enforcement agencies into political enforcers for the party in (executive) power. So far, the president has been happy to let Gonzales and Sen. Pete Domenici (who, along with Rep. Heather Wilson, made pressuring phone calls to former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias regarding prosecutions of Democrats) take the heat for the purge scandal, and FBI Director Robert Mueller has taken responsibility for the Patriot Act abuse (not that the Patriot Act itself isn't abuse), but anyone who doesn't believe this stuff is coming right from the White House just hasn't been paying attention for the last 6 years.
"Mistakes were made" was Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' comment today on the brewing scandal over the "Justice" Department's apparently political purge of U.S. Attorneys. If you're of a certain age, that particular passive-voice clause can't help but evoke chilling memories of the Nixon administration; it's a tactic straight out of their playbook.
Of course, you didn't need to wait to hear Gonzales to know that Bush is the new Nixon: The president himself sounded the same note in his January speech on the Iraq surge, and the U.S. Attorney purge is just one more piece of evidence -- on top of the Plame case, the NSA spying, FBI abuses under the Patriot Act... Hell, the Patriot Act itself -- that this president and his minions have no shame when it comes to using the instrumentalities of government to reward cronies, punish enemies, and spank those insufficiently vigilant in the pursuit of the administration's political aims.
My mind immediately flashed to the Julie Amero case when I read this story of 10 Indiana sixth-graders watching as two of their classmates performed a live sex show ("completed the act of intercourse," in the quaint language of a "disturbed resident" who reported the case to a local TV station) while their teacher was in the room!
If Amero's students were so terrifyingly endangered by a mere glimpse of digital porn that their unfortunate teacher is guilty of multiple felony counts, surely this teacher is ticketed for lethal injection, right? Well, not so much: Apparently "Warren Township School Police were not aware of the incident and say no report was made even though the children were recommended for expulsion." Hmmm... expel the preteens, but as for the teacher... no harm, no foul, I suppose. No need to even bother the cops with a report. Move along, folks; nothing to see here.
Mind you, I'm not after the teacher's scalp: Apparently the students conspired to hide this illicit activity, and the teacher took action as soon as he (or she; the news story studiously avoids "outing" the teacher's identity in any way) discovered something inappropriate was going on. But what kind of upside-down, inside-out world is it when Amero sits branded a sex offender and waiting to learn how much time she'll spend in prison while this teacher is happily making up next week's lesson plans?
OK, maybe this isn't "blockin' out the scenery," but it sure is "breakin' my mind"! [1] I was just sitting here peacefully listening to Rachel Maddow's Air America Radio show from last Friday (I listen by podcast, so I'm always one weekday behind). In the course of discussing who did and didn't vote against the recent anti-Iraq War resolution in the House, Rachel mentioned that the Washington Post website, which she uses to check congressional vote roll calls, offers readers the ability to display votes sorted by astrological sign!Huh?!? Well, I had to see it for myself, and sure 'nuff:
Alright, I don't know whether to be more discouraged by the idea that people who care enough about politics to look up vote totals actually want to know about legislators' signs, or by the fact that WaPo would cater to their bizarre superstition. Either way, I think I have to make this a short post, so I can go pour cool water over my steaming brain....
[1] If this reference is too ancient/obscure for you, look here.
UPDATE: I e-mailed PZ Myers, Rationalist-in-Chief at Pharyngula, about this and he very flatteringly linked to this entry. A couple of commenters noted that the intention was just to have some lighthearted fun and attract readers to the (admittedly very cool) Votes Database. Well, that makes me feel better... but only a little bit better. I used to be firmly in the it's-harmless-fun-as-long-as-you-don't-believe-it camp regarding astrology and such, but I'm increasingly concerned that even such benign bemusement gives aid and comfort to the all-too-numerous inhabitants of the demon-haunted world we live in.
Besides, are astrology believers really the voters we want to be enabling?
Former (sadly, as of today) Air America radio host Al Franken has announced his run for the Minnesota U.S. Senate seat now held by Norm Coleman (and before that, by Franken's political hero, Paul Wellstone). I don't live in Minnesota, of course, but Franken has been a tireless voice for progressive issues and in opposition to the current right-wing regime, so his run is of interest to us all. Besides, his Midwest Values PAC supported Democratic candidates all around the country in 2006, including our very own Joe Courtney and Diane Farrell... so I, for one, plan to return the favor. Here's Al's announcement video:
I have contacted the campaign to find out what out-of-staters can do to help; I'll let y'all know what I find out.
When I posted an earlier version of the above as a diary at the Connecticut progressive blog My Left Nutmeg, a commenter quickly replied that Al Franken "is pro-war," and that progressives should hope for a better Democratic candidate, linking to two articles (here and here) by one John Walsh, posting at CounterPunch, a self-described "bi-weekly muckraking newsletter."
I admit I'm not familiar with John Walsh, but a quick scan of the articles to reveals an extreme POV: Anyone who thinks Sam Seder, Janeane Garafalo, Randi Rhodes, and Rachel Maddow are insufficiently antiwar, or that the network that put them all on the air is "little more than a mouthpiece for the DNC" is just not going to be satisfied with any feasible candidate!
I've listened to virtually every Franken show for more than 2 years, and I can say without hesitation that Al is the polar opposite of pro-war! I defy anyone to listen to the show (at least some of the podcasts are still archived, though you may need to join Air America Premium to get them) with anything even vaguely approaching an open mind and conclude that Franken can be fairly called "pro-war."
John Murtha, whom Walsh claims Franken doesn't support, is actually something of a hero to Franken... so much so that he almost had an on-air falling out with regular guest Melanie Sloan when she called Murtha on his ethics issues. I've never heard him say anything bad about Murtha. Al supports the "soft partition"/redeployment-to-Kurdistan plan advanced by Peter Galbraith, et al., which may not be identical to what Murtha proposes, but it's similar in spirit... and certainly not a stay-the-course position. One thing about Franken is that he's willing to listen to other people's ideas (are we to believe this is a bad trait in a legislator??)... but I've never heard him agree with, or express support for, anything that could be called pro-war or pro-escalation.
It's also true, as Walsh notes, that Franken has covered corruption, fraud, and incompetence in Iraq contracting: Tom Ricks' Fiasco, which Franken calls "indispensible" is something of a bible for the show. Does this make him pro-war? Because the war itself is immoral and evil, we're supposed to give crooks and war profiteers a free pass? The mind boggles!
Franken has also covered veterans' issues and troop equipment issues (e.g., the founder of Operation Helmet has been a frequent guest), and every year he goes on USO tour in the Iraq and Afghanistan theatres. Do these things make him "pro-war"? Many, if not most, liberals and progressives have taken the position that they oppose the war but support the troops; few... perhaps none... have honored both ends of that proposition as completely as Al Franken.
And the Al Franken show has also covered issues not related (or at least not directly related) to the war (e.g., the DeLay, Cunningham, et al., scandals). Does this make him an unacceptable candidate for Senate in 2008? think about it for a moment: If elected, Franken won't finish his first term until 2014. I pray to all that's holy that the Iraq war won't still be the primary issue of the day by then; if it is, we're doomed in any case. Among all the other tragedies of this war, one is that it's distracting us from all the other ways in which the right-wing regime has hosed up our government. While the war is clearly the most critical moral challenge of our time, it is not the only challenge facing our government; we elect representatives who focus on the war to the exclusion of all else at our peril.
You may be able to think of reasons (though personally I cannot) not to support Al Franken... but the notion that he's pro-war is not one of them.
That's right: I got to attend ALCS Game 6 in Fenway Park! I just got home and I'm fried and wired and tired, but the short version of the story is... Sox Win!
