ThomStratton.com

Couple married 72 years, and die within an hour of each other.

* * * * *

We’ve been hearing a lot lately about how the rich just keep getting richer. A new study suggests that might not be as true as it’s been. However, the commentator still can’t resist the standard party line that “fixing this disparity is the key to fixing the economy.” Is it? According to that logic and the chart given in the article, we should have had no economic difficulties during the 1970’s. I suspect comparing this chart to various economic indicators would provide very little correlation.

* * * * *

 The Occupy movement is starting to get some rather bad press lately, and many on the right are crowing about how this proves Occupy is worse than even worst allegations against the Tea Party. And I have to agree that some of it does not look good. However, you can’t really compare the two movements in some regards. I have to be fair.

Much of the trouble we’re seeing with Occupy is the nature of their protest. The Tea Party never tried to occupy anywhere. They came, had their rallies, and they left all in the same day. Occupy is living on the street, some for over a month now. A bunch of strangers living together in a confined area in adverse conditions are going to have problems. It may even reflect somewhat positively on them that the problems aren’t worse.

That’s not to say that some of the accusations aren’t serious and, if true, inexcusable–if not criminal. But I suspect if you put Tea Party people together in similar circumstances for the same period of time there would be problems there, too. 

Occupy chose this mode of protest and, arguably, should have foreseen these problems, so that reflects poorly on them. But let’s not jack our high horse up too high, here. The problems they are experiencing in their camps are indicative of a failure to anticipate human nature, and while certainly not a point in their favor, are no more a refutation of their message than the few troublemakers at Tea Party rallies were a refutation of theirs. I know the urge for “payback” is strong, but let’s not go there.

* * * * *

It’s funny how so many of the people who have been insisting on due process and humane treatment of both terrorists and dictators when Bush was in office are silent at best, doing victory laps at worst, over Mohammar Khaddafy’s murder at the hands of Libyan rebels. Don’t we have higher standards than that? Is it somehow okay because the blood isn’t on our hands, but rather on those of who we can dismiss as “people who just don’t know better”?

If that is the case, why are we so upset withIran for supposedly trying to hire drug gangs to assassinate a foreign diplomat on American soil? Doesn’t the use of intermediaries make it all okay? Drug cartels are violent people who just don’t know better. The blood wouldn’t have been on Iranian hands, right?

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t feel bad about Khaddafy’s deathany more than I do about Bin Laden’s or Saddam Hussein’s. But I would feel better about it had rule of law prevailed. We don’t know the level to which Bin Laden was resisting or posing a threat, but it seems Khaddafy was in no position to fight back–and evidently didn’t. To their credit, it seems most of the rebels were calling for him to be taken alive. But somewhere along the line that discipline broke down. What’s the point of pulling him out of the hole and taking him prisoner only to shoot him later?

So I’m a bit bothered by the triumphant crowing I’m hearing right now. He was an evil man, and probably got what he deserved. But the proper attitude for a country that claims to believe in the rule of law should be satisfaction that his regime is ended, but regret that the rule of law was not observed.

Certainly all this credit-taking is unbecoming. Without at least some qualification of such statements we can only assume that it went down in a manner the credit-taker approved of; that had they been there they would have taken him off somewhere and executed him, too.

It may be a bit unfair, but I can’t help but make the comparison. Under Bush we captured Saddam, who was then given a trial and executed under the laws of the new Iraqi government. Under Obama we’ve had two leaders caught and killed with no trial whatsoever by anyone. This would be less alarming if Obama hadn’t run on being morally superior to Bush, and if his own party hadn’t been so adamant about imposing restrictions they themselves don’t appear to want to follow.

They seem to have forgotten that this was their chance to show America how it should be done. The argument seems to be “It’s more ethical now because it’s us doing it.”

Indeed, the liberal commentariat seems to be of the opinion that morality is now measured merely by success. As Timothy P. Carney points out:

The implication: If you objected to the President for illegally entering a war where vital U.S. interests were not at stake, you were wrong, because we killed Gadafhi. More briefly: Might makes right.

The liberal Center for American Progress made the same unliberal argument in August when Gadhafi lost control of the country, asking on twitter: “Does John Boehner still believe U.S. military operations in Libya are illegal?”

I remember when we decided to throw military support behind the Libyan rebels. The situation was not so cut and dried as we seem to remember it now. There were a lot of good questions raised about just who it is we’re supporting. They are still good questions today. Many opposed regime change in Iraq because we couldn’t guarantee we would be replacing the regime with something better. We still can’t guarantee that today in Libya.

Nor can we guarantee the results if we decide to assist the revolution against Bashir Assad in Syria, even though there is a much more clear-cut case should we choose to do so. I wish we would. Taking down Khaddafy’s regime was not difficult. He had no friends left in the world. It was a safe and easy little take-down (for us) that we should almost feel embarassed about being involed with.

Assad is not just shooting armed rebels, but shooting peaceful demonstrators in defiance of the UN. He is propped up by Iran, a dangerous rogue state with a lust for nuclear weapons and a stated goal of destroying the US. If we’re not prepared to take down our declared enemy, we should at least seriously consider rattling their cage by taking down their favorite proxy. Such a move would weaken Iran as well as Hezbollah, Hamas and the Taliban, potentially helping stabilize the situations in Lebanon, Israel, Afghanistan and Pakistan, if not the entire Middle East.

Taking down Khaddafy has done little more than make Bashir Assad a bit more nervous. He’s already nervous, or he wouldn’t be creating his human shooting galleries. But showing weakness is one thing Assad can’t do right now, so accepting overtures from the West is not on his agenda.

If anything he will step up his violent campaign of suppression, hoping to put an end to the rebellion before America starts getting any ideas. Besides which, the bulk of Assad’s opposition comes through unarmed protest. There is very little armed and coordinated rebellion in evidence. Our strategy in Libya will not work if there is not a sufficient rebellion to support. If Assad can move decisively and quickly the window of opportunity may close.

The irony of this all is that our Nobel Peace Prize winning president could actually bring a greater measure of peace to the Middle East–not through the “smart diplomacy” he promised us, but by the force of arms he once decried. The danger right now, however, is that he might not finish what he’s started. Taking out Khaddafy but not Assad sends a conflicting signal to arabs yearning for freedom: “America stands with some of you. We’re not telling you which.”

It would also send a clear message to the repressive governments of the Middle East: “Crack down harder. If you let things get out of control we might have to come do something, and nobody really wants that.”

I don’t often agree with Barney Frank, but he’s got a point here:

“We had an election last year in which people who disagree with them, and disagree with me and with you, got elected,” he told Maddow. “I don’t know what the voting behavior is of all these people, but I’m a little bit unhappy when people didn’t vote last time blame me for the consequences of their not voting.”

He may be assuming a bit too much, perhaps, but as I’ve said before, the real test of Occupy Wall Street is not whether they can control a spot of ground but whether they can transition the movement into a real political force. When we start hearing about “OWS candidates” the way we’ve been hearing about Tea Party candidates, we’ll know they’ve arrived.

Meanwhile, in my former home town there’s a gentleman, Geoff Burns, who tried his own Occupy protest and went to jail. I applaud the man for being willing to stand behind what he believes, and that he was fully cooperative and polite through it all. However, I think his plan has gone awry. This was his original point:

Instead, through his arrest, it’s changed to this:

I had no idea that roofing shingles frayed. Over the weekend I went up on the roof to check our our swamp cooler and, beside finding out that the unit probably hasn’t been used in years and will need some work to make operational again, I found out that our roof is probably original materials. The shingles are so old (over 25 years now) that you can see the fiberglass fibers around all the edges.

I have to admit this house is a bit frustrating. I knew it would probably need some work, but the list just keeps getting longer. We don’t have the money and I don’t have the time right now to even begin to deal with most of it. We’re going to have to cross our fingers and hope it all hangs together long enough for us to be able to deal with it.

I’m not experiencing buyers remorse, necessarily, and most of the problems are cosmetic, but as much as the house cost I was hoping it would be in better shape than it is.

* * * * *

Our new city has a yearly event where you can just dump your disposable items, yard waste, and anything else you like in a big heap in the street and they’ll come by on a predetermined day and haul it all off for you. It’s a great idea, but I have to wonder if it’s a coincidence that so many people are pruning their trees and shrubs so heavily, or if they hack away at their plants this much every year. We have several neighbors whose rubbish piles are bigger than my car.

The big day is tomorrow, so a lot of new piles grew up over the weekend. At first it was just amusing. Now our neighborhood is starting to look somewhat post-apocalyptic. The kids are hoping that they’ll be home when the trucks come by, as they really want to see how they deal with all of the various piles (everything from tree branches to big-screen TVs). As for us, since we just moved in, de-junking before we moved, our little pile of dead plants from our garden looks rather pathetic compared to all the surrounding heaps. Oh well. There’s always next year. Then we’ll show ’em!

* * * * *

I’ve finally picked up a copy of Firefly over the weekend. (Thank you, Jonathan!) Last night I watched the first, two-hour pilot. I’m hooked. It’s not like any other show I’ve seen. It’s gritty, a bit angst-y, and the characters are not exactly a happy bunch (except Kaylee, but that’s another story altogether). It has shades of Star Trek: Deep Space 9, except that, in spite of their roughness and angst, these characters are likeable. Even Captain Mal, sporting more inner demons than Legion, still manages to be a sympathetic character.

The series has been billed to me as a sci-fi-western, and I was a little leary about that concept (my western-fan wife was more than leary–repulsed would be  more accurate, to the point where I released her from her promise to give it a try). I’m pleased to report, however, that the concept works–at least for me. For example, it makes sense to me that on a world where the colonists blew their budget just terraforming the place they wouldn’t have a lot of capability or money to replace machinery, so why not use horses for transportation? They can live on what’s growing there, and they’re self-replicating machines. Sometimes low-tech makes perfect sense.

Besides which, the producers decided if they’re going to jar people with the sci-fi and western juxtaposition, why not go for a hat trick and make it a sci-fi western with oriental culture thrown in for good measure (with a dash of Nazi-esque facist governments). The modge-podge works for me. They include all of those elements, but only as far as it makes sense.

They also manage to make me feel dread and suspense; something I’ve not experienced in a television show in quite some time. They do such an excellent job building up the Reavers (who we actually never see), that when their ship crosses paths with a Reaver vessel and they have to try and sneak by, hoping the Reavers aren’t in the mood to attack, I felt it in my stomach. I nearly forgot that the whole scene was highly improbable in the first place: two ships passing by each other as slowly as they were would never make it anywhere before they all died of old age! It would be like trying to sail the QE2 to Mars at 30 knots! They could have pulled off the same suspense and still made the relatives speeds seem more realistic. But I forgive them. The suspense was worth it.

I’ve been doing some reading about the show, and it seems that the pilot never actually aired, and that they changed the mood of the show some between the real pilot and the first aired episode. I hope they don’t change it too much. I like it just the way it is. Some of the “problems” the Fox execs had with the show were every bit as present in the Sci-fi Channel’s redeux of Battlestar Galactica, and that show was a hit. I wonder if Firefly would have been more popular than it was had Joss Whedon gotten his way.

Anyway, I’m looking forward to completing my education. Not that I doubted, but I suspect this series is going to be everything people have been telling me it is. So long as they don’t mess with Kaylee’s character. She’s probably the most intriguing one of the bunch (and more than a little bit cute, I’ll admit). She’s the living proof that none of the other characters are beyond redemption. She’s not so much naive as untouched. She knows there is darkness in the universe–even among the crew–but she simply accepts it, while at the same time being completely and genuinely happy to be who and where she is. I’m sure she’s not an easy character to play and not over-play, but Jewel Straits seems to have it nailed down.

As for Jayne, I first became familiar with Adam Baldwin from his character John Casey on the current series “Chuck”. It’s going to take some work to get the chronology right; that “Casey” is channeling “Jayne”, and not the other way around. Though already I can see a depth in Jayne’s character that hasn’t been allowed to surface in Casey in the first two seasons I’ve seen of “Chuck”.

As for Captain Mal/Nathan Fillion, I don’t have much to say yet. I’ve been around geek culture enough to know he’s something of minor deity these days, but I’m reserving judgment–especially since Captain Mal is the character Fox most had problems with, and is therefore likely to change in the next episode. All I can say so far is that Fillion plays the original vision for Mal well. You could see the inner demons getting caught in the gears turning in his head. I hope most of his character survives the adjustment.

Tonight’s challenge will be not putting off the other things I need to get done (again) and plunging right back into the show. If I’m smart I’ll stop watching now and use the remainder of the series as an incentive to keep me going on NaNoWriMo next month. But I probably won’t do that. <gump>I am not a smart man. </gump>

I’ve pretty much written off the Occupy movement as not heading in a direction I can support, but then the Tea Party’s response to Occupy is pulling them in a direction I can’t support, either. I can certainly understand and sympathize with Tea Party frustrations over the conspicuous lack of coverage of negative Occupy activities that got full, glaring coverage when the Tea Party did (or at least was accused of) it. But then you’d think that would make them more sympathetic, and less inclined to use the same smear tactics.

Anyway, here are a few interesting articles on what Occupy is morphing into (if even a fraction of it is true, I’m not impressed–but then the writer is Michelle Malkin), and the Tea Party responses (response, like the Tea Party groups themselves, vary).

* * * * *

I’m still trying to decide what I think about Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 tax restructuring plan. I think I’m with it right until they get to the 9% national sales tax, the least-explained part of the plan. I thought part of the economic trouble we face right now is a lack of consumer spending. So how is jacking up the price of goods 9% going to encourage people to spend more? Here in Utah we’d be looking at anywhere from 12% to 15% taxes on every-day purchases. Sorry, I’m having a hard time getting behind that.

But I have to hand it to the Huffington Post for making a connection I hadn’t yet caught:

Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan: Inspired by ‘SimCity’?

* * * * *

I dropped by my older brother’s house today to borrow “Firefly” (Yes, everyone, I’m FINALLY going to watch it!), and we caught up on things for a while. It’s always fun chatting with him. He probably wouldn’t consider himself as a “positive person”, but he is. I usually come away from our conversations energized and open to possibilities. I think everyone needs someone like that.

One of the most perfect moments in music is the second movement of Aaron Copland’s Appalachian Spring. It’s also far too short. Perhaps that is for the best. I might melt down if it were longer.

* * * * *

I’ve not said much about Steve Jobs’ passing yet. Not sure what to say, really. He was good at what he did, and his influence goes far beyond just Apple products. I don’t think I’d compare him to the likes of Edison like some people seem apt to do right now, but he certainly made an impact. I’m not sure why he earns a pass from the OWS people, but whatever. I can understand why many are sad to see him go, and are feeling a loss right now.

* * * * *

I’m reading an excellent book right now that raises an interesting point. Who holds the media responsible for their errors? They can make mistakes, never retract them, or retract them poorly, and do a lot of damage. But what happens to the them when they do? They don’t get voted out of office. They don’t usually get fired. No one orders a congressional investigation.

Who watches the watchers?

* * * * *

I’m feeling melancholy for some reason. I can’t feel that way without being reminded of the movie “Megamind”. I think I’d like to watch that again. I could use a dose of something intelligent and clever (not the same thing), funny, well-acted, and with some heart to it. Why is it lately the best movies seem to be animated? Maybe I just like stuff that doesn’t take itself too seriously, which rules out most of the pretentious rubbish cranked out by Hollywood these days.

“Girls! Girls! You’re both pretty! Can I go home now?”

So, what do I think about “Occupy Wall Street” and the copy-cat protests starting up around the country? The same thing I thought about the Tea Party protests originally: I’ll wait and see. While I did attend a Tea Party rally a few years ago, it was probably a good six months after the Tea Party first started making its presence known, and by then it was a bit clearer what they were for (and against).

So Occupy Wall Street (OWS) is going to have to gain some coherence before I pay too much more attention to them. Right now they seem to have divergent, even contradictory aims. One protester said she was there to protest the cozy relationship between corporate America and Washington and the influence-peddling that goes on. If that’s what OWS is about, sign me up! I’m tired of all this political cronyism.

But if it’s about some of the demands another protestor posted online, then I’ll have to avoid OWS like the plague. This “brilliant” young man wants to close America to imports, raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour, pay the unemployed $20 an hour (When I was unemployed I was unemployed 24 hours a day!) , and provide everyone free health care and free education, not to mention completely opening America’s borders. This unfortunate person could use a free education–that or the one he got was worth exactly nothing.

There is a certain amount of irony about the Left’s response to OWS, however. I’ve seen lots of excited conjecture that this, at last could be the Left’s answer to the Tea Party! Now, I haven’t been paying full attention here, but hasn’t the Left spent the last three years denigrating and demonizing the Tea Party? And now they want one of their own? They want their own “violent, racist, hate-group”?

Which, it appears, is as true of OWS as it is of the Tea Party, though the media seem to show as fanactical a lack of interest in this with OWS and they had interest in it with the Tea Party. Where are the tutting and head-shaking over the lack of minorities? Where is the denunciation of violent rhetoric on signs, such as the calls to “kill the rich”? Where are the charges of “astro-turfing” over unions busing in scores of their own people and claims of some hiring minority people to pose as protestors?

You see, to be fair, a few bad apples shouldn’t spoil the whole bushel. I’m still willing to give OWS the benefit of the doubt here. But that’s more than a large number of people have been willing to do for the Tea Party. At the heart of the OWS movement is a core I can at least sympathize with, if not support. That’s because at the core of the movement OWS is not really all that different from the original core of the Tea Party. Both groups are fed up with what they see going on in Washington and Wall Street, and they both want change. Certainly they can disagree on the exact nature of the problems and the necessary solutions, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a significant overlap.

But here is the acid test: Will they be able to make the transition from a mere protest to taking effective political action? Because that is what the Tea Party did that makes them extraordinary. When they found that no existing organization fully championed their views they transitioned themselves into a political action group and made themselves heard at the ballot box. Until OWS can do the same they’ll never be “the Left’s answer to the Tea Party”. At the end of the day America doesn’t need another protest group. We’ve already got so many of those that no one really listens to any of them any more.

Unfortunately, the unions are rushing in to support OWS. I don’t think they realize (the unions or OWS) that by so doing they will kill OWS, or at least any chance it had of achieving Tea Party status. Whether intentionally or accidentally, the unions will co-opt OWS and turn it into an extension of the unions. OWS’ leaders–if it has them–would do well to tell the unions “Thanks, but no thanks” and fight to retain their unique identity.

It may be too late. And that’s too bad, because I think OWS had a respectable chance of becoming something I could have supported.

I watched this interview with Chelsea Clinton today. I’m pleased (and a little relieved) to see what a lovely and gracious young woman she’s become. I remember the out-of-bounds criticism launched at her when she was a teenager in the White House that would have devastated <i>any</i> young girl. I can only imagine what she endured during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. She never asked–never deserved–to be put through any of that. I’m glad she’s been able to rise above it all and build a life for herself. I wish her and her husband all the luck in the world.

On a related line, shame on Glen Beck. I’ve never been a fan, and after his reported treatment of Malia Obama, (among other things) I never will be. Does the man not remember that people have treated his family in a similar fashion? What is wrong with him? Presidential kids should be off limits. Period. I didn’t buy the excuses given for attacking a teenaged Chelsea, and I don’t buy Beck’s excuses now.

* * * * *
I was a bit taken back to see this today in MSNBC.com’s “The Grio” column discussing Herman Cain’s straw-poll victory in Florida:

Lastly, Cain’s enduring popularity — and in addition to that of Congressmen Allen West and Tim Scott — should put an end to the argument that the Tea Party movement is motivated by racial animosity toward President Obama. Cain’s win over the weekend was a Karmic counterpoint to pointed remarks from Morgan Freeman, who in an interview called the Tea Party racist. The actor’s broadside disgraced a normally August reputation already sullied by his inamorata, and undermined his own powerful exhortation to “stop talking about race.”

The idea that Tea Party members are a step removed from the Klu Klux Klan is a shopworn and patently false meme. It deserves nothing less than a swift and brutal expulsion from political discourse.

Thank you. I’m glad to see someone say it.

* * * * *

Then there’s this gem from my new home state. A large group of people ran around town in their underwear to protest the conservative laws in this state.

I can only assume these people arrived here by accident, accidentally falling off the train or bus as they passed through. Unless you’re totally clueless, who comes to Utah expecting a liberal state? Were they herded together and driving here at gunpoint? Otherwise I have to assume they came here willingly. If they were looking for a liberal state they have several nearby options to choose from.

I was out of work for two years, and even I still excluded certain states from my list of places to look simply because I knew living there under their laws would drive me batty.

Don’t get me wrong. I support their right to protest. They apparently violated no state laws (I see some irony here). Knock yourselves out.

I just can’t help but be reminded of the story of the indian youth who let a rattlesnake talk him into carrying it down from a cold mountain, only to be bitten by it when they reached the bottom: “You knew what I was when you picked me up.” Or in this case, moved here. We have the right to live wherever we choose. But it seems rather silly–even selfish–to expect the status quo to change just because you showed up.

* * * * *

And last but not least, enjoy the Top 10 Celebrity Vists to “Sesame Street”. I did! Especially Patrick Stewart’s stirring soliloquey and Tina Fey’s “Bookaneer.”

We went to a fundraiser picnic for an animal sanctuary last weekend. It’s interesting to see the type of people who tend to support animal causes. To say we stood out is an understatement. Most of them had multiple and exotic piercings, stretchings, and extensive tatoos, all of which seem ironic to me.

If they were to see someone doing that to an animal they’d protest the cruelty. So why is it so desirable to do to themselves? I swear their motto is: Mutilate people, not animals.

* * * * *

Political debates are educational, but not in the way they’re intended. Anyone who thinks that all Democrats think one way and Republicans think another way needs to watch a few. Here we have a bunch of people who are supposedly from the same party, and they can’t agree on anything. Judging people by their party is like saying I know everything about my neighbor because he’s a Utahn.

Political parties are nothing more than an apparatus for getting people elected and a means for the public to keep score. It’s not about wise and nuanced governance anymore. It’s a sport. People support parties like they support teams. It’s all about “We win, you lose.”

And what is the point of professional sports? To convince people to fork over more cash to support their team. That sounds familiar.

* * * * *

On the other hand, to say nothing good comes out of politics is not true. One example: The Do-Not-Call Registry. Having just changed phone numbers and forgotten to register, I’ve been reminded how much I’ve come to take for granted finishing a meal without the phone ringing.

* * * * *

I’m really enjoying watching the trees on the mountainside change color. On Sunday there were two small blotches of red and one strip of yellow. By Tuesday night the entire mountain was starting to look blotchy. It’s still spreading. It’s like watching a technicolor petri dish. I can’t wait until it reaches the bottom and starts to spread out across the valley.

I love Autumn. Perhaps I’ll change my mind when the fifteen or so trees in my yard start dropping their leaves.

Nah.

* * * * *

Today’s playlist: Phil Vassar, Billy McLaughlin, Bruce Hornsby, Sting, and Mannheim Steamroller.

At what point does “ecclectic” become “eccentric”?

Feeling lucky? While sometimes luck truly is luck, there is new evidence to suggest that we can create our own luck sometimes. Psychologist Richard Wiseman conducted a study using people who would self-describe themselves as lucky or unlucky. His findings?

“Unlucky people miss chance opportunities because they are too focused on looking for something else. They go to parties intent on finding their perfect partner, and so miss opportunities to make good friends. They look through the newspaper determined to find certain job advertisements and, as a result, miss other types of jobs. Lucky people are more relaxed and open, and therefore see what is there, rather than just what they are looking for.”

Interesting conclusion. If this is true, I can see why I am lucky sometimes and not others. I can get very narrowly focused at times, while other times I really am open to everything. So I guess it’s true that luck comes and goes.