I've taken to frequenting my local library, largely because I'm running out of space for new purchased books. (Someday I must prune. After the surgery.) Since the library has a complete bound set of Agatha Christie, I've been going through the ones I didn't buy - I have a fairly complete set of Hercule Poirots, and a lot of Miss Marples, but I never bought Tommy and Tuppence, or the non series books she wrote. So on my last pass I picked up The Man in the Brown Suit, and it gave me a revelation.
Let me digress - there is a reason for this. Another favorite detective series of mine is Elizabeth Peters' Amelia Peabody books, the increasingly outrageous tales of archaeology and intrigue in Egypt, anytime between the late 1880s and World War I. In the first book, Crocodile on the Sandbank, Amelia introduces herself as the practical and down-to-earth daughter of an unworldly scholar father, who leaves her to deal with "the butcher and the baker," and all the other details of daily life, while he writes arcane papers on Egyptology. Eventually he dies (it takes his club 3 days to realize it) and leaves Amelia stinking rich, and off she goes on an adventure. This book was published in 1975. Amelia's description of her father and herself has always been one of my favorite sequences, and I've read the book at least a dozen times.
So I sat down with The Man in the Brown Suit, and read the chapter about the exotic Russian dancer in Paris; and suddenly the scene shifts to England, and I'm listening to the first-person narrative of a young woman named Anne Beddingfeld, the down-to-earth and practical daughter of an unworldly scholar father, who leaves her to deal with "the butcher and the baker..." Does this sound familiar to you? It stopped me in my tracks. It made me laugh out loud. I haven't compared the two books word for word, but the passages where Anne and Amelia introduce themselves and describe their fathers are so similar that I was floored. The rest of The Man in the Brown Suit isn't at all like Crocodile on the Sandbank - for one thing, Anne's father leaves her flat broke, and she goes off to South Africa, not Egypt - but I feel I've met the spiritual ancestor of Amelia Peabody. And she was created in 1924 by one of England's great crime writers.
The Man in the Brown Suit answered another question for me. My crime library contains a 1936 hardback edition of Christie's Cards on the Table, which is basically a Hercule Poirot novel, in which a quartet of detectives (Poirot, Superintendent Battle, Ariadne Oliver, and a Colonel Race) are matched with a quartet of people who may or may not be murderers - who knows? They all sit down to play bridge, and then the host is murdered. Now, from my reading of Poirot novels, I was well acquainted with him, and Mrs. Oliver, and Superintendent Battle, they're all regulars - but where did this Colonel Race come from? (Supposed to be something in the Secret Service, you know.) Well, he came from The Man in the Brown Suit - he's a major character in it. I'll have to see if I can find any more about him.
Friday, March 04, 2011
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Where are the Jobs, Mr. Boehner?
Back in December, when John Boehner was merely waiting to become Speaker of the House, he got a lot of press by asking, "Where are the jobs, Mr. Obama?" at virtually every interview. Jobs, said the Republicans - the Democrats haven't been Putting This Country Back to Work.
OK, Mr. Boehner, you're Speaker of the House now, your party has been in the majority for a little over a month. Where are the jobs?
The Republican House has spent most of its time whining about deficits (which their party helped create), and using that as an excuse to shred the safety net for the poor and unemployed. They've also opened an all-out attack on women's rights, redefining rape, defunding Planned Parenthood - and the WIC program! For shame! - and so on. I regularly read the news accounts of what Congress is working on. I see a lot of federal spending cuts that will eliminate federal jobs. I haven't seen one single bill considered that would actually help put anybody back to work.
I'm willing to admit I may have missed something. I don't read Congressional Quarterly. I appeal to my readers: what has the current Congress done that will help increase employment??
Where are the jobs, Mr. Boehner??
OK, Mr. Boehner, you're Speaker of the House now, your party has been in the majority for a little over a month. Where are the jobs?
The Republican House has spent most of its time whining about deficits (which their party helped create), and using that as an excuse to shred the safety net for the poor and unemployed. They've also opened an all-out attack on women's rights, redefining rape, defunding Planned Parenthood - and the WIC program! For shame! - and so on. I regularly read the news accounts of what Congress is working on. I see a lot of federal spending cuts that will eliminate federal jobs. I haven't seen one single bill considered that would actually help put anybody back to work.
I'm willing to admit I may have missed something. I don't read Congressional Quarterly. I appeal to my readers: what has the current Congress done that will help increase employment??
Where are the jobs, Mr. Boehner??
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Redeveloping Our Ideas
When Jerry Brown produced his first budget for the State of Calilfornia, I figured he'd gotten it about right: enough cuts to annoy the Democrats, enough tax increases to fry the Republicans, and no hallucinations of money from the Feds that wasn't going to come. He managed to gore almost everyone's ox, and that's good. But apparently the most painfully gored ox belonged to the Redevelopment Agencies.
He released the budget on January 10. It didn't take 24 hours for articles to start appearing (they're still coming, see Google) with the general theme, "Redevelopment money? You can't take away our redevelopment money! How can we live without redevelopment money??" Other groups have since chimed in on the general chorus of "how can you take away our money?", some of them with more justice than the redevelopment agencies. The argument about in-home care support is particularly poignant, because some of these people will have to stop living at home if the state support stops. Everyone says, "but it's cheaper for the state to keep them at home than put them in a nursing home," which is true; but they miss the point that the state probably won't have to pay for the nursing home - the families will, or Medicare will.
But I digress - back to Redevelopment Agencies. In a print exclusive in the Sunday S.F. Chronicle (look for it online on Tuesday 2/1), Willie Brown floats a rumor that Jerry and the California mayors are privately cutting a deal on the Redevelopment Agencies, details to be revealed later. If this is true, I think it's a mistake. Everyone is screaming, "How can we live without Redevelopment Agencies?" This is a rhetorical question. The real question they ought to be asking is, "How can we live without Redevelopment Agencies?" How can we do what we need to do, in a new way?
Albert Einstein once said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". Redevelopment Agencies are part of doing the same thing over and over again. We've been doing the same thing over and over again in this state for 40 years, and the result is that the state is bankrupt, the cities and counties are bankrupt, and everybody is screaming that their ox is being gored.
I'm not the first person to say this but it's still true: We have to start asking ourselves the hard questions. What services should the state provide, and how should we pay for them? Ditto counties and cities - what services should they pay for, and where do they get the money? I think most people would agree that repairing the streets is a service that cities should provide, but there are streets in Oakland in such bad shape that your car's shocks are at risk. You'd think you were in a third world country. Oakland has committed to paying employee salaries and benefit packages well above the local market; and they can't afford to pave the major streets; the street I'm talking about is Broadway, hardly a side street. We used a stretch on Broadway to test the all-wheel-drive on a new SUV we just bought. I question these priorities. We have a new mayor in Oakland; I hope she's capable of asking these hard questions; but since she has been part of the problem for the last 5 years (as head of the City Council finance committee), I'm not optimistic.
City, county, and state: we all have to stop and ask: what are we doing? What should we be doing? Where do we get the money to do that? What are we doing that we really should find someone else to do on a contract basis? If we don't ask these questions, we're insane by Einstein's definition.
He released the budget on January 10. It didn't take 24 hours for articles to start appearing (they're still coming, see Google) with the general theme, "Redevelopment money? You can't take away our redevelopment money! How can we live without redevelopment money??" Other groups have since chimed in on the general chorus of "how can you take away our money?", some of them with more justice than the redevelopment agencies. The argument about in-home care support is particularly poignant, because some of these people will have to stop living at home if the state support stops. Everyone says, "but it's cheaper for the state to keep them at home than put them in a nursing home," which is true; but they miss the point that the state probably won't have to pay for the nursing home - the families will, or Medicare will.
But I digress - back to Redevelopment Agencies. In a print exclusive in the Sunday S.F. Chronicle (look for it online on Tuesday 2/1), Willie Brown floats a rumor that Jerry and the California mayors are privately cutting a deal on the Redevelopment Agencies, details to be revealed later. If this is true, I think it's a mistake. Everyone is screaming, "How can we live without Redevelopment Agencies?" This is a rhetorical question. The real question they ought to be asking is, "How can we live without Redevelopment Agencies?" How can we do what we need to do, in a new way?
Albert Einstein once said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". Redevelopment Agencies are part of doing the same thing over and over again. We've been doing the same thing over and over again in this state for 40 years, and the result is that the state is bankrupt, the cities and counties are bankrupt, and everybody is screaming that their ox is being gored.
I'm not the first person to say this but it's still true: We have to start asking ourselves the hard questions. What services should the state provide, and how should we pay for them? Ditto counties and cities - what services should they pay for, and where do they get the money? I think most people would agree that repairing the streets is a service that cities should provide, but there are streets in Oakland in such bad shape that your car's shocks are at risk. You'd think you were in a third world country. Oakland has committed to paying employee salaries and benefit packages well above the local market; and they can't afford to pave the major streets; the street I'm talking about is Broadway, hardly a side street. We used a stretch on Broadway to test the all-wheel-drive on a new SUV we just bought. I question these priorities. We have a new mayor in Oakland; I hope she's capable of asking these hard questions; but since she has been part of the problem for the last 5 years (as head of the City Council finance committee), I'm not optimistic.
City, county, and state: we all have to stop and ask: what are we doing? What should we be doing? Where do we get the money to do that? What are we doing that we really should find someone else to do on a contract basis? If we don't ask these questions, we're insane by Einstein's definition.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
The Good Old Days
I decided to listen to Fresh Air on KALW this morning, because Terry Gross was interviewing Stephanie Coontz, who just published a reconsideration of Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique. The show is worth a listen.
I haven't thought about the Fifties for quite a while, but that was the world I grew up in. The Feminine Mystique was published in 1963. I was seventeen, a senior in high school, when it came out. As Coontz admitted herself, I've never read the book (she now has, of course). But I know the world that produced it. Girls going to college now probably can't even imagine a world in which a young woman in college was expected to emerge with her "Mrs." degree - any academic achievements for her were entirely secondary.
I should probably just encourage you to read both of these books (Friedan, and Coontz' Strange Stirrings), but I want to share some of my memories. I still remember the pain when nobody ever phoned me except to get help with the homework - I graduated number 7 in a class of 750, the kiss of death for a young woman. My sister, a C student, had flocks of friends and was always on the phone. (There's a whole story behind her grades, since her IQ actually tests higher than mine; but this is my turn.) Worse, I was articulate and literate - I read constantly and used "big words." "The boys" didn't like girls who used "big words" and certainly not girls who argued with them.
I still remember the family gatherings; every time the aunts came over, they wanted to know when I was going to get married. I used to hear, "oh, isn't it a good thing you're getting a college degree, since you haven't got a husband yet." Now, one of these aunts married a man who beat her; another one married a man she once stood off with a kitchen knife. So maybe they weren't the best source of advice. But I didn't learn the truth about those marriages for decades. So everybody was happy when Karen married an Air Force sergeant she met in a bar in Cupertino. Of course, he had a high school diploma to my Masters in Library Science; and there were one or two other incompatibilities. It lasted about 5 years. I've often wondered where my life would have gone if I hadn't felt the constant pressure to get married.
Post-World War II, the U.S. was a man's world. Women existed to keep house, raise children, and make men comfortable. Women Did Not Work. (They did, of course; I'm talking about the ideal.) Rosie the Riveter had left the factory and was baking cookies. Betty Friedan's book went through female society like a bolt of lightning because, for the first time, she asked publicly, "Is this all there is?" Every college student, every young person, thinks they're going to change the world. In the Fifties, young women were only allowed to think they would marry a man who was going to change the world. What this produced, of course, was a generation of women who expected the man to do everything except cook and clean; and when their men died, or left them for a trophy wife, they didn't even know where the bank account was.
For the young woman unfortunate enough not to catch a man, there were few jobs available; and for all too many of them the ad read, "must be extremely pretty." I remember, in my senior year in college, suddenly realizing that I was going to have to get a job. I had very few options. With my undergrad degree in English, nursing was out. I looked at teaching, considered the classrooms I'd been in, and couldn't bear the idea. I didn't know what a secretary was, then (given how secretaries were treated, probably just as well). Fortunately, my mother worked in a library, and she suggested I go to grad school and get my M.L.S., so I did. But - those were my options. I now think I would have made a good journalist; and I know I would have made a good scientist, but "girl reporter" was something in the comics, and girls didn't major in science and math. I later spent 19 years as a computer engineer, writing software and maintaining systems; this wasn't even a possibility when I graduated in 1968. The field was there; but I didn't know it. You can only take the roads you know exist.
Today's world, God knows, isn't perfect. But at least it mostly accepts women as full human beings, with the same hopes and aspirations as men. In the Fifties, that wasn't so. And that was the problem. Watch reruns of "Ozzie and Harriet," and put yourself in Harriet's shoes. Wouldn't you ask, "Is this all there is?"
I haven't thought about the Fifties for quite a while, but that was the world I grew up in. The Feminine Mystique was published in 1963. I was seventeen, a senior in high school, when it came out. As Coontz admitted herself, I've never read the book (she now has, of course). But I know the world that produced it. Girls going to college now probably can't even imagine a world in which a young woman in college was expected to emerge with her "Mrs." degree - any academic achievements for her were entirely secondary.
I should probably just encourage you to read both of these books (Friedan, and Coontz' Strange Stirrings), but I want to share some of my memories. I still remember the pain when nobody ever phoned me except to get help with the homework - I graduated number 7 in a class of 750, the kiss of death for a young woman. My sister, a C student, had flocks of friends and was always on the phone. (There's a whole story behind her grades, since her IQ actually tests higher than mine; but this is my turn.) Worse, I was articulate and literate - I read constantly and used "big words." "The boys" didn't like girls who used "big words" and certainly not girls who argued with them.
I still remember the family gatherings; every time the aunts came over, they wanted to know when I was going to get married. I used to hear, "oh, isn't it a good thing you're getting a college degree, since you haven't got a husband yet." Now, one of these aunts married a man who beat her; another one married a man she once stood off with a kitchen knife. So maybe they weren't the best source of advice. But I didn't learn the truth about those marriages for decades. So everybody was happy when Karen married an Air Force sergeant she met in a bar in Cupertino. Of course, he had a high school diploma to my Masters in Library Science; and there were one or two other incompatibilities. It lasted about 5 years. I've often wondered where my life would have gone if I hadn't felt the constant pressure to get married.
Post-World War II, the U.S. was a man's world. Women existed to keep house, raise children, and make men comfortable. Women Did Not Work. (They did, of course; I'm talking about the ideal.) Rosie the Riveter had left the factory and was baking cookies. Betty Friedan's book went through female society like a bolt of lightning because, for the first time, she asked publicly, "Is this all there is?" Every college student, every young person, thinks they're going to change the world. In the Fifties, young women were only allowed to think they would marry a man who was going to change the world. What this produced, of course, was a generation of women who expected the man to do everything except cook and clean; and when their men died, or left them for a trophy wife, they didn't even know where the bank account was.
For the young woman unfortunate enough not to catch a man, there were few jobs available; and for all too many of them the ad read, "must be extremely pretty." I remember, in my senior year in college, suddenly realizing that I was going to have to get a job. I had very few options. With my undergrad degree in English, nursing was out. I looked at teaching, considered the classrooms I'd been in, and couldn't bear the idea. I didn't know what a secretary was, then (given how secretaries were treated, probably just as well). Fortunately, my mother worked in a library, and she suggested I go to grad school and get my M.L.S., so I did. But - those were my options. I now think I would have made a good journalist; and I know I would have made a good scientist, but "girl reporter" was something in the comics, and girls didn't major in science and math. I later spent 19 years as a computer engineer, writing software and maintaining systems; this wasn't even a possibility when I graduated in 1968. The field was there; but I didn't know it. You can only take the roads you know exist.
Today's world, God knows, isn't perfect. But at least it mostly accepts women as full human beings, with the same hopes and aspirations as men. In the Fifties, that wasn't so. And that was the problem. Watch reruns of "Ozzie and Harriet," and put yourself in Harriet's shoes. Wouldn't you ask, "Is this all there is?"
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Tears of a Clown
I want to know what this is all about.
In 1972, Ed Muskie's presidential campaign derailed when he became emotional defending his wife against slander. We can't have a man in the Presidency who will cry when someone says his wife is a foul-mouthed drunk - now, can we?
Also in 1972, Thomas Eagleton had to step down after being nominated for the Vice Presidency, when McGovern found out he was on Thorazine; Eagleton's doctors told McGovern that they had grave concerns about Eagleton's mental health. (Aren't you glad they can't do that any more?) We can't have a crazy man in the Presidency - now, can we?
In 2006, Howard Dean allowed himself to scream in frustration, after coming in third in the Iowa caucuses, and eliminated any possibility of higher office. I've often felt that we'd be in better shape if the President occasionally went into a room and screamed, but nobody listens to me.
With all this evidence that our political leaders must be Strong, Silent types who never emote in public - suddenly we have Speaker of the House John Boehner, who leaks like a sieve at the least provocation. Why is it now Just Fine that a man who cries in public is third in line for the Presidency? Have we really evolved that much, or is it only Democrats who aren't allowed to display emotion? Think about it.
In 1972, Ed Muskie's presidential campaign derailed when he became emotional defending his wife against slander. We can't have a man in the Presidency who will cry when someone says his wife is a foul-mouthed drunk - now, can we?
Also in 1972, Thomas Eagleton had to step down after being nominated for the Vice Presidency, when McGovern found out he was on Thorazine; Eagleton's doctors told McGovern that they had grave concerns about Eagleton's mental health. (Aren't you glad they can't do that any more?) We can't have a crazy man in the Presidency - now, can we?
In 2006, Howard Dean allowed himself to scream in frustration, after coming in third in the Iowa caucuses, and eliminated any possibility of higher office. I've often felt that we'd be in better shape if the President occasionally went into a room and screamed, but nobody listens to me.
With all this evidence that our political leaders must be Strong, Silent types who never emote in public - suddenly we have Speaker of the House John Boehner, who leaks like a sieve at the least provocation. Why is it now Just Fine that a man who cries in public is third in line for the Presidency? Have we really evolved that much, or is it only Democrats who aren't allowed to display emotion? Think about it.
Monday, January 10, 2011
The Price of Freedom
I've been thinking a lot about the Arizona shooting on Saturday. My thoughts are with Rep. Giffords, but I'm betting Arizona will need to elect a new representative for her district. Nobody recovers from a bullet through the brain in a hurry.
I admit, my first response to the news was to wonder if someone would indict Sarah Palin for inciting to violence, if not for conspiracy to commit murder, because of her notorious web site with the gunsights on Democrats she wanted to remove. I've been following the story closely in the media (and I don't mean Fox News), and I've concluded that, probably, Sarah Palin and her web site weren't involved in this at all. The young man who did this wasn't listening to the Tea Party or Glen Beck; he was listening to the voices in his head. If you put Sarah Palin on a platform in front of him, he might take a shot at her too.
Is the violent rhetoric used by Palin, by the Fox News commentators, and by a lot of people on the right, excusable? No, I don't think it is. The left was using this rhetoric in the Sixties - remember "kill the pigs!" - and it was wrong then, and it still is. You may not actually mean the violent things you say as metaphor, but you never know who is listening to you, or what they may do with your suggestions. In that sense, Keith Olbermann was right yesterday when he said we must all stop using metaphors of violence, even though I don't believe in this case that political metaphors of violence were involved at all.
No, yesterday's attack, and all the violent rhetoric we hear around us, are the price of our freedom.
Our constitution says that we have freedom of speech, which means that if we want to publish a photo of our opponent with a gunsight imposed over it, that's our right as Americans. The fact that we have the right to do something doesn't make it "right" in the sense of just, correct, or even sensible.
Our constitution says we have the right to keep and bear arms, which means that if a troubled young man decides to buy an automatic pistol, he has every right to do so, and what he does with it is up to him.
Another amendment (I can't recall which) is normally used today to say that we cannot force mentally ill people into treatment. This young man clearly needed treatment; he was kicked out of the local community college unless he were to come back with a clearance from a mental health professional. The combination of this attitude with the free access to firearms allowed a deeply disturbed young man to buy a gun and kill six people.
I spent 19 years as a computer system programmer, in charge of maintaining IBM mainframe and Sun Solaris servers. The first thing you learn as a system programmer is that you have absolute authority to do everything on the box - it's called the "God ID" - and this authority is dangerous. You have to think about what you're doing. You have to consider consequences. Freedom is dangerous. Americans have many freedoms. We are, in fact, free to do a number of things that are totally stupid. We have to start thinking about what we do and say. We could start by trying to disagree with each other civilly.
I admit, my first response to the news was to wonder if someone would indict Sarah Palin for inciting to violence, if not for conspiracy to commit murder, because of her notorious web site with the gunsights on Democrats she wanted to remove. I've been following the story closely in the media (and I don't mean Fox News), and I've concluded that, probably, Sarah Palin and her web site weren't involved in this at all. The young man who did this wasn't listening to the Tea Party or Glen Beck; he was listening to the voices in his head. If you put Sarah Palin on a platform in front of him, he might take a shot at her too.
Is the violent rhetoric used by Palin, by the Fox News commentators, and by a lot of people on the right, excusable? No, I don't think it is. The left was using this rhetoric in the Sixties - remember "kill the pigs!" - and it was wrong then, and it still is. You may not actually mean the violent things you say as metaphor, but you never know who is listening to you, or what they may do with your suggestions. In that sense, Keith Olbermann was right yesterday when he said we must all stop using metaphors of violence, even though I don't believe in this case that political metaphors of violence were involved at all.
No, yesterday's attack, and all the violent rhetoric we hear around us, are the price of our freedom.
Our constitution says that we have freedom of speech, which means that if we want to publish a photo of our opponent with a gunsight imposed over it, that's our right as Americans. The fact that we have the right to do something doesn't make it "right" in the sense of just, correct, or even sensible.
Our constitution says we have the right to keep and bear arms, which means that if a troubled young man decides to buy an automatic pistol, he has every right to do so, and what he does with it is up to him.
Another amendment (I can't recall which) is normally used today to say that we cannot force mentally ill people into treatment. This young man clearly needed treatment; he was kicked out of the local community college unless he were to come back with a clearance from a mental health professional. The combination of this attitude with the free access to firearms allowed a deeply disturbed young man to buy a gun and kill six people.
I spent 19 years as a computer system programmer, in charge of maintaining IBM mainframe and Sun Solaris servers. The first thing you learn as a system programmer is that you have absolute authority to do everything on the box - it's called the "God ID" - and this authority is dangerous. You have to think about what you're doing. You have to consider consequences. Freedom is dangerous. Americans have many freedoms. We are, in fact, free to do a number of things that are totally stupid. We have to start thinking about what we do and say. We could start by trying to disagree with each other civilly.
Saturday, January 01, 2011
Ten Years On
My fellow blogger Linkmeister just posted a thoughtful commentary, based on another blog he read, about how the world has improved in the last ten years. And he's quite right, it has. The changes he mentioned were worldwide in impact: improvements in disease control and poverty, and so on. But he got me thinking about the last ten years in my personal life.
So what has changed for me in the last ten years?
I'm no longer working for a paycheck, after 38 years in the work force. I keep pretty busy volunteering, but the days of early morning conference calls and annual performance reviews are history. So are the paychecks.
I have two artificial knees. Ten years ago today I thought I had two perfectly functional biological knees; however, that was the bliss of ignorance, and before 2000 was out I learned that my biological knees were not functional at all. I never knew how desperately I could want to walk to the store at the end of the street. I also didn't realize how much more annoying air travel would be when I have to get "wanded" every time I go through the metal detectors. I've taken some flack for this, but I think the new body scanners are just fine.
I'm probably in the best physical shape I've ever been in, and while I'm still technically obese, I'm losing weight slowly but steadily. After my first knee replacement, I joined a gym and continued to work out regularly; this clearly has to continue for the rest of my life.
Both my parents are dead. Ten years ago today my mother was still alive; but she didn't make it to the end of January. She survived her 88th birthday by about 2 weeks.
My mother-in-law died in 2003. (My father-in-law was dead before I met my husband.)
Two of the cousins I grew up with are dead. One of them just died this last Thanksgiving. A guy I've known since high school died, one of those friends I could call after a gap of a couple of years and pick up the conversation as if I'd never left. I left that call back to check in just a little too long. Call your friends.
My sister's health has deteriorated. Ten years ago she could walk without aids. Now she must use a walker, and she should use a wheelchair. But we think they've finally found a medication that will stabilize her and allow her to gain strength, so I'm cautiously hopeful. She's a fighter.
As a friend recently said at her 65th birthday party, I can't call myself "middle-aged" any more. (Actually, I can call myself whatever I damn please; but I have to be honest with myself.) My 65th birthday will happen this year, along with Medicare. Just as the Republicans are about to gut it, too. Gee, thanks, guys. Note to self: donate more money to AARP, they're fighting that corner.
I'm on my second new car since 2000. I always used to keep cars at least ten years. The car I sold in 2002 had 11 years on it.
I'm singing with the Oakland Symphony Chorus. Strictly speaking, I started that in December 1999, so I suppose I shouldn't count it. But it's added a whole new dimension to my life. It's also expanded my web management skills and taught me some basic audio recording skills.
I was never involved in local community affairs, and now that I'm retired, I am. Suddenly I know more of the people in the neighborhood. Funny how that works.
I'm sure other things have changed, but these are the big ones. The odd thing is that I feel stronger. Whatever doesn't kill you...
So what has changed for me in the last ten years?
I'm no longer working for a paycheck, after 38 years in the work force. I keep pretty busy volunteering, but the days of early morning conference calls and annual performance reviews are history. So are the paychecks.
I have two artificial knees. Ten years ago today I thought I had two perfectly functional biological knees; however, that was the bliss of ignorance, and before 2000 was out I learned that my biological knees were not functional at all. I never knew how desperately I could want to walk to the store at the end of the street. I also didn't realize how much more annoying air travel would be when I have to get "wanded" every time I go through the metal detectors. I've taken some flack for this, but I think the new body scanners are just fine.
I'm probably in the best physical shape I've ever been in, and while I'm still technically obese, I'm losing weight slowly but steadily. After my first knee replacement, I joined a gym and continued to work out regularly; this clearly has to continue for the rest of my life.
Both my parents are dead. Ten years ago today my mother was still alive; but she didn't make it to the end of January. She survived her 88th birthday by about 2 weeks.
My mother-in-law died in 2003. (My father-in-law was dead before I met my husband.)
Two of the cousins I grew up with are dead. One of them just died this last Thanksgiving. A guy I've known since high school died, one of those friends I could call after a gap of a couple of years and pick up the conversation as if I'd never left. I left that call back to check in just a little too long. Call your friends.
My sister's health has deteriorated. Ten years ago she could walk without aids. Now she must use a walker, and she should use a wheelchair. But we think they've finally found a medication that will stabilize her and allow her to gain strength, so I'm cautiously hopeful. She's a fighter.
As a friend recently said at her 65th birthday party, I can't call myself "middle-aged" any more. (Actually, I can call myself whatever I damn please; but I have to be honest with myself.) My 65th birthday will happen this year, along with Medicare. Just as the Republicans are about to gut it, too. Gee, thanks, guys. Note to self: donate more money to AARP, they're fighting that corner.
I'm on my second new car since 2000. I always used to keep cars at least ten years. The car I sold in 2002 had 11 years on it.
I'm singing with the Oakland Symphony Chorus. Strictly speaking, I started that in December 1999, so I suppose I shouldn't count it. But it's added a whole new dimension to my life. It's also expanded my web management skills and taught me some basic audio recording skills.
I was never involved in local community affairs, and now that I'm retired, I am. Suddenly I know more of the people in the neighborhood. Funny how that works.
I'm sure other things have changed, but these are the big ones. The odd thing is that I feel stronger. Whatever doesn't kill you...
Thursday, December 30, 2010
We're Going to Sue
Anyone living in California probably knows about the latest flap with the University of California, the 36 highly paid executives who claim they're going to sue the University if they have to retire on a mere $183,750 a year. For the uninformed, here's the link to the original article.
I'm a U.C. Berkeley alumna, a life member of the alumni association, and I've been donating money to various university related causes most of my working life. A few years ago, though, I quit donating to the University directly. This was about the time we started hearing jointly about University executive salaries above $400K, and tuition increases. (Are you listening, Mr. Yudof? It was about the time you came on board, and your salary was the trigger.)
I now donate only to the University Library fund (directly) and to the Alumni Association. A letter writer to the editor in the S.F. Chronicle the other day said she was going to quit donating to the Alumni Association over this flap, but she's got it wrong - the Alumni Association has nothing to do with what University execs get paid. But this incident has confirmed my conviction that the University (as opposed to the university library) will not get One Dime of my money as long as it has people like these executives running it.
I understand that there is or may be a contractual issue here, and frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. These people have completely forgotten - as has the California Legislature - what the University of California was supposed to be about. It was supposed to be about educating the children of California - NOT educating the children of California who can afford to pay $12,150 per year in tuition and campus fees. Those kids were supposed to go to Stanford.
The argument for these absurd pension demands - indeed, the argument for the absurd salaries - is that "without higher pensions, U.C. could lose good people." Baloney. Horsepucky. If the Regents chose to fire these prima donnas and advertise their jobs at salaries of $250K with comparable pension, they would be buried under a stampede of intelligent, competent, imaginative and capable people dying to get the jobs. Especially if they limited the offer to people resident in California for at least 2 years. University Regent Dick Blum described the litigants as "some of the University's most valuable employees." More baloney. These people are department heads - they are meeting attenders and paper pushers whose teaching duties, if any, are secondary. The university's most valuable employees are the faculty and library staff who teach and support the students.
What really fried my bacon was this insistence that $187,750 a year is not an adequate pension. Ladies and gentlemen, I retired 3 years ago, taking a lump-sum pension (that is, the entire present value of my pension) which didn't even approach that amount. My husband is still working, but when he retires he'll get a pension that doesn't even approach that amount, and yet we expect to live very comfortably in retirement. If you require $300,000 per year to live on in retirement, you need some training in money management, not to mention common sense.
This demand is pure extortion. Pay us, and let the janitors and department secretaries starve in the gutter when they retire, or we'll sue you. The University should fire these people and hire competent replacements at half their salaries. I'm betting that the University would be at least as well managed as it is today. Of course, that's a very low standard to beat.
In Matier & Ross' column on Monday, Regent Blum was asked what the Regents would do if the Legislature failed to restore the $450 million it pulled out of U.C.'s budget in 2010. Mr. Blum's response? "Try to run the place more efficiently."
Mr. Blum - WHAT TOOK YOU SO LONG?
I'm a U.C. Berkeley alumna, a life member of the alumni association, and I've been donating money to various university related causes most of my working life. A few years ago, though, I quit donating to the University directly. This was about the time we started hearing jointly about University executive salaries above $400K, and tuition increases. (Are you listening, Mr. Yudof? It was about the time you came on board, and your salary was the trigger.)
I now donate only to the University Library fund (directly) and to the Alumni Association. A letter writer to the editor in the S.F. Chronicle the other day said she was going to quit donating to the Alumni Association over this flap, but she's got it wrong - the Alumni Association has nothing to do with what University execs get paid. But this incident has confirmed my conviction that the University (as opposed to the university library) will not get One Dime of my money as long as it has people like these executives running it.
I understand that there is or may be a contractual issue here, and frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. These people have completely forgotten - as has the California Legislature - what the University of California was supposed to be about. It was supposed to be about educating the children of California - NOT educating the children of California who can afford to pay $12,150 per year in tuition and campus fees. Those kids were supposed to go to Stanford.
The argument for these absurd pension demands - indeed, the argument for the absurd salaries - is that "without higher pensions, U.C. could lose good people." Baloney. Horsepucky. If the Regents chose to fire these prima donnas and advertise their jobs at salaries of $250K with comparable pension, they would be buried under a stampede of intelligent, competent, imaginative and capable people dying to get the jobs. Especially if they limited the offer to people resident in California for at least 2 years. University Regent Dick Blum described the litigants as "some of the University's most valuable employees." More baloney. These people are department heads - they are meeting attenders and paper pushers whose teaching duties, if any, are secondary. The university's most valuable employees are the faculty and library staff who teach and support the students.
What really fried my bacon was this insistence that $187,750 a year is not an adequate pension. Ladies and gentlemen, I retired 3 years ago, taking a lump-sum pension (that is, the entire present value of my pension) which didn't even approach that amount. My husband is still working, but when he retires he'll get a pension that doesn't even approach that amount, and yet we expect to live very comfortably in retirement. If you require $300,000 per year to live on in retirement, you need some training in money management, not to mention common sense.
This demand is pure extortion. Pay us, and let the janitors and department secretaries starve in the gutter when they retire, or we'll sue you. The University should fire these people and hire competent replacements at half their salaries. I'm betting that the University would be at least as well managed as it is today. Of course, that's a very low standard to beat.
In Matier & Ross' column on Monday, Regent Blum was asked what the Regents would do if the Legislature failed to restore the $450 million it pulled out of U.C.'s budget in 2010. Mr. Blum's response? "Try to run the place more efficiently."
Mr. Blum - WHAT TOOK YOU SO LONG?
Sunday, December 19, 2010
"Yes, Maw"
When I was small, my grandmother lived with us for a while - Dad's mother. Grandma was a nervous and fussy woman, always telling Dad what he ought to do. My 40-odd year old father would listen quietly, say, "Yes, Maw," and then do what he was going to do all along.
Which brings me, I'm sorry to say, to P G & E. Today's S.F. Chronicle had yet another article making it appallingly clear that P G & E has not a single clue on the condition of the gas transmission pipelines they have in the ground. Furthermore, they deliberately choose to use the least expensive, least disruptive, least effective method of gas pipe "inspection," which failed to identify any problems in the line that blew a big hole in a San Bruno neighborhood last fall. It looks remarkably like the explosion was caused by a weld failure, to which P G & E's response was, "Oh, there was a weld in that pipe?"
And the PUC lets them do it. They have never been fined. The PUC spouts boilerplate about "cooperation" and "safety," but it comes down to this: P G & E has trained the PUC to accept a "Yes, Maw" response about safety and pipeline inspection. As long as they say, "Oh, yes, we're working on that," the PUC does nothing.
How did they do that? Whom do they know? Is it fair to ask, whom did they pay off? Or is this just the general Republican feeling that less regulation is more? According to the list at the Renewable Energy Accountability Project site, all the existing PUC commissioners were either appointed or reappointed by Arnold Schwarzenegger. They also all worked either in or for major public utilities. There isn't a single board member who could be considered consumer oriented. Maybe Jerry Brown can do something about that.
It doesn't have to be this way. I can't remember the exact article, but I read at least one in which they said that something like 20-30% of P G & E's pipelines have been upgraded so they can be inspected by "smart pigs," while 87% of Southern California Edison's pipelines can be scanned by "smart pigs." Since they're both regulated by the PUC, the difference has to be in the company management's attitude. P G & E would have to pay money to upgrade those pipelines, and the security of their customers clearly isn't worth any money to them.
When the San Bruno disaster happened, I said to a friend, "This could be any of us." It still could. And we have no choice, because P G & E is a monopoly. If it were a regulated monopoly, we might have a chance to have our safety considered; but it isn't regulated, any more than my father was regulated by Grandma. "Yes, Maw" is not an acceptable answer.
Which brings me, I'm sorry to say, to P G & E. Today's S.F. Chronicle had yet another article making it appallingly clear that P G & E has not a single clue on the condition of the gas transmission pipelines they have in the ground. Furthermore, they deliberately choose to use the least expensive, least disruptive, least effective method of gas pipe "inspection," which failed to identify any problems in the line that blew a big hole in a San Bruno neighborhood last fall. It looks remarkably like the explosion was caused by a weld failure, to which P G & E's response was, "Oh, there was a weld in that pipe?"
And the PUC lets them do it. They have never been fined. The PUC spouts boilerplate about "cooperation" and "safety," but it comes down to this: P G & E has trained the PUC to accept a "Yes, Maw" response about safety and pipeline inspection. As long as they say, "Oh, yes, we're working on that," the PUC does nothing.
How did they do that? Whom do they know? Is it fair to ask, whom did they pay off? Or is this just the general Republican feeling that less regulation is more? According to the list at the Renewable Energy Accountability Project site, all the existing PUC commissioners were either appointed or reappointed by Arnold Schwarzenegger. They also all worked either in or for major public utilities. There isn't a single board member who could be considered consumer oriented. Maybe Jerry Brown can do something about that.
It doesn't have to be this way. I can't remember the exact article, but I read at least one in which they said that something like 20-30% of P G & E's pipelines have been upgraded so they can be inspected by "smart pigs," while 87% of Southern California Edison's pipelines can be scanned by "smart pigs." Since they're both regulated by the PUC, the difference has to be in the company management's attitude. P G & E would have to pay money to upgrade those pipelines, and the security of their customers clearly isn't worth any money to them.
When the San Bruno disaster happened, I said to a friend, "This could be any of us." It still could. And we have no choice, because P G & E is a monopoly. If it were a regulated monopoly, we might have a chance to have our safety considered; but it isn't regulated, any more than my father was regulated by Grandma. "Yes, Maw" is not an acceptable answer.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Certainty
I'm tired of this word. I heard it again this morning, on the news - the business leaders President Obama met with this morning claim they can't invest in the United States because they don't have "certainty." I guess they're afraid they might have to pay a tax or two.
Well, those poor timid little souls. These people have more money than God, and their corporations are sitting on piles of cash which remind me of Scrooge McDuck "bathing" in his money vault. And yet, they're uncertain, so they can't invest.
Try being without a job for 2 years and wondering whether Congress will get off its collective ass and extend unemployment benefits again. Now, that's uncertainty.
Ideally, I'd like to see Congress tie itself in such a knot that it doesn't act at all (the House Democrats are working on it), and the Bush tax cuts expire. We never could afford them, we still can't. Trouble is, if that happens, the unemployment benefit extension won't happen; and on the whole, I think President Obama called it right in his tax deal.
Our brave Captains of Industry, as they were called the last time we had this level of income inequality (1928), are actually afraid they might have to spend money hiring American workers. American workers have the temerity to want a living wage, job conditions that probably won't kill or maim them, and a decent retirement; much too expensive for our bold business leaders. They want to hire Chinese workers who think $45 a month is good pay and only occasionally kill themselves because of terrible working conditions. Henry Ford was an anti-Semitic SOB, but he built his company on the American worker; the whirring sound you hear is him, spinning in his grave.
I used to take some flack because my choice of reading material regularly included comic books, particularly Marvel Comics. I wish our business leaders had read them. From the Fantastic Four and Daredevil to the X-Men and Spiderman, the comics I read carried a major moral message: With great power comes great responsibility. Our bold business leaders have tremendous power (since we seem to have decided that money equals power) - and as far as I can tell they feel no responsibility at all, except to their own salary, benefits, and perks. They work really hard to maximize those. The people who work for them? Trash, to be swept out of the way. The shareholders they claim to represent? They only own a couple of hundred shares each, who cares about them?
I agree with Robert Borosage, on HuffPo today - "American" corporate leaders are part of the problem, and Obama's fooling himself if he tries to include them in the solution. I put them in quotes because I don't believe they care a whit about this country and its citizens.
Well, those poor timid little souls. These people have more money than God, and their corporations are sitting on piles of cash which remind me of Scrooge McDuck "bathing" in his money vault. And yet, they're uncertain, so they can't invest.
Try being without a job for 2 years and wondering whether Congress will get off its collective ass and extend unemployment benefits again. Now, that's uncertainty.
Ideally, I'd like to see Congress tie itself in such a knot that it doesn't act at all (the House Democrats are working on it), and the Bush tax cuts expire. We never could afford them, we still can't. Trouble is, if that happens, the unemployment benefit extension won't happen; and on the whole, I think President Obama called it right in his tax deal.
Our brave Captains of Industry, as they were called the last time we had this level of income inequality (1928), are actually afraid they might have to spend money hiring American workers. American workers have the temerity to want a living wage, job conditions that probably won't kill or maim them, and a decent retirement; much too expensive for our bold business leaders. They want to hire Chinese workers who think $45 a month is good pay and only occasionally kill themselves because of terrible working conditions. Henry Ford was an anti-Semitic SOB, but he built his company on the American worker; the whirring sound you hear is him, spinning in his grave.
I used to take some flack because my choice of reading material regularly included comic books, particularly Marvel Comics. I wish our business leaders had read them. From the Fantastic Four and Daredevil to the X-Men and Spiderman, the comics I read carried a major moral message: With great power comes great responsibility. Our bold business leaders have tremendous power (since we seem to have decided that money equals power) - and as far as I can tell they feel no responsibility at all, except to their own salary, benefits, and perks. They work really hard to maximize those. The people who work for them? Trash, to be swept out of the way. The shareholders they claim to represent? They only own a couple of hundred shares each, who cares about them?
I agree with Robert Borosage, on HuffPo today - "American" corporate leaders are part of the problem, and Obama's fooling himself if he tries to include them in the solution. I put them in quotes because I don't believe they care a whit about this country and its citizens.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Van Gogh, Gauguin, Cézanne and Beyond
We saw the second exhibition from the Musée d'Orsay today at the DeYoung Museum. We saw the first one last summer. I can't recommend it strongly enough, there are some astounding works on display. The most fascinating part of it was watching the slow change in styles across both shows.
The first show started with the classic "Academy" style, where the art authorities said, this is what you have to paint and this is how it has to look. Then it moved on to the Impressionists, who said, we want to paint what we see.
The second show begins as the Pointillist style developed, based on scientific color theory: science says that if we paint in this way, our paintings will glow! The weird thing about that was that, with one exception, every Pointillist piece I saw there appeared absolutely static, no sense of motion at all, even in a painting which showed a skirt blowing in the wind. Only Théo van Rysselberghe's Man at the Tiller gave me an actual sense of motion. (If you look it up on line, be aware that the colors do not reproduce correctly!) Still, a woman told me that her husband felt that, when he walked past another Pointillist landscape, the light shifted with him. Maybe that's what they were about. But most of them didn't give me much sense of light direction. There's a very short distance from some of the Pointillists to Roy Lichtenstein.
After the Pointillists they showed four little Toulouse-Lautrecs. I generally like Toulouse-Lautrec, but wasn't terribly impressed with the one they chose to put in the audio tour. I was blown away by one that wasn't: Woman in a Black Boa! Fabulous portrait of an amazing face!
Then we came to Van Gogh, who of course was in a class entirely by himself! I see him as the extreme extension of the Impressionists rather than a "post" movement, but what do I know? From Van Gogh they move to Cezanne and then Gauguin, both of whom quit trying to paint what they saw and began interpreting what they saw in terms of shapes, masses, and blocks of increasingly pure color. A group following Gauguin worked from Pont-Aven and developed a style that looks cartoonish to modern eyes - static, stylized forms, pure unshaded colors.
After the Pont-Aven school the exhibition moves to the Nabis and their Symbolist movement. The Nabis considered themselves a secret society, and their paintings were moving toward abstraction. Frankly, I thought they came across as rather full of themselves. One or two pieces reminded me of William Morris' romantic pseudo-medieval imagery. By now we're a very long way from those Academy portraits, and the artists are just experimenting to see what they can do.
The exhibition ends with two astounding Henri Rousseau pieces I hadn't seen before (War and Snake Charmer), and at least one painting I can't believe was ever hung in public in 1900 - Man and Woman, by Pierre Bonnard - both nude in a bedroom! The early 20th century accepted nude women, but not nude men with nude women! Finally, some of the Nabi painters moved into pure decoration, painting big panels and murals for private houses.
It was a fascinating exhibition, and I just wanted to put down some of my thoughts about it. If you're in the San Francisco Bay Area and haven't see the show, it's well worth the trip.
The first show started with the classic "Academy" style, where the art authorities said, this is what you have to paint and this is how it has to look. Then it moved on to the Impressionists, who said, we want to paint what we see.
The second show begins as the Pointillist style developed, based on scientific color theory: science says that if we paint in this way, our paintings will glow! The weird thing about that was that, with one exception, every Pointillist piece I saw there appeared absolutely static, no sense of motion at all, even in a painting which showed a skirt blowing in the wind. Only Théo van Rysselberghe's Man at the Tiller gave me an actual sense of motion. (If you look it up on line, be aware that the colors do not reproduce correctly!) Still, a woman told me that her husband felt that, when he walked past another Pointillist landscape, the light shifted with him. Maybe that's what they were about. But most of them didn't give me much sense of light direction. There's a very short distance from some of the Pointillists to Roy Lichtenstein.
After the Pointillists they showed four little Toulouse-Lautrecs. I generally like Toulouse-Lautrec, but wasn't terribly impressed with the one they chose to put in the audio tour. I was blown away by one that wasn't: Woman in a Black Boa! Fabulous portrait of an amazing face!
Then we came to Van Gogh, who of course was in a class entirely by himself! I see him as the extreme extension of the Impressionists rather than a "post" movement, but what do I know? From Van Gogh they move to Cezanne and then Gauguin, both of whom quit trying to paint what they saw and began interpreting what they saw in terms of shapes, masses, and blocks of increasingly pure color. A group following Gauguin worked from Pont-Aven and developed a style that looks cartoonish to modern eyes - static, stylized forms, pure unshaded colors.
After the Pont-Aven school the exhibition moves to the Nabis and their Symbolist movement. The Nabis considered themselves a secret society, and their paintings were moving toward abstraction. Frankly, I thought they came across as rather full of themselves. One or two pieces reminded me of William Morris' romantic pseudo-medieval imagery. By now we're a very long way from those Academy portraits, and the artists are just experimenting to see what they can do.
The exhibition ends with two astounding Henri Rousseau pieces I hadn't seen before (War and Snake Charmer), and at least one painting I can't believe was ever hung in public in 1900 - Man and Woman, by Pierre Bonnard - both nude in a bedroom! The early 20th century accepted nude women, but not nude men with nude women! Finally, some of the Nabi painters moved into pure decoration, painting big panels and murals for private houses.
It was a fascinating exhibition, and I just wanted to put down some of my thoughts about it. If you're in the San Francisco Bay Area and haven't see the show, it's well worth the trip.
Saturday, December 04, 2010
Coal in my Stocking
Some days you can't win. I injured my left knee a year ago and have been trying to get it to heal ever since; every time I thought it was OK, another weird little pain would crop up. In early October I saw a physical therapist, who gave me some exercises and told me, if you do those for 4-6 weeks and it's not better, see your doctor. This week I saw my doctor, who referred me to my orthopedic surgeon.
Five years ago, I had my left knee replaced. The orthopedic surgeon tells me that the left prosthesis has shifted, and we have to do it over. (Side note: the guy I'm seeing now did not do the operation 5 years ago.) One knows these things aren't eternal, but I certainly expected to get more than 5 years out of it - the one in the right knee is coming up on 10 with no problems. And I really don't look forward to this: I've done it twice, it isn't fun, and the rehab is very painful. Not to mention that I've now built up a tolerance for everybody's favorite pain drug, Vicodin: it takes more than they like to give me to have a real effect.
To make this even more amusing, my husband and I have just booked passage, through Cal Discoveries, on the cruise of a lifetime - a Mediterranean music cruise, with Sir James Galway on board! Our plane leaves May 1 for Venice; the boat leaves Venice May 4 for various fascinating places.
I'm waiting to hear when my surgery can be scheduled. Post-surgery rehab takes three months. If we can get it done before early February, I can be out of rehab in time to walk on that plane. I won't be able to sit with my left knee bent for any length of time (much less 11 hours to Frankfurt), but I have an aisle seat, and I'll be able to get up and walk around.
I don't like to plan things that depend on everything going perfectly, because so often everything doesn't. But I will go on that cruise if it's humanly possible. If it isn't, well, we did buy trip insurance; but I so don't want to use it.
Bah. Humbug.
Five years ago, I had my left knee replaced. The orthopedic surgeon tells me that the left prosthesis has shifted, and we have to do it over. (Side note: the guy I'm seeing now did not do the operation 5 years ago.) One knows these things aren't eternal, but I certainly expected to get more than 5 years out of it - the one in the right knee is coming up on 10 with no problems. And I really don't look forward to this: I've done it twice, it isn't fun, and the rehab is very painful. Not to mention that I've now built up a tolerance for everybody's favorite pain drug, Vicodin: it takes more than they like to give me to have a real effect.
To make this even more amusing, my husband and I have just booked passage, through Cal Discoveries, on the cruise of a lifetime - a Mediterranean music cruise, with Sir James Galway on board! Our plane leaves May 1 for Venice; the boat leaves Venice May 4 for various fascinating places.
I'm waiting to hear when my surgery can be scheduled. Post-surgery rehab takes three months. If we can get it done before early February, I can be out of rehab in time to walk on that plane. I won't be able to sit with my left knee bent for any length of time (much less 11 hours to Frankfurt), but I have an aisle seat, and I'll be able to get up and walk around.
I don't like to plan things that depend on everything going perfectly, because so often everything doesn't. But I will go on that cruise if it's humanly possible. If it isn't, well, we did buy trip insurance; but I so don't want to use it.
Bah. Humbug.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Safety
The flap these days (there's always a flap) is over the new TSA "security" procedures, in which airline passengers have to choose between a machine that displays a photo of you without your clothing, and a manual search which is, let us say, intrusive. This is the after-effect, of course, of last year's "underwear bomber." Somebody got something through in his underwear, now our underwear must be searched. Someone has suggested that body cavity searches can't be far behind; I wish I thought they were wrong.
In the first place, this is pointless. TSA is, as always, fighting the last war. The next strike may not involve passenger planes at all; in fact, given the crummy security around sea-borne containers, there's no reason why it should. The infamous toner cartridges from Yemen were shipped as air cargo. In the second place, this is all in the name of "safety" - there is no safety. None of us is "safe." The plane could crash; much more likely, a car could hit us on the way to the airport, or we could die of a heart attack out of the blue. This whole airport security charade is a massive CYA exercise on the part of the government. As long as people exist who feel it's their mission to kill Americans, Americans somewhere will be killed.
Americans used to be a brave and enterprising people. We took risks. We went to unknown places, to see what was there. We did things without a safety net. Sometimes we got killed, but we accomplished a hell of a lot. We aren't like that any more. Now we want to be "safe" - unless, of course, someone suggests we should quit smoking, or quit drinking soda pop and eating fast food. Then we just want it fast and cheap.
There's an old saying in data processing: You can have it good, fast, or cheap - pick two. Drinking soda pop and eating fast food is fast and cheap - and it'll kill us a lot sooner than the jihadis will, and a lot more unpleasantly too, if you look at some of the side effects of diabetes. But I digress - I was talking about airport scans.
There's no reason for airport scans except to give the government a way to appear to be "protecting" us. They would protect us a whole lot more effectively if they lost the "we're gonna kill the jihadis" attitude and started talking to moderate Muslims about the things we all have in common. There are a lot of them out there.
In the first place, this is pointless. TSA is, as always, fighting the last war. The next strike may not involve passenger planes at all; in fact, given the crummy security around sea-borne containers, there's no reason why it should. The infamous toner cartridges from Yemen were shipped as air cargo. In the second place, this is all in the name of "safety" - there is no safety. None of us is "safe." The plane could crash; much more likely, a car could hit us on the way to the airport, or we could die of a heart attack out of the blue. This whole airport security charade is a massive CYA exercise on the part of the government. As long as people exist who feel it's their mission to kill Americans, Americans somewhere will be killed.
Americans used to be a brave and enterprising people. We took risks. We went to unknown places, to see what was there. We did things without a safety net. Sometimes we got killed, but we accomplished a hell of a lot. We aren't like that any more. Now we want to be "safe" - unless, of course, someone suggests we should quit smoking, or quit drinking soda pop and eating fast food. Then we just want it fast and cheap.
There's an old saying in data processing: You can have it good, fast, or cheap - pick two. Drinking soda pop and eating fast food is fast and cheap - and it'll kill us a lot sooner than the jihadis will, and a lot more unpleasantly too, if you look at some of the side effects of diabetes. But I digress - I was talking about airport scans.
There's no reason for airport scans except to give the government a way to appear to be "protecting" us. They would protect us a whole lot more effectively if they lost the "we're gonna kill the jihadis" attitude and started talking to moderate Muslims about the things we all have in common. There are a lot of them out there.
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
Smaller Government
Well, Republicans, you aren't "in charge," exactly, but you have the House back, and you've made gains in the Senate. You all claim you're going for "smaller government." OK, put up or shut up. Let's see you get government off our backs in two significant ways:
Repeal DOMA. Who marries whom is none of the government's goddamn business.
Repeal "don't ask, don't tell" and let the military sort itself out. We're losing valuable servicemen and women for no better reason than their sexual orientation.
Get the government out of the bedroom. If you do that, I may believe that you actually will reduce the size of government. But I have to see it happen first.
Repeal DOMA. Who marries whom is none of the government's goddamn business.
Repeal "don't ask, don't tell" and let the military sort itself out. We're losing valuable servicemen and women for no better reason than their sexual orientation.
Get the government out of the bedroom. If you do that, I may believe that you actually will reduce the size of government. But I have to see it happen first.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Kickin' it In Kentucky
Now, God knows the election here in California is weird enough, what with Meg trying to buy the governorship, Carly trying to act senatorial, and the ten dwarves running for mayor of Oakland. But at least nobody is stomping anybody.
I learned about this from Facebook via a chain of blogs, but here's the link to the original report of this atrocity, from the local Fox News station:
Woman stomped outside Conway-Paul debate
I learned about this from Facebook via a chain of blogs, but here's the link to the original report of this atrocity, from the local Fox News station:
Woman stomped outside Conway-Paul debate
The brief summary, from talkingpointsmemo.com, is that a MoveOn.org supporter tried to approach Paul and a group (more than two) of Paul supporters threw her to the ground and held her down while one of them stomped on her head and neck. TPM has video if your stomach will stand it.
This is criminal assault and battery, folks. Assault and battery with bodily harm is a felony in California, folks; I wonder what it is in Kentucky? And yeah, reports indicate the woman had a concussion and multiple sprains; that's "bodily harm" in my book.
I hope everybody considering voting for Mr. Paul remembers the behavior his associates seem to think is appropriate. The MoveOn.org supporter was going to give him an "Employee of the Month" award from "Republicorp", which MoveOn invented to point up the connections between business and the GOP. In refusing that award, he's just won the newly created Gestapo award for Sleaziest Supporters since Adolf Hitler.
Monday, October 11, 2010
The Things You Remember
Having Sirius XM Radio in my car leads to some interesting coincidences. Listening to the classical Pops channel (I think it's 80), is kind of like listening to an iPod Shuffle full of classical music: they play single movements of things, short overtures etc. The other day, they brought up a lovely, lilting piece, and I thought, I know that music, what is that? I looked at the dash - the label said, Ovt to Donna Diana, Reznicek. Never heard of it, I thought, but I know that music.
Then it hit me. Wait - that's the theme to Sergeant Preston of the Yukon! I used to watch that show religiously, but I haven't thought about it in (gasp) over 50 years - Wikipedia reminds me it went off the air in 1958! (I was 12.) Still according to Wikipedia, the Donna Diana overture is mainly remembered because of the Sergeant Preston show, and its predecessor on radio, Challenge of the Yukon (1947 - 1955).
For the music history buffs, the Wikipedia article on Reznicek has a tidbit that I just love. Reznicek had a sense of humor, apparently not shared by his friend Richard Strauss. Reznicek wrote a symphonic poem he called Schlemihl which is apparently a direct parody of Strauss' Ein Heldenleben. You have to love any composer who can write a piece called Schlemihl!!
Then it hit me. Wait - that's the theme to Sergeant Preston of the Yukon! I used to watch that show religiously, but I haven't thought about it in (gasp) over 50 years - Wikipedia reminds me it went off the air in 1958! (I was 12.) Still according to Wikipedia, the Donna Diana overture is mainly remembered because of the Sergeant Preston show, and its predecessor on radio, Challenge of the Yukon (1947 - 1955).
For the music history buffs, the Wikipedia article on Reznicek has a tidbit that I just love. Reznicek had a sense of humor, apparently not shared by his friend Richard Strauss. Reznicek wrote a symphonic poem he called Schlemihl which is apparently a direct parody of Strauss' Ein Heldenleben. You have to love any composer who can write a piece called Schlemihl!!
Saturday, October 09, 2010
Pollution and Regulation
One of the GOP's constant complaints, especially in California, is that government regulations are too onerous. It's too hard to do business here. We're ruining the economy. Et cetera.
From Hungary this week we have a classic example of why we have those regulations:
We're ruining the economy and driving business away because we cannot trust business to keep the public welfare in mind. Business is only interested in maximizing profit. This is what happens when business is allowed to operate without safety requirements and pollution controls. No irksome government regulations in Hungary led to a million cubic meters of toxic red sludge bursting out from behind a failed dam, destroying villages, livelihoods, and lives; and it now appears that this appalling reservoir may spring another leak, any day now. It has gotten into the Danube, one of Europe's major waterways; and they're saying the Danube isn't seriously damaged, but I don't think the whole story is told yet.
The next time you hear businessmen complaining about annoying regulations, remind them of this spill. Oh, and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and the gas pipe explosion and fire in San Bruno, too - those happened here, where we have regulations, which obviously failed.
From Hungary this week we have a classic example of why we have those regulations:
Hundreds flee threat of new toxic sludge spill in Hungary
I chose this account in the Telegraph, from the U.K., to avoid any implication of American bias.We're ruining the economy and driving business away because we cannot trust business to keep the public welfare in mind. Business is only interested in maximizing profit. This is what happens when business is allowed to operate without safety requirements and pollution controls. No irksome government regulations in Hungary led to a million cubic meters of toxic red sludge bursting out from behind a failed dam, destroying villages, livelihoods, and lives; and it now appears that this appalling reservoir may spring another leak, any day now. It has gotten into the Danube, one of Europe's major waterways; and they're saying the Danube isn't seriously damaged, but I don't think the whole story is told yet.
The next time you hear businessmen complaining about annoying regulations, remind them of this spill. Oh, and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and the gas pipe explosion and fire in San Bruno, too - those happened here, where we have regulations, which obviously failed.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Republicans and Deficits
The Republican Party has recently settled on "we must reduce the deficit" as one of their rallying cries. The country is going broke, they cry, and it's the Democrats' fault, those "tax and spend" Democrats.
I didn't notice them worrying about the country going broke under the George W. Bush administration, when they approved off-budget funding for two wars. Did they think the money would fall from the sky?
George W. Bush inherited a budget surplus from the Clinton administration, which he "gave back to the taxpayers" (mostly to very rich taxpayers) to such an extent that his second administration would have been in the hole even without The Crash. Republicans never complained about potential deficits when they passed the Bush tax cuts, which I personally think should be allowed to expire for everyone, including the middle class. Tax rates under Clinton just weren't that high.
Both parties were complicit in the campaign to make everybody a homeowner, even people who couldn't afford it. But removing the regulations on the financial industry which made the eventual crash so much worse? Republicans. Repealing Glass-Steagall, without which move we wouldn't have HAD to bail out the unmentionable banks? Republicans. Appointing a Wall Street power as Secretary of the Treasury? (Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse!) George W. Bush. Some Democrats voted for these moves, but Republicans drove them.
I concede that President Obama's appointee as Secretary of the Treasury also leaves a lot to be desired (can't pay his taxes, and sounds like a high school valedictorian - I just can't take him seriously) - but in Obama's defense, he took office in the middle of the worst financial crisis of the last 80 years, and Geithner was in the middle of the mess in his role at the Fed and could hit the ground running.
My point here is that Republicans only worry about the deficit the country has run up when the Democrats want to pass legislation that might help people who are not rich get back on their feet and maybe get a job. When they want to extend the Bush tax cuts, which would mainly benefit the very rich, they never mention the deficit. Their whole attitude is, we got ours, now pull up the ladder, anybody who hasn't already got theirs doesn't deserve it anyway. And it's ugly. If we want to turn the U.S. into a 3rd world country, this is the road to take - the U.S. Gini coefficient is very close to its highest historical level since they began recording in 1967.
I didn't notice them worrying about the country going broke under the George W. Bush administration, when they approved off-budget funding for two wars. Did they think the money would fall from the sky?
George W. Bush inherited a budget surplus from the Clinton administration, which he "gave back to the taxpayers" (mostly to very rich taxpayers) to such an extent that his second administration would have been in the hole even without The Crash. Republicans never complained about potential deficits when they passed the Bush tax cuts, which I personally think should be allowed to expire for everyone, including the middle class. Tax rates under Clinton just weren't that high.
Both parties were complicit in the campaign to make everybody a homeowner, even people who couldn't afford it. But removing the regulations on the financial industry which made the eventual crash so much worse? Republicans. Repealing Glass-Steagall, without which move we wouldn't have HAD to bail out the unmentionable banks? Republicans. Appointing a Wall Street power as Secretary of the Treasury? (Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse!) George W. Bush. Some Democrats voted for these moves, but Republicans drove them.
I concede that President Obama's appointee as Secretary of the Treasury also leaves a lot to be desired (can't pay his taxes, and sounds like a high school valedictorian - I just can't take him seriously) - but in Obama's defense, he took office in the middle of the worst financial crisis of the last 80 years, and Geithner was in the middle of the mess in his role at the Fed and could hit the ground running.
My point here is that Republicans only worry about the deficit the country has run up when the Democrats want to pass legislation that might help people who are not rich get back on their feet and maybe get a job. When they want to extend the Bush tax cuts, which would mainly benefit the very rich, they never mention the deficit. Their whole attitude is, we got ours, now pull up the ladder, anybody who hasn't already got theirs doesn't deserve it anyway. And it's ugly. If we want to turn the U.S. into a 3rd world country, this is the road to take - the U.S. Gini coefficient is very close to its highest historical level since they began recording in 1967.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Inferno
Having been through the Oakland Hills Fire, my heart goes out to the people in San Bruno affected by this terrible fire. As of this morning it's 75% contained. By all accounts the fire began when a major gas line in the area ruptured - since the thing is still burning, it's likely to be awhile before we find out exactly what happened. But I have an uneasy feeling.
I've spent the last 30 years or so watching our entire country (diligent individuals excepted) ignoring the issue of maintenance. Cities, counties, states, the Federal government - nobody wanted to put any money into repairs. I have no reason to assume that PG&E was an exception to this trend. How long had that gas line been there? When was the last time anybody checked on its condition? We don't know. I hope we find out some day.
I know this: if we don't take care of our infrastructure, some day our infrastructure will take care of us. I drove an acquaintance home last night, over Oakland streets, and the pavement nearly sprang my shocks. The City of Oakland has an 80 year street repair schedule! The Oakland Hills fire was caused by an incompletely extinguished trash fire - negligence on the part of the burners and the fire department. This fire appears to have been caused by a different kind of negligence. How many other gas mains resemble this one? We don't know. I hope we don't find out the hard way.
I've spent the last 30 years or so watching our entire country (diligent individuals excepted) ignoring the issue of maintenance. Cities, counties, states, the Federal government - nobody wanted to put any money into repairs. I have no reason to assume that PG&E was an exception to this trend. How long had that gas line been there? When was the last time anybody checked on its condition? We don't know. I hope we find out some day.
I know this: if we don't take care of our infrastructure, some day our infrastructure will take care of us. I drove an acquaintance home last night, over Oakland streets, and the pavement nearly sprang my shocks. The City of Oakland has an 80 year street repair schedule! The Oakland Hills fire was caused by an incompletely extinguished trash fire - negligence on the part of the burners and the fire department. This fire appears to have been caused by a different kind of negligence. How many other gas mains resemble this one? We don't know. I hope we don't find out the hard way.
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Hating the Other
We've all heard the rants: President Obama wasn't really born in America (sorry, Hawaii is part of America). President Obama is really a Muslim (he attended a Baptist church for 20 years). President Obama is really a Socialist (usually from people who wouldn't know an actual Socialist if one came up and bit them on the ankle). A lot of people think the subtext of all this is really, President Obama is black. It's actually broader than that, and not restricted to race, although race is part of it. There is, and there always has been, a vocal subset of the American populace which believes that anybody who doesn't look, dress, act and think exactly like them is - the Enemy. Based on the things they are against, the people who think this way tend to be white (often of northern European stock), Protestant Christian, family in the U.S. for at least a couple of generations, and living in rural areas or small towns. And they're almost always anti-immigrant.
Full disclosure here: except for the benefits of a university education and a lot of reading, I am these people: Scotch-Irish-English, with a reputed but unprovable touch of French and Indian. Raised Baptist (no longer practicing). Grew up in a small town. (Left as soon as I got out of school.) I know the mindset well.
To this group, anybody who isn't like them is "un-American," obviously out to get them, going to destroy the country, probably a terrorist, taking jobs from good American workers, etc. You've heard it all.
The attitude isn't new, either. The current manifestation is the followers of the wilder Fox News commentators; but Benjamin Franklin, normally a tolerant and liberal man, published a well-known rant about the awful "swarthy, stupid" German immigrants who were going to take over the country if we weren't careful. And this was roughly 1751, which was before we were a country! In the mid-19th century you had the Know-Nothing party, which was convinced the country was being overrun by German and Irish Catholic immigrants, who were controlled by the Pope in Rome. Believe me, if you're Irish American now, nobody thinks a thing of it, and a lot of our anti-immigrant folks now are of Irish descent; but in 1850 businesses had signs reading, "No Irish need apply." Wait long enough and the discriminated against become the establishment; but the anti-Catholic attitude was why the U.S. didn't elect a Catholic (or Irish) President until 1960. In the early 20th century the Italians (also Catholic) were the immigrant threat. Have we elected an Italian President yet? I don't think so.
This parallel may exist only in my mind, but as I drafted this post, I realized slowly that I recognize these people from another recent source. In the great Prohibition experiment, these people were the "drys." See my last post, Reading About Prohibition; read Daniel Okrent's book. See if you agree with me. I'm not sure what this means, but it's interesting.
The bigger question is, why is the human race, or some of the human race, so hostile to "the other?" It isn't just Americans. Look at the hostility to Muslim immigrants in Europe. Look at the genocide in Rwanda, where the issue wasn't even skin color. I think it's tribal. For millennia, the human race lived in very small tribes of hunter-gatherers. Everybody in the tribe was related. The tribe had their territory, and they lived off it, and anybody who pushed into their territory was a threat to the whole tribe. Everybody outside the tribe was suspect. If you don't think this mind-set is still alive today, ask yourself why we have so much trouble in Afghanistan, the poster country for tribalism. Here we all are in the 21st century United States, living in cities and driving cars; but in the back of our minds, some of us are still afraid that "those people" are a threat to "the tribe." We've only had "civilization" (or whatever this is) for about 5,000 years; we've only had industrial civilization for about 300-400. Is it any wonder that part of our minds still reacts as if we lived on the savanna?
I don't have an answer for this. I don't have a tidy solution. I've never been any good at changing people's minds; and in any case, the attitude I'm talking about here is not rational. It's an emotional, fear-based response, from a part of our mind we don't deal with much. So far we've always managed to overcome the fear of the other, and incorporate these new people into our culture and our country. I hope we can continue to do that; I think we're better for it. But we're fooling ourselves if we think this isn't a real problem.
Full disclosure here: except for the benefits of a university education and a lot of reading, I am these people: Scotch-Irish-English, with a reputed but unprovable touch of French and Indian. Raised Baptist (no longer practicing). Grew up in a small town. (Left as soon as I got out of school.) I know the mindset well.
To this group, anybody who isn't like them is "un-American," obviously out to get them, going to destroy the country, probably a terrorist, taking jobs from good American workers, etc. You've heard it all.
The attitude isn't new, either. The current manifestation is the followers of the wilder Fox News commentators; but Benjamin Franklin, normally a tolerant and liberal man, published a well-known rant about the awful "swarthy, stupid" German immigrants who were going to take over the country if we weren't careful. And this was roughly 1751, which was before we were a country! In the mid-19th century you had the Know-Nothing party, which was convinced the country was being overrun by German and Irish Catholic immigrants, who were controlled by the Pope in Rome. Believe me, if you're Irish American now, nobody thinks a thing of it, and a lot of our anti-immigrant folks now are of Irish descent; but in 1850 businesses had signs reading, "No Irish need apply." Wait long enough and the discriminated against become the establishment; but the anti-Catholic attitude was why the U.S. didn't elect a Catholic (or Irish) President until 1960. In the early 20th century the Italians (also Catholic) were the immigrant threat. Have we elected an Italian President yet? I don't think so.
This parallel may exist only in my mind, but as I drafted this post, I realized slowly that I recognize these people from another recent source. In the great Prohibition experiment, these people were the "drys." See my last post, Reading About Prohibition; read Daniel Okrent's book. See if you agree with me. I'm not sure what this means, but it's interesting.
The bigger question is, why is the human race, or some of the human race, so hostile to "the other?" It isn't just Americans. Look at the hostility to Muslim immigrants in Europe. Look at the genocide in Rwanda, where the issue wasn't even skin color. I think it's tribal. For millennia, the human race lived in very small tribes of hunter-gatherers. Everybody in the tribe was related. The tribe had their territory, and they lived off it, and anybody who pushed into their territory was a threat to the whole tribe. Everybody outside the tribe was suspect. If you don't think this mind-set is still alive today, ask yourself why we have so much trouble in Afghanistan, the poster country for tribalism. Here we all are in the 21st century United States, living in cities and driving cars; but in the back of our minds, some of us are still afraid that "those people" are a threat to "the tribe." We've only had "civilization" (or whatever this is) for about 5,000 years; we've only had industrial civilization for about 300-400. Is it any wonder that part of our minds still reacts as if we lived on the savanna?
I don't have an answer for this. I don't have a tidy solution. I've never been any good at changing people's minds; and in any case, the attitude I'm talking about here is not rational. It's an emotional, fear-based response, from a part of our mind we don't deal with much. So far we've always managed to overcome the fear of the other, and incorporate these new people into our culture and our country. I hope we can continue to do that; I think we're better for it. But we're fooling ourselves if we think this isn't a real problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)