Thursday, April 28, 2005

Back to Normal

It's amazing how we human beings can add meaning to practically anything. My girlfriend and I are back in phase with each other, and it turns out that she didn't think I had taken someone else to the movies after all. What bothered her was this: I sent her an email inviting her to join me at the movies if she wanted to, but hesitating to ask her to drive all the way from Ventura because I was cautious about asking her to accommodate my convenience all the time, and saying that any tendency on my part to thus take advantage of her "grossed me out".

There's something about that phrase that really bugs her - she finds it dirty and disgusting, partly because she spent a part of her childhood on a ranch mucking out horses. Not that I was saying that anything about her grossed me out, you understand, but even applying that phrase to myself really threw her.

The specific thing that bothered her surprised me somewhat, but that she got upset in itself didn't surprise me. We're getting to that point in a new relationship where you want to feel sure of the other person but you don't because you don't yet know them that well, so you get a little sensitive. Fortunately, she was able to communicate her feelings to me in an honest but kindly fashion, and I was ready to hear just about anything she wanted me to know, so it worked out nicely.

Anyway, I learned that a telephone call at times like these is probably more effective than email.

Benshlomo says, Pick up the phone!

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

Open Letter to the White House - Words and Deeds

Dear Mr. President:

It's been a busy week for you and your family, I see. First, your brother signed into law a Florida statute removing the requirement that citizens under attack try to flee before applying deadly force. It's a kind of "shoot first, ask questions later" approach that doesn't sit particularly well, but as it happens, the principle is within Jewish law at least. The sages of the past advised us, "If you know that someone is going to kill you tomorrow, get up early and kill him first." So never mind that the idea of killing someone, even a murderous someone, makes me uneasy; please contact your brother and congratulate him on his instinctive understanding of Jewish ethics. Whether this "stand your ground" attitude fits within your own professed Christianity I am far less certain. You claim Jesus Christ as your most important political advisor, so you might want to consult the Church's founder on the subject of turning the other cheek before you follow in your brother's footsteps.

As for your own activities, I note from a National Public Radio broadcast that you were in Galveston yesterday with none other than Tom DeLay, who must have found his presence at a "Round Table" discussion much more congenial than his past and future appearances before the House Ethics Committee. Well, everyone needs a break now and then, and in this case he got to take a break at an ostensibly wide-open event that was actually filled with thorougly vetted partisans of yours. I suppose he thought this would give him some decent publicity as a man willing to confront his opponents, while making it unnecessary for him to actually confront any opponent. In other words, like you, Mr. DeLay clearly enjoys saying one thing and doing something quite different.

This brings me to the main thrust of today's letter, Mr. President. When was the last time you said something in public that you actually believed?

Yesterday you told the Galveston audience that you consider Tom DeLay a very effective leader who gets things done. Brave words. They were and are totally unsupported by your actions, however - you have been distancing yourself from Mr. DeLay for weeks. This is probably good political strategy, since the man is going down very quickly (I'm sure you're aware that Congress took another major step today towards subjecting him to an Ethics Committee scouring), but it certainly doesn't match what you say about him.

Mind you, I am ecstatic that Tom DeLay is being roasted over a slow fire at long last, but I confess to a mild surprise that you would so publicly say something that your actions contradict so completely. You've always been so good at controlling your public image, but you've really left yourself wide open this time.

Even more astonishing to me is your claim that this tour of yours is convincing the nation that you know what you're talking about regarding Social Security. Your poll numbers have been plummeting ever since your last inauguration, sir, and yet you claim victory. I'm not surprised, of course; for one thing you don't read newspapers or attend to anything that contradicts what you want to believe, and for another thing you claim victory as a matter of course regardless of all evidence to the contrary anyway. Thus, in the matter of Mr. DeLay and the matter of Social Security, you have simply imported your tactics from the run-up to the war in Iraq. No, not surprised, but I do find it amusing.

In any case, this week you have publicly taken two positions by means of speech that you have utterly failed to back up with any action. I know you like to take massive credit for your "moral clarity," and I suppose I should thank you for demonstrating in no uncertain terms what you actually mean by that phrase, to wit, living in a fantasy world. I guess when you're President you can call that "moral clarity" - out here in the real world, sir, we call it delusion.

National Public Radio played an audio clip of an elderly woman in Galveston who at last night's Round Table meeting said something like "If the country would listen to you, Mr. President, they would get it." Oh, we're listening all right, sir, and we get it.

It's About Time

It seems that the Speaker of the House of Representatives has decided that the Republican party can't take any more hits on account of Tom DeLay. He's agreed to change the ethics committee rules back to the way they were before.

You remember the deal - Tom DeLay was admonished three times last year for ethics violations, and now that he's in for an even worse time in court, the Republican-controlled House changed the rules so that a majority vote could ignore any charges against an individual member. This is the same party that decided a majority vote could not ignore charges, but that decision was made when Democrats faced ethics investigations - now that a Republican is in the same fix they don't want the same rules to apply. It won't wash, and it looks like some of them are starting to realize it. We're still not sure if this means that DeLay will have to face the consequences of his scummy activities, but it's a definite step in the right direction.

Meantime, over in the Senate, Kos reports that the Democratic leadership ran rings around the Republican leadership again. I, too, am exceedingly glad that Reid is on our side. The main point in both cases, though, is that Congressional Republicans overextended themselves on both ethics rules and judicial nominees, and whatever happens next they've been horribly embarrassed by Democratic refusal to give in and have only themselves to blame. Who says Democrats have no backbone?

Benshlomo says, Is it just me, or does victory make people stupid?

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

What Goes Around Comes Around

My girlfriend lives in Ventura, which is about an hour away. When I was younger, that was called "geographically undesirable" - now it's practically next door. Or so it seems.

She also has a pre-teen daughter. Her mother lives with her too. And yet she drives down here almost every weekend to see me. I guess I go up there once a month, or maybe every five or six weeks, partly because there's more to do where I live and partly because she just likes the drive, I suppose.

We've been doing a class on Judaism every Monday night for about three months, and now it's over, so I had a free Monday evening last night. She emailed me and asked if she should come down. I replied that I was going to the New Beverly Cinema to see Scarface and Hell's Angels, and that she was welcome to join me if she wanted to.

I guess that was a mistake. I can see that it might have worked better to let her know my plans in advance, tell her how much I wanted to see those movies and how I'd been looking forward to them for two months. Nevertheless, I'm actually shocked by how she reacted.

She's now wondering if I want to start dating other people, or if I want to be with her at all. I suppose she thinks I took someone else to those movies and just didn't tell her about it. It's disturbing to realize that she thinks I'm capable of that sort of betrayal. It's one thing to date more than one person at a time in a casual way, although I've never been able to sustain that kind of life for very long - it's quite another to date someone behind your girlfriend's back.

Well, I've tried to reassure her while at the same time letting her know that she doesn't get to make up stories about me that aren't true and then start looking for evidence to support them. Anyone who does that will, in fact, find such evidence, even though it isn't there. As James Burke once said, "If you believe the cosmos is made up of omelette, you build instruments specifically designed to find traces of intergalactic yolk." And you'll find it, too.

This is a learning experience for me - assuming it all works out all right, it will be just about the first time I've managed to sustain a romantic relationship through a crisis of confidence. Stay tuned.

Benshlomo says, Like everything else, love is a balancing act.

Thursday, April 21, 2005

Pombo Bomb-o

So the House of Representatives is getting ready to debate an energy bill yesterday, and a California Representative from the Sacramento-Lake Tahoe area is telling a news conference about a provision to encourage hydrogen-fueled vehicles, when Alameda's Dick Pombo, a fellow-Republican, mutters to a buddy of his that the provision is "bullshit".

Why? Because, according to Dick Pombo, hydrogen cell technology:

"[is] not a short-term solution because we just don't have the technology to produce it...Hopefully, if this stuff all works, 10 years from now they'll be able to produce them."


Time for a quick lesson in political science, kids. Dick Pombo is a major advocate of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. There's oil under the ground there, all right, but the United States Geological Survey informs us that this oil cannot be brought to market for at least ten years, at which point it will last approximately six months. (I'm putting in this link even though it seems to be broken - interesting, isn't it? In the event that it stays that way, here's another source.)

We all know that the Bush administration has been after the ANWR for years and has adopted some highly disturbing tactics to get at it. Now, here comes Congressman Pombo, another drilling fan, and makes a disparaging comment about an alternative energy source which would presumably render ANWR drilling unnecessary. No surprise there. However, he makes this allegedly private comment in full view and well within earshot of a CNN reporter, and at a press conference, no less.

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that a responsible news organization would report on a Congressman's private comment! Have these people no shame?

But this isn't what really bugs me. Let's review - Congressman Pombo, a major advocate of oil drilling in Alaska, scoffs at hydrogen fuel cell technology because he wants a "short-term solution," and hydrogen cells won't be easily available for at least ten years. He wants something now, by golly, like Alaskan oil, which will be available in...ten years. (That's not to mention the fact that, however long it takes for hydrogen cells to come to market, they'll be permanently available at that point, whereas Alaskan oil will be available for less than a year.)

So where does this logical twisting leave Pombo the Bomb-O? With his foot in his mouth and his thumb up his own bullshit, that's where!

Benshlomo says, I try to be civil to morons, but what's the point?

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

Gagging those judges

Tom DeLay is at it again. Surprise, surprise.

This time he's labeled Supreme Court Justice Kennedy as "outrageous" because he bases decisions on international law rather than the American Constitution (a criticism that may have some weight) and because he admitted to doing his own research on the Internet.

Okay, give me a second here. Let's assume for the moment that Justice Kennedy does, in fact, consult international law when considering his position on certain issues. In itself, what makes that such a bad thing?

First, DeLay is a major supporter of the Bush administration, which recently called Iran to task for failing to consult international law in formulating its policies on energy and nuclear technology. So DeLay must think it's a bad idea for Iran to refer to its national laws over international law, but a good idea for the United States to refer to its national laws over international law. I'm inclined to agree that the United States is more trustworthy than Iran, but it's bad form for someone like Tom DeLay to be quite so overt about it.

Second, and this is really the crux of the issue, what DeLay really seems to want is some sort of Congressional control over the judiciary. He said, "The judiciary has become so activist and so isolated from the American people that it's our job to do that."

Look, Tommy, the whole point of an independent judiciary is that it's not subject to popular vote. Let's face it, the people don't always want what's fair or just - all you have to do to recognize that is read up on segregationist Jim Crow laws. (DeLay had better know about those - he's from Texas, for God's sake.) You let people vote, directly or through their Congressional representatives, on what judges can or can't do, and the next thing you know you've got this. Or someone like George W. Bush or Tom DeLay claims that he knows the will of the people, and then you get this, or something worse.

The point was made very well in a recent book by Fareed Zakaria - voters in a democracy can vote themselves anything they want, including things that might be very bad for democracy, illegal or just plain wrong. Therefore, a democratic society needs to protect itself against that possibility with institutions that are not answerable to the electorate. And that, Mr. DeLay, includes the courts. So hands off.

Benshlomo says, Vox populi, vox humbug.

Monday, April 18, 2005

Monsters from the Id

MoveOn.Org is participating in a letter-writing campaign to stop the Republican "nuclear option" regarding President Bush's judicial nominees. That's the tactic being considered by Republican leadership in the Senate that would disallow filibustering in those debates - that is, contrary to over 200 years of Senatorial practice, today's Republican Senatorial leadership wants to forbid the Democrats from debating the qualifications of judicial nominees until everyone is satisfied.

This is, as usual for the Republican Congressional leadership, schoolyard rules. Someone has an objection to what you're doing? You pound him into the ground and do as you like anyway. Children who do that get written about in parenting magazines in hand-wringing articles asking how it can be stopped. Old Republican men who do it get elected.

So I wrote this letter to USA Today:

Some conservative pundits and lawmakers have asserted that if the Republican party in Congress decides to disallow filibustering of judicial nominees, it will be no more than a necessary corrective to Democratic partisan heel-dragging.

Nonsense.

Let's be very clear about this - America is predicated on the notion that all points of view, even (or especially) those not in power, are entitled to a hearing and may not be stifled in any context. The American Senate is predicated on the notion that minority points of view must be permitted their rights, up to and including the right to block legislation, in order to preserve some stability in the exercise of power.

Given this, the Republican so-called "nuclear option" is nothing more than a power grab. One party now has control of the executive and legislative branches of government and now seeks fuller control of congress as well as control of the judicial branch so that its hold on power can be made longer or even permanent. For a party that constantly harps on its notion of "freedom," this is positively totalitarian.

Never mind that the judicial nominees in question are generally extremists and lacking in qualifications; Republican tactics in this case are unfair, anti-democratic and anti-American and must be stopped immediately.


Benshlomo says, Power corrupts, but some animals are more corruptible than others.

Wednesday, April 13, 2005

Waaah

My rear-view mirror has fallen off, there's a hole in the bottom of my car, I need transmission, body and paint work, I had to pay a whole load of fees for an overdue bill, my taxes aren't ready yet and I have a sneaking hunch I owe money, I couldn't find the DVD I wanted at Blockbuster because the show I want to watch isn't out on DVD yet, my novel is going very slowly, the friends I want to bring to my seminar don't want to come, and on top of it all I've got a very sore shoulder for some inexplicable reason (?). You know what it's been?

If anyone wants to help, here is some advice.

Benshlomo says, Don't bother me unless you're providing money, sex or chocolate chip cookies.

Tuesday, April 12, 2005

What Does Sex Mean to Me?

At about the same time that song came out from a band called Human Sexual Response, Andrea Dworkin started making headlines with her assertion that all sexual penetration of any kind of a woman by a man was a form of rape.

I was a much younger man then, and sexually insecure, and she made me furious with that remark. Now she's dead.

I don't consider myself thoroughly mature, nor completely sexually confident, but despite my anger at Dworkin for the difficulties she added to the world and to relations between the sexes, I can't find it in my heart to gloat over her death. Maybe there's hope for me yet.

The net has a number of obituaries for her - so far the best one I've read is here. I like it because it's sympathetic and merciful, though written by a woman Dworkin seems to have loathed.

That interests me very much, because if the situation were reversed - if Susie Bright had died and Andrea Dworkin were called upon to write an obituary - somehow I doubt Dworkin would have been so charitable.

It's only speculation on my part, of course, but if I'm right about these two women's respective attitudes towards each other, that gives us two instructive examples. In Andrea Dworkin we have a woman who had a loathing for sex and a serious lack of empathy. In Susie Bright, on the other hand, we have a woman who loves sex, has a partner and child, and feels for a fellow human being who suffered and died in pain. I doubt that's a coincidence.

And that's what sex means to me.

Benshlomo says, Enjoy what your body can do, but don't forget your soul can do a lot more with the same equipment.

Friday, April 08, 2005

Clinton and the Pope, and the Confederacy of Dunces

Jonathan Swift said "When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that all the dunces are in confederacy against him." John Kennedy Toole used that quote as the title of a very funny book. I have no idea whether or not Bill Clinton is a genius, but the dunces remain lined up against him, all right; more than four years after he left office they still can't leave him alone.

Yet more evidence: Bill Clinton attended the Pope's funeral, and when it was over he said something as innocuous as you please, as quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle.

"There will be debates about him. But on balance, he was a man of God, he was a consistent person, he did what he thought was right. That's about all you can ask of anybody."


Or, according to CBS News, maybe it was

"Throughout he was always just who he was - that's all you can ask of anyone - and at that he was a great man."


Sound okay to you?

So yesterday I'm eating lunch at some restaurant with a television over the counter, and some spitting old pundit who I probably should have recognized said "Clinton had a lot to say about the Pope, all of it dumb." Then he interpreted President Clinton's remarks, about his being "all you can ask of anyone," thus: "In other words, he was mediocre but he tried." This jerk got all bent out of shape because, or course, the Pope was a great man and Clinton was supposedly denigrating him.

Hey, Methuselah, CLINTON SAID THE POPE WAS A GREAT MAN! We know you hate Clinton because he's smarter than you and got out of all the traps your type set for him, but do you think you could maybe GET THE CRAP OUT OF YOUR EARS AND LISTEN!

Oh, screw it, trying to help these people get wise is bad for my blood pressure anyway.

Benshlomo says, If you're trying to educate a fool, try educating a moron instead - you'll get farther.

Thursday, April 07, 2005

Various Dirty Birds

This afternoon at lunchtime, I headed down to the lobby of the building I work in, and there was a man sitting there with two parrots - one on his lap and one on his wrist.

I used to know a guy who kept a macaw as a pet. Maybe these parrots were also pets, I don't know. What I do know - and this is kind of hard to explain - is that seeing those two birds there woke me up in a way that crowds of people seldom do.

Maybe it was the colors of the birds. One was bright green, the other dark blue all over. Maybe it was just the unfamiliarity of seeing parrots in the city, outside of a cage. Maybe it was just how unexpected the whole thing was. In any case, I wish to heck I had a camera.

Then again, even with a camera, I don't think I could capture the experience. There was something inescapably alive about those birds, like they had a magnetic aura around them that drew everyone around. By comparison, most of what you see every day (especially the various attempts to imitate nature) is a sort of dirty joke.

Later on, I came across an article on Tom DeLay's good buddy Jack Abramoff. I've read about him before, of course - this is the guy who's currently under investigation for a couple dozen financial irregularities, seems like. Evidence suggests that he's taken public monies, which may not be used for any partisan campaigning, and finagled a way to give them to a bunch of conservative congressional candidates. But although I'd heard about him before, this is the first time I learned that he's an orthodox Jew.

Being an observant Jew is something I aspire to - keeping the Sabbath, eating kosher, praying every day, learning Torah. Apparently, Jack Abramoff actually does all that, and his religious activities obviously have no impact on the rest of his life in any degree. He professes a devotion to virtue and then undercuts the rules intended to prevent corruption in public discourse.

Let me put it this way - I make no pretensions to speaking for what God does and does not like, but the behavior of the sleazebag Abramoff is profoundly offensive to me, anyway. Compared to the spiritual power thrown off casually by those parrots this afternoon, Abramoff's activities are just another dirty joke.

Benshlomo says, in the words of the ancient sages, It's completely possible to obey each and every Biblical commandment and still lead a completely empty life.

Wednesday, April 06, 2005

If the Seed Fits...

The New York Times has revealed that Tom DeLay's wife and daughter were paid about $500,000 in taxpayer money over the last several years for doing God knows what. The Washington Post has revealed that DeLay received reimbursement for travel to various places from registered lobbyists and/or foreign agents, an illegal act. What is that by now, strike five and six or more?

DeLay has spent his career advancing his own wealth and power regardless of law or ethics and he's now going down in smoke and flames, and I for one feel a spurt of evil glee from the Dark Side of my soul. Yet the man has enough breath left to denounce the reports of his illegal activities as seedy.

Well, of course the reports are seedy, Tom. They deal with your seedy activities. I suppose you expected the red carpet and gold leaf treatment. Who do you think you are, a dead pope?

Benshlomo says, A cornered rat will bite anything, so watch it.

Daylight What?

It's never bothered me before, but this year the "spring forward" routine knocked me right off my feet. I think it's because (and I never noticed this before) daylight savings time happens to arrive at just about the time of year that allergy season begins. This year, I am a martyr to both, for my sins.

And why do we have daylight savings time? Turns out it was Benjamin Franklin's idea .

Well, he had some good ones, but one thing is for sure - he didn't have hay fever.

So I'm sneezing too much, I'm not getting enough sleep, I've missed a couple days work and I've had about enough .

Benshlomo says, I'm not a horse so get off my back.

Sunday, April 03, 2005

More on Campus Liberalism

I received a very thoughtful response to my questions regarding the overwhelming liberalism of university professors from Professor Zywicki:

Thanks for your note. I think the first point is actually a key one--I have been surprised by how many people have simply denied that any imbalance on campus exists. I was stunned by the response to the post I did on Dan Klein's study, where many people just just denied that there was an imbalance at all. So, you are right, the important question is whether the imbalance is a problem--but first there has to be an agreement on whether there is an imbalance.

So then the question is whether there is a problem. The point, of course, is to educate students to think for themselves and to develop critical thinking skills about the world, to become good citizens, leaders, and self-reliant individuals, and I would add, to understand the intellectual heritage of the western world. I think that if we see one of our goals to educate good citizens who can participate in the governance of a free and democratic society, it is imperative that students be exposed to all viewpoints about the world and to learn to evaluate the truth and resonance of competing world views.

So there are two possible problems. One is simply that students never get exposed to a variety of viewpoints and thus are never fully educated in a manner so as to develop intellectually as individuals and as citizens. Second, if they are not given the tools and encouragement to engage in a dialogue among competing ideas, they can just tune out--which may be what they are doing now. Regardless, in either situation, they are not coming out of school with a truly "liberal" education.

It is possible that even a lopsided faculty can cultivate these skills, but we know in practice that many professors do not. They tend to teach to what they know and like and think is important. I read almost everything Marx ever wrote when I was in college, yet never read The Federalist, Hayek, or many other defenders of a free society. I had to go find that stuff on my own. Most students will not be as persistent about this as I was.

So it has nothing to do with which side is up or down, because it has nothing to do with what students think. It has to do with developing the skills and critical thinking to be educated as individuals, citizens, and understanding the foundations of a free society. If kids are just reflexively rejecting what they hear in class, but are adopting other views equally reflexively, that doesn't help anyone in the long run.


Apparently, he received a lot of responses to his initial Volokh Conspiracy posting, many of them asking the same question I did; What difference does it make if university professors are mostly liberal? His response is here.

He's obviously given this a lot of thought, but to date I haven't seen any evidence to speak of regarding the effects of professorial liberalism on students. Professor Zywicki seems to be expounding a theory of the function of universities in society that sounds very good, but may or may not have any historical basis.

So I wrote him another letter:

Hm - maybe so. I'm no student of university history, but do you suppose it was ever the case that university professors presented a balanced view? On your own showing it was not the case when you were in school; do we have any evidence that it ever was the case? Or might students in previous years received equally biased instruction with an opposite emphasis?

Furthermore, while I'm reflexively inclined to agree that most unversity students probably don't spend a lot of time seeking out competing viewpoints to those they receive in class, do we have any evidence as to the truth of that opinion? For instance, it seems as though many students in the 60's actively sought competing viewpoints, and as a result engaged in serious (sometimes counterproductive) protest regarding what they were taught in class. If we assume that students today would not do likewise, I wonder if that assumption is the result of advancing age and the usual denigration of "kids today" by their elders. (Joke.)

So in short, the concern is that students will not receive a truly "liberal" education if they are not taught critical thinking skills in class. That may be so, but other anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that the very atmosphere of a university might go a long way to encouraging critical thinking, whatever happens in class. It would make an interesting study.


Of course, that leaves out the entire question of how we produce good citizens, leaders and self-reliant individuals among those who don't go to college. That group has been producing people perfectly capable of thinking for themselves for years, without the help of university professors at all, liberal or otherwise. Which is another way of saying that, without actual evidence, this whole discussion could be a non-issue.

Anyone care to share their own experiences in finding diverse opinions to learn from, in or out of college?

Benshlomo says, Arguing without evidence doesn't get us very far, but it's a lot more fun than proving one's points.