2012 May

Memorial Day is for Loving the Troops & Hating the Wars

May 282012

It’s Memorial Day, so take some time to remember the soldiers that died serving our country.

No matter what you think of a particular war, they deserve some respect. Almost all of them volunteered because they thought they were pursuing their patriotic duty or out of economic necessity (no other jobs available to them or to pay for overpriced education). If nothing else, they died for their noble intentions or from tragic economic circumstances. We shouldn’t ignore this sacrifice because we disagree with the government’s particular military mission.

I don’t buy that right-wing nonsense that if you are not supporting the war you are not supporting our troops. Why is it wrong to demand a good reason to risk the lives of the men and women who choose to join the armed forces for their own noble and/or economic reasons? By the way, picking fights to increase weapons manufacturers’ profits is not a good reason to go to war.

So honor the war dead, then work to see that there are fewer of them to honor in the future.

Tired Phrases: The Playdate

Humor No Responses »

May 252012

The term “playdate” rubs me the wrong way for some reason. I’ll bet you dollars-to-donuts a guy didn’t come up with that one. It had to be recklessly invented by some pretentious Baby Boomer mom possibly for the purpose of providing another target of scorn for more grounded Gen-X parents.

The WiseBoy has reached the age where he will participate in such events. Now, when I was young, sometime in the previous millennium, kids were just told to “Go out and play,” and let loose in the neighborhood. Some combination of the world getting too scary and families getting too busy has led to the increased formal scheduling of time spent playing with other kids.

The bristling at “playdate” is not just that it sounds too cutsie. “Playdate” sounds too close to “date” which is something that is for older youths that involves “wining-and-dining, trying to impress, and generally judging others and being judged by others.” The term carries a lot of baggage. Dating is for mating. It’s kind of creepy having it associated with young children. Now, it could be mothers are drawn to the term “playdate” perhaps subconsciously because they have fond memories of being on the receiving end of the ~~bribery~~ dating system.

This post nails it:

In the old days, ‘playdate’ just meant hanging out with a friend who also happened to have a child a similarish age to yours. Giving it this label projects all kinds of adult neurosis about social success onto two-year-olds. If you are not going on enough playdates, then both you and your child are social networking failures, already woefully behind in the popularity contest that is life (just wait till they get on Twitter). It’s also symptomatic of the manic need to structure and assign meaning to every single activity, even something as simple as having a cuppa at your mate’s house while your kid smacks their kid over the head repeatedly with a piece of Lego. Playdates are just another entry on the middle class wall planner, in between viola lessons, swimming, tae kwon do, ballet and Mandarin.

Formalizing play as an appointment on the calendar has its drawbacks (it appears some parents are taking it so seriously as to serve as a series of interviews or tryouts to find their childrens’ lifelong BFFs) but with time being such a premium for families nowadays, it may be that the only way to find time for peer play is to make time by scheduling it.

I’ll grant you the necessity of scheduling playtime may be here to stay, but please agree to rebrand it. Let’s call it something else to diminish implication of social pressure and so some of us can avoid using a term we find a little icky. I have a couple of rebranding options we should try: friendtime, buddyhour. If you get multiple kids together, I think “playgroup” works well. Any other suggestions?

“The Constitution v. the Filibuster” or “It’s Obvious, You Idiot!”

Politics 1 Response »

May 212012

Last week Common Cause filed a lawsuit to end the filibuster rule in the U.S. Senate. The filibuster has been a growing problem in the past 40 years, and has really gotten out of hand the past decade. The Senate’s filibuster rule is one of the major problems ruining our unique American “republican democracy.”

The filibuster has become so abused that it has become the standard operating procedure in the Senate, the new de facto process for how a bill becomes a law. The threat of 41 votes is enough to defeat any bill. This means Senators of any 21 states representing as little as 11 percent of the population (in fact, elected by even fewer people) can block action supported by the majority.

Although Harry Reid recently hinted he would now be in favor of it, filibuster reform from within the Senate seems to be a lost cause. They keep the filibuster rule out of fear of what the other side would do if they captured the majority. (Who would have thought someone named Harry Reid would have such an empty sack?)

If a law has the support of a majority of the people’s representatives, unless it falls into one of the categories where the Constitution requires more, it should pass. A republic based on representation of the people relies on majority rule. Think about it. We don’t hold elections this way. If a candidate gets 51% of the vote, he wins. Nobody would tell him, “Sorry, 49% voted for the other guy. You can’t go to Washington.”

Some idiot will come back and say that there’s no mention of “majority rule” in the constitution. Majority rule is such a basic asumption of representative bodies and principle of democratic republics that it didn’t need to be expressly stated in the constitution. Next, you’ll tell me that dead men can serve in Congress, because the constitution does not expressly state a living persons requirement in the qualifications clauses. (Also opens the door to corporate persons serving in Congress. Hello, Senator Wal-mart!)

“No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.”

Do you really want to see a “Weekend at Bernie’s 3″ starring the corpses of Senators Byrd and Thurmond propped up on the floor of the Senate? The Court should probably enact an “It’s obvious, you idiot!” doctrine.

The filibuster has become a way for one of the parties to try to cheat their way out of a minority status. Listen: You lost; deal with it. Here’s how: Spend the next two years saying “we told you so” every time the opposition passes a law you can’t stand. If a majority of the public thinks the legislation is as egregious as you do, then you will win the election, take back the majority, and get a chance to implement your own asinine plans. Eventually, after a few terms of back-and-forth control, America might reach an equilibrium of good governance. Who knows? Stranger things have happened.

Whether the Common Cause lawsuit can succeed is unclear. Certainly there is a legitimate legal theory supporting their position. Check out this article. There’s a good chance that the court will duck the issue using a weak “political question” doctrine reasoning. Of course, a lot will depend on the particular judge and the timing. Conservative partisans (as opposed to those that are actually primarily loyal to the text) would kick this case to the curb if it comes up with the Democratic Party holding the majority in the Senate. If the majority switches hands, they will suddenly see the light. Many so-called liberal judges would probably also take a similar partisan approach. (You can see that I no longer have much faith in the existence of an intellectually honest judiciary.)

If filibuster reform is attempted again via the Senate rule-making process they should try on this creative compromise: if you are going to let them usurp popular sovereignty, make them sacrifice some dignity. Turn the filibuster into a silly-buster. The senator would be required to actually speak and must dress up as a famous clown. You could read the phone book as Krusty, Bozo, Ronald McDonald, or Red Skelton. If you want to make a mockery of American Democracy, it should make a mockery of you. There will be no exception for dressing as a mime (to get out of speaking) or wearing a suit claiming to be dressed as Glen Beck (who famously referred to himself as a clown).

Droning on and on About Drones

Politics No Responses »

May 182012

I find the controversy over drones to be a little skewed. Here’s how it usually goes. Drone strikes have increased and usually result in the deaths of innocents. Therefore, drones use should be banned. This assumes that either they won’t kill anybody without using drones or the other methods of death-dealing are somehow acceptable.

A more legitimate beef may be that it is a problem that CIA is using drones, that drones should be solely a military weapon. It’s almost like the CIA was shooting off cruise missiles. It doesn’t sit right. But that issue is more about what capabilities the CIA should have access to rather than whether drone use is ever justified.

I think the debate is focusing on the wrong wrong. The tragedy is the unlawful killing, not the drone itself. The focus is too much on the drones, and not the war. Take away the drones and they will still find a way to kill. They should focus the argument on the over-arching issue of war not one tool used in the war.

Now, I’m not supporting drone strikes; I’m saying that the anti-drone campaign misses the point. Ending drone strikes won’t end the killing or the war. The CIA and military will continue to shoot people from far away.

Another issue is using drones for surveillance. Are the drones capable of doing something that the government can’t do already? They’ve already got cameras watching you. You see, there are these things called satellites.

Instead of focusing on drones (merely a tool) demand an end to deaths and surveillance without due process.

For now, I’m not overly concerned about drones. Just let me know when they intend to launch unmanned vehicles with advanced artificial intelligence systems. I’ll want to stockpile my bunker before Skynet becomes self aware. (Oh, crap! I just told you about the bunker. Now the mob will be at my doorstep when TSHTF. Forget I said anything. There is no spoon.)

It’s Prom Season, Have You Asked an Idiot Celebrity Yet?

Humor, War on Celebrities No Responses »

May 112012

It’s May again and for many that means it’s “prom season.” This year we can expect more stories about this tradition because of the growing trend of people taking their favorite celebrity to similar formal events.

Last year, Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis were asked to and attended the Marine Corps Ball. Recently, headlines mentioned Jeremy Lin, Taylor Swift, and Tim Tebow were invited to proms.

In this situation, I can almost feel some sympathy for these famous folks. They must get deluged with these requests, many of them attached to sad stories. It’s harder to turn these down since more and more of your “colleagues” seem to be accepting them.

I’m sure it’s much easier to turn down requests found in hate mail. “Thank you for writing, but I will not go [blank] myself. Here’s a photo of me. Please keep watching and buy my book. Enjoy.”

Most of the folks accepting tend to be the D-list types going not out of the goodness of their heart, but as a publicity stunt (in some cases, maybe for a free meal). There are lots of other ways to be charitable without making a scene. Celebrities showing up will definitely cause a headache for event organizers who themselves are often volunteering their time. I bet this doesn’t cross their minds. Well, in many cases not much of anything crosses their minds; perhaps the occasional tumbleweed.

It’s time to kill this fad. Someone has to do a great satire of the whole thing. Here’s an idea. I am well beyond prom years, but my driver’s license is expiring this summer. Should I ask a celebrity to accompany me to the DMV? Which one would be up for mocking the whole concept? Feel free to steal this idea.

President’s Campaign Moves Forward with Weak New Slogan

Politics 2 Responses »

May 042012

Recently President Obama’s re-election campaign announced its newest slogan: “Forward.” Huh? It sounds like they saw the MSNBC tagline “Lean Forward” and said, “let’s tone it down a little.”

The campaign thought “forward” was safe and unprovacative. However, the right had no trouble digging up ”Forward”‘s alleged link to socialism/Marxism/woo-woo-evil. The Obama campaign couldn’t see this coming?

I guess the thinking goes, “We can’t deliver any ‘change’ and there’s little ‘hope’ left that we can, but they can’t stop us from moving forward. Even if we do nothing we will be moving forward into the future. They cannot stop us from entering 2013, 2014, etc., right? Before we sign off on this, anyone know whether the Mayans were Republicans?”

The first time I heard about the new slogan, I instantly thought of The Simpsons’ Treehouse of Horror episode from 1996 where Senator Kang (an alien disguised as Bob Dole) delivers this speech:

My fellow Americans. As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball; but tonight I say, we must move forward, not backward; upward, not forward; and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom!

Just for fun, let’s try to guess the alternate slogans they considered. The criteria: one-word, evoking some warm fuzzies, and must have an ‘o’ so we can stick the Obama logo in there. Here goes:

Now – Vague, assertive, but almost too demanding. Plus, people may not be to happy with how things are ‘now.’
Wow – Way too much enthusiasm for the results of the first term. It almost sounds ironic. It will work if you want to sell T-shirts to hipsters.
Mom – Lots of warm fuzzies, but too easy to attack for obvious connotations of a nanny state and risks revival of yo-mama jokes.
Hello – Nice, doesn’t promise anything. Rightwing nutjobs will say this proves you’re the antichrist because it has “hell” in it.
Balloon - There’s a happy thought, and it gives you a double ‘o.’ Everybody likes balloons, right? Put that in the “maybe” pile.
Moon - Nice image and a double-o again. M–O–O–N, that spells re-election. Werewolves are still popular. Problem is that it could encourage indecent exposure.