« December 2005 | Main | February 2006 »
It's bad out there. It's bad for Reagan Republicans. It's bad for all Republicans right now. I remember the hey-day, in the mid-90's, when we took over congress on the promises of better government, reinforced by a document produced by the young turks who took over from the old guard.
Today I don't know where my loyalty lies. I find that the only issue I have in common with our current administration is taxes. At best, I fear that America's allies are waiting in the wings for a new leader to emerge, and revive the friendships that we've established over the last fifty years. At worst, I fear that the both the civil liberties and the security of Americans are lost, just as Benjamin Franklin said would happen when we give up liberty to ensure security.
Ironically, I don't think that it's about silly wiretaps. Robert Cringely, a notorious techno-liberal PBS-type says it's probably no big deal. But Newsweek gives a more chilling account, called Palace Revolt. If you don't read any other articles about the wiretapping controversey, read that one. What is most chilling is the extent to which the current administration will go to get its way. We're not talking about wiretaps here, we're talking about rousing John Ashcroft from his hospital bed because the acting Attorney General didn't give the White House the answer they wanted. We're talking about loyal, conservative Republicans losing their careers, simply because they got in David Addington's way, or dared to question the validity of some actions.
After reading that article, I have a whole new respect for John Ashcroft. I thought he was pushed aside because he was too acidic for mainstream centrist Republicans. It turns out, he was pushed out for quite the opposite reason ... because he wasn't towing the administration policy line enough. That is a horribly scary thought.
The ongoing developments, the parade of corruption-trial-led resignations, and the further continuing erosion of the most basic tenent of American existence - liberty, and the continuing decline of America's standing with our allies scares the hell out of me, and I don't know what to do about that. We have two years left, two years to come up with a better plan. We know that Cheney is not running for president (by the way, David Addington is his new Chief of Staff) and we know that there are a few Northeastern governors throwing in now. But who will the current administration endorse? And why? And who can oppose them successfully?
There was a time when Bush and his aggressive administration was right for this country. But I think the world is waiting for a more moderate U.S. leader now, one that can engage in diplomacy to resolve crisis. And internally, we desparately need the pendulum to swing back toward liberty to ensure that we don't sell our ideals in order to pay for our safety.
It's going to be hard to decide whether this one qualifies as "Politics" or "Rantings and Ravings". Here goes.
So unless you live in a cave, you've no doubt heard that the militant group Hamas has won a majority of seats in the Palestinian Authorities' election. This has set off a flurry of activity in the world, especially in Israel and the United States. I'm going to comment on those first, and then what (in my opinion) the election means for mideast peace.
As far as international recognition of the new Hamas-led PA, there are really three questions: will the U.S. recognize Hamas, and why or why not; will Israel recognize and negotiate with Hamas, and what about Europe.
As far as U.S., I think we've learned what they will do now (their position that Hamas is a terrorist organization has not changed) but in the aftermath of the election it means that there are now lots of people in the U.S. criticizing this position, and probably just as many welcoming it. I welcome it, and here is my argument why:
Israel has no political need to recognize Hamas. Several European countries will undoubtedly recognize Hamas, and criticize Israel for not doing so. But with the U.S. clearly in their corner, Israel does not need to worry about Europe. Israel will simply not be faulted, in the long run, for refusing to engage in a peace process punctuated by a gun held to their head.
Some point out, correctly, that Hamas has been working for years to build Palestinian schools and hospitals, while Fatah under Yassir Arafat, has squandered aid money and wasted it in a government rife with corruption. Hamas, probably quite honestly, advocates internal reform. None of this is news. None of it matters. While it's terrible that the Palestinian people have been saddled by a government rife with corruption and greed for years, reform cannot come at the cost of Israel's security.
Where things get dicier is when, and if, Hamas ever does drop the "Destruction of Israel" clause from their charter. The roadmap for peace calls for disarment, however a first step is clearly the removal of this clause. If Hamas disavows it's Destruction of Israel charter, it will indeed put more pressure on Israel to negotiate. Israel will, of course, not - with the roadmap requirement for disarment in their hands, they will refuse to proceed until the PA keeps their part of the bargain.
The U.S. on the other hand is unpredictable. While America's support for Israel is strong, they will likely exert considerable pressure on Israel to return to the table if/when Hamas drops their charter, especially if Hamas is able to maintain their "truce".
Do I think Israel should recognize and negotiate with Hamas - if they hold their end of the truce and remove the objectionable language of their charter? I think that Israel must continue to engage the Palastinian Authority and the other partners for peace, if and when all of those parties are truly comitted to peace. I think that a cleaner, leaners PA (that Hamas may accomplish) would help the peace process immensely. Israel will have a much better chance of lasting peace if that is established by a peacefull, disarmed Hamas that sincerely recognizes the right of Israel statehood. And the prospect of a Palastinian state with Hamas-built schools, hospitals, and roads will go a long way toward giving the Palestinian people a homeland, rather than a war zone.
So this week, we're starting to plan for booking a trip to Disney World, probably in the summar of 2007. I love taking the kids to Disney World, and I'll explain why I'm not crazy now.
None of my friends like Disney. Too commercial. To overpriced. Too crowded. I'm the only one in my crowd of acquaintances that actually enjoys family trips to Disney.
The thing that I appreciate about Disney most is, the kids can behave however they behave (within reason), and I don't have to worry about it. Normally a restaurant trip goes something like this:
At Disney World restaurants, things go much differently. First, ordering is easy. Many restaurants serve "family style", which in Disney means, they bring you a plate of everything on the menu. Inevitably, there is something that one of the kids want, and if they want more, the waiter or waitress brings more. Because this is Disney, there is none of the normal stuff on the table that gets in the way of eating with a family (especially kids). The cups are plastic. There's nothing that you have to worry about the kids getting ahold of. It doesn't matter if they run around, yell, or smear their food all over their faces. It's Disney.
The same holds true for just about everything else. Within reason, you don't have to worry that the kids are behaving. This is extremely relaxing for me, I can just spend time with the kids and not have to worry how they're behaving or what the people sitting next to us are thinking. If talking kids are a problem, they should probably not eat at Disney World.
As far as the crowds and lines, we found a really simple and extremely effective solution. Buy one of those books that tell you how to plan your day at each park. "Plan' is really an understatement, these books include complete, step-by-step day planners. Maybe that sounds a bit too structured, we thought so too at first. But then, we went to Disney World - during the week between Christmas and New Years. For those of you who've been, this is just about the absolute busiest time at Disney. The parks actually stop taking visitors just after they opening. In any case, we followed these day planners religiously, and quite frankly, we were overjoyed. I think we actually stood in line maybe twice during that week, the rest of the time we were almost running thorugh open line bars to get to the front. The trick is, they have you criss-cross the park, and always be at the popular rides when nobody else is. (They do this by visiting the park and tracking when each ride has it's busy times and lulls.) Every ride has a lull during the day, so with the proper planning, you really get to ride whatever you want. And you really take lots of rides. It was great.
The book we use is listed in the extended entry, linked below.
Finally there's the cost. Well, I can't do much about that. In reality, we spent slightly more for our weeklong Disney vacation (plus driving there and back) than we would normally spend for a week-long vacation. The trick is to budget well, so you have enough money for everything you want to do (mostly eat, since the resort tickets include hotel and park tickets) and buy. I budgetted well, saved up, and didn't worry about money while we were there.
Lastly, a few tricks. Disney luxury resorts are expensive. You might be tempted to save up more to plurge on the luxury resorts. The luxury resorts also have direct monorail transportation to the main parks. A few points to know:
I'm not saying don't use the nicer hotels. But think about what you want to do, and if that mostly involves open-to-close park hopping, save the money on the expensive hotels, and spend it on a few character meals or souvineers.
One more tip: during peak times, the park closes to day passes within about an hour. You might get in (if you're lucky), but once you leave, you have no way back in. Resort guests can always enter, any time, and can hop from park to park. If you go during peak times, it is imperitive to stay on property.
So this is how we have fun at Disney. It may not be a mediterranean cruise, but for my family vacation dollar, I love it, and the kids do too. We're going in 2007!
Our Favorite Disney Planning Book: The Unofficial Guide to Disney World.Like father, like son.
I guess I'm not the only one in the family who thinks that a chip sandwich is a tasty snack. Although, I would add some Miracle Whip. Yeah, I know, I got that from my Dad. The circle of life, and all that rut.
Here's the sandwich:
And Here's The Eatin':
One of my favorite movies is Quiz Show, a movie about the 1950's quiz show scandal, produced by Robert Redford and starring John Turturro as Hebert Stempel and Ralph FIennes as Charles Van Doren. For those of you who haven't seen it or remember it, in 1959 the wildly popular quiz show Twenty One was decimated by charges that contestants were fed answers to questions prior to the show. Several real-life contestants, including Stempel, Van Doren, and others admitted to receiving answers during the show. The show's producer, Dan Enright, took the fall for the shenanigans, even though it was widely known that NBC executives and even the show's sponsor, Geritol, was involved. The show's host and co-creator, Jack Barry, later admitted complicitcy in the scandal.
Recently more information has been published about the scandal, including biographies of Stempel and Van Doren. These recent biographies have cast a further shadow on a once highly regarded movie. Although most people consider even "based on a true story" movies to be entertainment, and thus embellishments are considered acceptable, this movie unfortunately took those "embellishments" one step furher.
At the end of many "based on a true story" movies, there is usually some scrolling text about what happened to the characters after the movie ends. These are generally not considered part of the movie, and thus not subject to embellishment. However, even here Redford heavily taints the careers of Stempel and Van Doren, asserting that Herbie Stempel only went on to "Drive busses for the NYC transit system" (in fact, Mr. Stempel worked his way through college driving a bus and upon graduation worked the rest of his life as a social studies teacher in the NYC School System) and Van Doren lived out his life as an encyclopedia editor (in fact, Mr. Van Doren briefly edited Encyclopedia Britannica and later went on to author several critically acclaimed books inlcuding A History of Knowlege, and How To Read A Book, co-authored by Mortimer Adler.) The embellishments would probably not be so hard to swallow if, in fact, the real characters had not tried so hard (and succeeded) to work in teaching careers.
I guess even the "here's how the true-life characters ended up" credits at the end of movies are subject to embellishments when the characters lives don't turn out the way the producers hoped. I guess going on to become successfull writers and teachers is too boring for most people. Stories of dashed careers and living out ones life in hopeless desparation sells.
I still love the movie, but I'm disappointed now. I think I'll go off and watch Murder By Death. :)
So almost out of neccessity, I must now turn my attention away from global politics and toward domestic policy. To a area very near and dear to my heart: taxes. I hate taxes. I'm not one of those nuts who doesn't believe that the sixteenth amendment exists. I just don't like spending money on things that don't benefit me. For instance:
On the other hand, there are things that I agree benefit me, that are within the domain of the Federal Government:
There's probably a few more in there that I've missed, but that's not important right now.
The point is, we all heard the stories when we were younger about how the federal deficit was an albatross we were leaving to our kids. Nobody will ever pay that down. Then, in a little under eight years, President Clinton did two things: he knocked about half off the federal debt, and disproved the albatross lie forever. And, more importantly, Mr. Clinton did his debt reduction on the backs of middle class America, who paid tax increase after tax increase so that he could claim victory over debt. He never even thanked us for paying for his victory!
By the time he left office, the U.S. Government was making more money than ever. Again, at middle class America's expense. While I fault George Bush for a lot of things, at least he had the guts to say "enough." Enough penalizing married couples and families. Finally.
I'm not saying that ongoing government debt is a good thing. But we've learned two things from history: (1) thanks to Bill Clinton, we know that huge government debts are not as unmanageable as we once thought, and (2) thanks to Roosevelt, we know that huge government spending can recover any economic downturn.
So for the time being, I'm for lower taxes, because lower taxes and sustained government program spending stimulate the economy. Down the road, when the economy is booming, I'll talk about why I think taxes should stay low even when the economy is booming.
Some of you may be wondering if I've lost my head, writing a Blog entry basically supporting Evo Morales and Hugo Chavez. So I thought I'd better give you some details. I'll start with Evo and Bolivia.
Evo Morales was recently elected President of Bolivia. He is the first indigenous president (his entire family has roots in Bolivia) in 500 years. He is a socialist. He was also a coca farmer.
That's right. A coca farmer. He won office largely on a pro-coca platform. Coca in Bolivia is like tea leaves in India, or Atlantic Cod in the northeastern United States. It's not used traditionally as a narcotic, like poppy seeds on a hot dog bun, it serves many other purposes. Unfortunately, Coca is used to produce a narcotic drug that is very popular in the United States. During the Reagan Administration, efforts to reduce demand for Cocaine in the US were largely failing. The Reagan Administration turned to the supply side, looking to support Latin American leaders who reduce the production of coca.
In America, this would be like another country (say, Canada) supporting presidential candidates who agree to repress fishing for Atlantic Cod off the coast of Maine, because it can be used to make a dangerous drug. While the comparison is largely comic, to Bolivian coca farmers, it is very similar.
So for 20-some-odd years, Bolivian coca farmers have largely been pushed further into poverty. The U.S. government says that they should grow something else, like tomatoes or cabbage. This would be similar, in our analogy above, to that other country suggesting that northeastern fishermen instead fish for trout. Or Stripers. Yeah. There's big demand for Stripers.
So we have Evo Morales. who's family has been plundered by years of promises of help from the U.S. to give up coca farming. The U.S. has, through these years, supported non-indigenous leaders (leaders who, while living in Bolivia at the time, trace their roots to other more European locations).
Mind you, I am not a fan of communism or socialism. I believe that it's just as bad as capitalism, and that it breeds the same corruption and greed in the legistlators. But these countries are turning to socialism because there is no viable alternative. We need to provide a better alternative.
Evo Morales:
"The worst enemy of humanity is capitalism. That is what provokes uprisings like our own, a rebellion against a system, against a neoliberal model, which is the representation of a savage capitalism. If the entire world doesn't acknowledge this reality, that the national states are not providing even minimally for health, education and nourishment, then each day the most fundamental human rights are being violated."
The policy was brilliant. In 1947. President Truman was in trouble. Big trouble. With his popularity rating hovering at 23% and Joe McCarthy breathing down his neck, he had to come up with something. And something, he did come up with. Well, he brought in a bunch of policy thinkers to come up with something, anyway. George F. Kennan's paper on containment found it's way into the Truman Doctrine, and the Cold War was on.
The problem is, containment in the '50's was fuelled by another plan, called the Marshall Plan. This held that the U.S. should encourage Capitalism by rebuilding war-torn Europe at America's expense. That's an oversimplification, but it boils down to that.
Now, communism is spreading like wildfire in the Americas, and containment isn't doing any good. Juan Evo Morales Ayma is driving Bolivia toward socialism with Communist Cuba's support, and Hugo Chávez in Venezuela is a socialst quasi-dictator (although he is democratically elected).
Is this really a bad thing? Probably not for the people of Bolivia, and likely not for the people of Venezuela. Morales and Chavez are both highly popular (although not without their detractors) who have a strong support base in the peasants and working poor in their countries. Why?
Because unfortunately, America gave up the Marshall Plan many years ago. Now, we just impose our containment will on other countries, without considering the other end of the bargain that Truman did. We're happy to help install non-native rulers in Bolivia that help us with our war on drugs, but who have been piss-poor at pulling their own population out of abject poverty. At the same time, we slowly dwindle the aid that we send these countries, turning our attention instead to fighting other battles.
No, we don't want to help these countries. We'd prefer to impose embargoes on them. That's the new Truman plan.
The only way out of this mess, I believe, is to end our embargoes on Latin America and Cuba, resume funding programs to encourage capitalism, and stop giving their leaders reasons to demonize America.
This is why people should simply not download anything off the 'Net. These guys have a blog entry that is, essentially, dedicated to taking apart spyware and malware from software you can download free from the internet.
It starts innocently enough - download that cute puppy wallpaper or screensaver free HERE! During the install routine, there is a dizzying and confusing array of windows popping up. You just click through all of them.
Spying is the least of your worries. The wittless ramblings of some poor schmo is of little use to them. They change your system settings. They even redirect you to different sites when you try to visit reputable online vendors. Sometimes they infect you with viruses and rootkits.
I like visiting these sites. I run Mozilla on Linux. Windows malware doesn't do very much damage to my computer :). You should read the blog, and be sure to avoid these sites.
It's really too bad that Senator Joseph Biden did such a bad job of questioning Samuel Alito in his Judiciary Committee hearings. Joe Biden is a rare Centrist Democrat. He is truly a foreign policy maven. We desparately need Senator Biden, or someone equally adept at foreign policy, to run for president in 2008 - if for no other reason but to force focus on foreign policy in the campaign.
Sadly, my beloved Republican party has dropped the ball on foreign policy. There's the obvious - Iraq, Cuba, but Bush is even screwing up our recently very amicable relationship with China. Then there's Venezuela and Bolivia. We simply cannot afford to be the bullies of the world any more.
Joe Biden understands this, but he also understands that military power has its place. He voted to authorize the Iraq war, largely because he (poorly) assumed that President Bush would use the authority appropriately, as leverage to push Iraq to compliance.
Unfortunately Biden has one failing point - his speaches. He bobbled the Alito hearings. This is not the first time. I do hope that he survives the primaries long enough to make sensible foreign policy an important plank of the Democrat's platform.
"A lie can get half way around the world before the truth can get its pants on"
-Mark Twain
Marla has one of those phones that lets you assign ring tones based on who is calling you (by their caller ID). She goes to the Skokie Dog Park many nights per week, and has a regular clatch of friends who meet there with her. The usual evening routine is, around the time I start getting the kids ready for bed, she starts getting phone calls from her Dog Park friends, and then she bundles up and takes Eeyore to the park.
The thing is, Eeyore has figured out that certain ring tones mean, soon he's going to the Dog Park. And now whenever he hears those ring tones, whereever he is, he starts howling and barking to get inside, so he can get his collar on.
So this is the last night of Hanukkah, at least for 11 and 1/2 months. This year was a really great Hanukkah. Normally it boils down to getting candles lit early enough (but after sundown) so that we can move on with other stuff after they burn down. But this year was different. I spent the entire week of Hanukkah at home, with the family. Everyone was off (more or less ... Marla still had to work a few days, but was otherwise home the whole time too) and it was a great time. We ordered out dinner every night, then lit candles, sang Hanukkah songs, opened presents, and then (not having to get up first thing in the morning for work) Marla and I would spend the evening getting new gifts put together. It was really a great time.
There is a particularly good picture of Justin, it's in the gallery, but I'm going to post it here too... http://gallery.famille.org
I think that picture about sums up our Hanukkah this year!
Now for the obligatory Menorah picture...
Thanks to all the Grandmas / Bubbes / Nanas for all the kids presents, everyone loves their giftrs. Everyone have a happy, safe, and prosperous new year!