A place for Liam to post essays, comments, diatribes and rants on life in general.

Those fond of Liam's humor essays, they have been moved here.

Tuesday, May 31, 2005

Support Our Troops

On this recent Memorial Day holiday, I got into something of an argument with a pro-Bush fellow, and he fell into the same old party line rhetoric "How can you be against this war? You have to support our troops!" as if the question and the statement were in any way related. It's like saying "How can you be against identity theft? You have to support your children!". The two parts of that quote have nothing to do with one another.

I've said before that the military and our troops are merely a tool, to be used for good or ill, and I support the notion that arguing AGAINST their misuse by the craftsman wielding them is the very essence of support for them.

But in this argument, I keep going back to all the stories we hear about the armor and equipment shortages in Iraq, and while thinking about them, I flashed back to a quote I heard from Donald Rumsfeld, which made my blood boil then and still does now.

He was addressing a batch of troops, and they asked about better armor for their tanks, and he replied (from memory, but pretty close to verbatim):

"When you think about it, you can put all the armor you want on a tank, and a tank can be blown up."

The fallacy here is insanely obvious even to the most brainpower challenged. The question isn’t whether you can make equipment 100% safe, this is war, that’s never going to happen. The question is how much protection CAN you give the troops.

Policemen wear bullet proof Kevlar vests when going into dangerous situations. By Rumsfeld’s logic, they shouldn’t bother, because when you think about it, you can wear a vest and still be shot in the head, or shot with a Kevlar piercing round.

We all wear shoes when we go outside. By Rumsfeldian logic, we shouldn’t bother, because we could still step on a rusty nail that would go right through the shoe and into our foot.

What the Rumsfeld argument misses is that it isn’t about whether you can still be harmed, it’s about how many lesser situations will NO LONGER harm you. Policemen still wear their Kevlar, because while it won’t protect them 100%, they’re certainly a lot safer from the average bullet-to-the-chest than they would be. We still wear shoes because although we might step on that nail, we’re still protected from stepping on a small shard of broken glass or a sharp rock.

In a very real sense, Rumsfeld is in charge of our troops. His actions DEFINE support for the troops. If this is what it means to support our troops, I want no part of it. If we’re asking these brave men and women to risk their lives on our behalf, we owe it to them to give them the best equipment we can find, to make their lives as safe, their mission as successful, and their time there as short as we can possibly make it.

Support our troops. Bring them home or give them proper equipment. But don’t tell me that wanting to bring them home is showing a lack of support, while your keeping them in a war zone with inadequate equipment isn’t.

Copyright © May 31, 2005 by Liam Johnson. http://www.liamjohnson.net

Powerful Stuff

We've all heard what's going on in Darfur in the Sudan, but for a powerful first-hand account, the Huffington Post has a five part essay here by a woman named Jane Wells.

I don't see how there can be any doubt that the humanitarian justification for going to war in the Sudan are infinitely greater than those for going into Iraq.

(The link is part 1, I'm anxiously awaiting the rest of the series!)

Liam.

Monday, May 30, 2005

Line Item Veto

At a time when I'm concerned about the change in balance of power in the U.S. government, and when I'm strongly scared by the consolidation of Congressional power from a decentralized model to one in which the power is concentrated at the top, this may seem like a very strange thing for me to advocate, but...

We need the Line Item Veto, or else a change in the way Congress works. Not to give the Executive branch more power over the Congress, and not (specifically) to eliminate pork-barrel agreements, but to give us a fighting chance to trim this nation’s government down to a level we can actually afford to pay for.

An article in the June, 2005 Readers Digest by Michael Crowley (no information on what source it might have been condensed from) lays out clearly some of the problems with the current Congressional process. This article indicates what we’ve known for a long time: That riders attached to bills (and sometimes the bills themselves) are often not distributed to the Senators who will be required to vote on them until the 11th hour. Even with a full staff devoted to nothing but reading through the bills, there simply isn’t time for a Senator to know what he or she is voting on, so they generally have to vote solely on the face of the bill, and just accept the detritus which may come along with it.

Some examples from this article of riders which have been passed recently, of which most Senators were unaware:
  • A law allowing Congress the right to read through individual tax returns, and even to designate that right to someone they appoint. A single line, added by a House staffer to a bill at the last minute, and suddenly this was law. (It has since been repealed)
  • The same bill also had loads of “pork” riders, including $1.5 million to determine the feasibility of getting water from Lake Ontario to two New York counties.
  • A provision in a defense bill to have the Air Force lease fuel tanker jets from Boeing instead of buying them outright, at an additional cost of billions (slipped in at the behest of a “key Pentagon official” who was at the same time setting up jobs with Boeing for herself and her family).
  • A law requiring the results of gun purchase background checks be destroyed within 24 hours instead of the previous 90 days.
  • I don’t have references for this one, but I remember a 60 Minutes broadcast back in the 80s about a large pay raise (roughly 80%) Congress voted themselves (and really, how many jobs are there where you can set your own salary?). Although it’s old, I mention it because it was when I first became aware of the dangers inherent in the rider system.

The fact is that the current system allows things like this to slide through, as well as providing many opportunities for pork barrel deals. “Hey, I’ll vote for your bill, if you’ll let me attach a rider to funnel money into my state.” Under the current system, neither the Congress nor the White House can separate the items, once put together(*).

If we seriously want fiscal responsibility in our government, there has to be someone at some level who has the power to go through these bill bundles and say “Wait a second, this piece is bogus. It has nothing to do with the main bill and is not good for the country, it’s required to go back and be passed on it’s own merit.”

(* Obviously, Congress can repeal a piece of the bill, once passed, and of course with a proper motion and a proper vote, a rider can be stripped from it’s parent bill. But given the timing of the votes, there simply isn’t time in most cases for the second, and the first... unless someone catches the offending section and complains about it, it’s not likely to be repealed.)

Copyright (c) May 30, 2005 by Liam Johnson. http://www.liamjohnson.net

Sunday, May 29, 2005

A good post, worth reading...

A good post, worth reading.

Oh, Just Stop It!

See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.

This quote is from President Bush, and this weekend, liberal sites are leaping all over it with glee, saying that President Bush has admitted to engaging in propaganda.

First off, why is this such a big deal? When was the last time you met a politician who DIDN'T engage in spin and story control? Politicians lie, that's almost a mantra in this country. Take political promises with a grain of salt. If, in fact, Bush had intended to admit that he does it too, good for him, it would make him at least an iota more principled than the rest in this one instance.

But second, and more importantly, this is clearly just another Bush malaprop. It seems clear to me that if you change the word "catapult" to "leap frog", you get something closer to what Bush was trying to say. He was not saying that he has to repeat propaganda over and over in order to make it stick, he was saying that he has to repeat the truth over and over in order to overcome the propaganda from the other side.

Now, we can leave for other posts whether his use of the words "truth" and "propaganda" are correct or not, certainly I think it's no secret that regardless of my politics, I think Bush needs to go. But it irks me to see people leaping on this example as if it is somehow newsworthy. It merely weakens the arguments of those who have LEGITIMATE complaints about the Bush administration, and strengthens pro-Bush rhetoric that there's a left-wing campaign to smear anything Bush says.

Copyright (c) May 29, 2005 by Liam Johnson. http://www.liamjohnson.net

This Could Never Come Back To Bite Us

The NY Times ran an article on Friday saying that the U.S. sales of military weapons are up since 9/11.

According to the article, we're selling more, and we're selling to more countries (some of whom had previously been barred from such sales, until that policy was changed).

This has been done, the article says, at least in part to try to help secure new allies in the war on terror... but guess what? It's really a very bad idea. There are lots of reasons why, but let me give two of them:

1) During the Cold War, we were terribly concerned about the Soviet Union, and so without directly provoking them (and possibly starting a nuclear war), we funded and trained a number of smaller groups that were fighting the Soviets. One such group was headed by someone whose name is now infamous: Osama bin Laden.

2) During the last Islamic government of Iraq, we gave support to rebels who wanted to overthrow that government. We had a hand in the new government, one Saddam Hussein.

These two examples alone should show that, as a country, we've shown incredibly poor judgement in choosing those we support, or have been short sighted, trading future problems for quick solutions to current problems.

In 20 years from now, I very much hope we're not then fighting the brutal dictatorship of Hamid Karzai or Jalal Talabani. I hope we're not regretting our decisions as Pakistan or Uzbekistan fall out of favor and start fighting us with our own weapons.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Wonderful.

Copyright (c) May 29, 2005 by Liam Johnson. http://www.liamjohnson.net

Religious Freedom

[This was originally written as a response on another blog, but I decided it belonged here. I spent about an hour polishing it up and then had Blogspot swallow it. With frustration and the now very late hour, I don't think I made the point as well the second time, so I may come back and clean this up more, later. -- Liam.]

One of the things we have got to get past in this country is the fallacious belief that refusal to ensconce the beliefs of a religion in public law is synonymous with a war on that religion.

To hear the Christian Right talk, one would think that their beliefs are under attack, and if they and every other Christian person don't stand up and take back the country, they're going to find themselves unable to practice their religion. They thrive on the scare tactic of equating our government free of undue religious influence with a government which prohibits religious expression.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Drive through just about any town in America, and you'll find at least one church of one Christian denomination or other, and often some of other religions as well. Christianity is the majority religion in this country. There may be many different sects and flavors, but if you count together the Protestants, the Catholics, the Mormons and the various other groups which take The Bible as the core of their beliefs, a clear majority of this country self identifies as Christian.

The point of separation of church and state is to not infringe on ANYONE'S rights. That means protecting everyone's right to believe what they like, and worship as they like (as long as that worship doesn't infringe on other rights that we hold dear. I do think that religious freedom to practice, for example, human sacrifice should take a back seat to the victim's right to life). But it also means leaving others free to worship as THEY like, without having to feel like they're being subject to religious persecution as the laws of a different religion are codified in the public law.

One argument commonly goes “Well, this country is predominantly judeo-christian, why SHOULDN'T the laws reflect that?” The answer is that this country was founded on certain fundamental freedoms, and among them was freedom of religion. The freedoms in our Constitution are laid out there specifically to protect the minority and the unpopular, because in protecting them, we ensure that our own freedoms are similarly protected.

There is an old quote about Freedom of Speech to the effect of “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend with my dying breath your right to say it.” Why should we have any less fervor in upholding the other basic rights that are at the core of this country? As the majority religion, Christianity does not need protecting, and because of it's majority status, church/state separations are going to feel like they hit Christianity hardest, because they will apply to it the most often.

Personally, I have no problem with a few Christmas decorations on government property during the holiday season, because they usually involve Santa and Frosty and Rudolph and the rest, cartoonish icons which have about as much to do with the Christian Christmas holiday as the common phrase “now that's just not kosher” has to do with the Jewish religion. However, if someone opts to say that they still don't belong on government property, and your response is to take this as an offense to your religion, then you're just proving the point, because the point at which the decorations become a tacit endorsement of one religion over another is the point at which they no longer belong.

How would the Christians of this country feel if it were Islamic tenets which were being pushed further and further into law? Or Hindu? Or Buddhist? Heck, how would our Christian Right feel if the Mormon tenet of polyamory were made law?

Having the right to believe what you wish does not equate to having the right to have what you believe turned into policy, and keeping neutral policy does not equate to an attack on your beliefs.

Copyright © May 28, 2005 by Liam Johnson. http://www.liamjohnson.net

Saturday, May 28, 2005

A Very Good Point

For those who honestly believe we're fighting a just war, and that the people of Iraq want our brand of freedom and want us there to instill it, and that this fledgling democracy will succeed, I saw a great point on another blog (the link to which I have, sadly, lost. I wish I could give proper credit.):

There is a $25 million bounty on the head of Abu Musab al Zarqawi and has been for several months. How long do you think a bounty like that would go unclaimed in the United States?

The belief in the rightness of his cause and the wrongness of ours is so strong, people are willing to forgo $25 million in order to keep him in power?

Even assuming some people don't claim the reward for fear of reprisals, that we've not had ANYONE think it worth coming forward is amazing. Keep in mind, this is a country in which some men will become a martyr, if it means they can leave enough money behind for their family to eat.

Just some early Saturday morning thoughts.

Liam.

Friday, May 27, 2005

Are Liberals & Conservatives That Different?

Here is an amazingly written post to the Huffington Post blog which does a GREAT job of asking a question I've been trying (and apparently, failing) to ask for some time.

He details his position on five issues (six, actually, but in five bullet points), and I can't disagree with him on any of them, and the only one I really even understand being a big issue is abortion (because if you believe it's murder from the day of conception, you believe it's murder from the day of conception, so his argument for you would boil down to "Sure, murder is awful, but if we make it illegal, women are still going to murder, but they'll do it in back alleys and many will die doing it").

You have to read it very carefully, because it also manages (without directly identifying them as such) to point out a number of the reasons why I really dislike the Bush administration, and why in my view, that doesn't make me a liberal any more than decrying Charles Manson (a white murder) makes me black. I'm sure for many, the knee-jerk "If you're not 100% with me, you're one of *THEM*" kicks in, but from what I've seen on this blog (comments, e-mails, people I know who read it), we have a more than average intelligence here. I'm betting we can all read through it and debate (if there's anything to debate) its merits without rancor or the automatic "us vs. them"-ism so prevalent in our political landscape.

Liam.

Thursday, May 26, 2005

More Free Press questions...

A few days ago, I wrote a post asking "What happened to our Free Press". We may not know the answer, but Rep John Conyers has some more symptoms of the problem.

Some highlights:

  • Within the three days after it surfaced, the Downing Street Memo received no coverage on the 13 most watched shows on CNN, MSNBC or Fox News.
  • Within the three days after Jeff Gannon was discovered to be posing as a reporter, and under and assumed name, that story received no coverage on those same 13 shows.
  • The first day charges were filed against Michael Jackson, 10 of the 13 shows covered it, with four using it as their lead story.
  • The Scott Peterson verdict received coverage on 5 shows the first day and 8 the second. It was the lead story on 5.


These results are from a study commissioned by Rep. Conyers and others. Nice to know that our major media news outlets know what the really important news

Liam.

Do we ever really know anything?

Here is a link to a site that bothers me a lot.

Why? Because I haven't got the slightest idea how to confirm or rebut any of what's in it. It lists 100 so called omissions and distortions in the 9/11 Commission's report.

*IF TRUE*, it might paint a pretty frightening picture of the actual events of 9/11. On the other hand, even if true, it might simply detail a batch of false evidence which was rightly omitted. And of course, if an intentional fabrication, it doesn't deserve any more publicity than it's already gotten.

So how do I (or any American) look at something like this and even start to determine it's veracity?

Among the points are disputes over whether the trauma to the towers should really have brought them down, the asserted "fact" that the buildings came down in much too controlled a fashion (like a controlled demolition), an assertion that there's no reason why WTC building 7 should have collapsed, assertions that the hole in and damage to the Pentagon was insufficient to have been caused by a 747, etc...

Some of the items are omissions of various different reports and claims by various people. Even if those people actually made those claims, we need to keep in mind that there are also a lot of people who claim to be psychic... but mysteriously lose the ability under controlled test situations. There are lots of reports of psychics helping the police with murder investigations... after the fact. And yet there are very few (if any) reports from police that a psychic has provided them with any information at all. So clearly, just because someone made a claim doesn't make it legitimate to include in the commission report.

Part of me wants to dismiss the whole thing as a big crackpot conspiracy theory. Another part of me says "Wait a sec, we've been lied to about enough things lately, can we afford to dimiss things like this out of hand, without some evidence of their fallacy?"

And all of me says "How the heck could I even begin to confirm or deny any of these things?"

Liam.

A re-worked post...

[This is a re-worked version of something I posted on another blog. References in it to "members of this board" do not refer to participants in *THIS* blog. On that particular board, there are a lot of fairly reasonable people on both sides of the issue, and two rabble rousers, both serious neo-conservatives by ideology. Please don't think I'm saying that the other side doesn't engage in similar stupid arguing, this was targetted at the board in question, but I liked the post enough to post it here. --Liam]

I love the circular logic of certain members of this board. Imagine we're talking about a broken bike lying in the middle of the road after having been ridden over a jump that the bike was clearly insufficient to handle.

Adult: I told you not to ride your bike over that jump.
Child: So what's your plan to fix the situation.
A: Well, first, let's get the bike out of the road.
C: But that doesn't solve the problem, the bike is still broken. Besides, the last two cars that ran over it kind of straightened out the bent tires.
A: You shouldn't have broken it. How do you think we should fix it?
C: I love you adults, you slam us children for not having a plan to fix it, but you don't have one either.

It's not reasonable to take an action someone else said was a bad idea, then have no plan to get out, and then deride the other side for not having a plan to get you out of a situation they said you should never have been in.

Understand, there *IS* no good plan. We went in with invalid reasons, improper planning, and no exit strategy. We have made a mess of things, fomented Civil War (or at least exacerbated it). We have set up a situation from which no one has a viable endgame or exit strategy, but somehow those who put us there think that it is hypocritical of thos who said we should never have been there (for these and other reasons) to now not have an exit strategy.

If you decide to pour glue on your floor without having the supplies necessary to clean it up, you can't be upset because *I* didn't have the foresight to have the supplies to clean it up, when I told you before you started that it wasn't a good idea to pour glue on your floor without the supplies to clean it up.

Liam.

Wednesday, May 25, 2005

Freedom Fries and Fallacious Wars

What a wonderful story...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1491567,00.html

Apparently the guy behind the push to rename "Freedom Fries" and "Freedom Toast" has now recognized the stupidity of this war and is against it.

So there is hope. People do learn.

Liam.

Tuesday, May 24, 2005

Bush Approval Rating

As of this morning, President Bush's approval rating is at 46%, which is reported to be the lowest ever approval rating for a two term President at this point in his second term.

47% of those polled felt that America would be better off with Democrats in control of Congress, 9% saying "neither". Only 36% feel we're better off with the Republicans in control of Congress.

(As regular readers know, my view on this will change if the Presidency changes hands. Checks and balances. It's what our government was built on, and it's why I so strongly object to the "Nuclear Option" and the Senate/House bills I mentioned yesterday. So long as the Presidency remains in Republican hands, I feel we're better off with the Congress in the Democrats hands.)

Clearly, though, I am not alone in my dislike for this President, his policies and the job he's doing.

Liam.

Guantanamo Tribunal Testimonies

100 of over 500 prisoners' testimony papers from Guantanamo Bay were released recently under a Freedom of Information Act request, and I think it's important for Americans to know what's going on there. My thoughts, in no particular order:

  • There are few allegations of prisoner torture. Certainly this could just reflect selective bias on which documents were released, or even what the documenters chose to write down, but it's definitely worth noting.
  • On the other hand, it's frightening the length of time these people have been held with little or no evidence against them. Some of them appear to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, but because we have declared them "Enemy Combatants" rather than "Prisoners of War", there is apparently a loophole that allows us to refuse them the right to legal representation and a fair and speedy trial that either U.S. citizenship or POW status would give them.
  • How many years do we plan to steal out of the lives of these detainees, some of whom almost certainly are innocent of the charges against them? More importantly, how would we Americans feel if our citizenry were treated this way (even if they're being treated well, to be kept from their lives, their families, their homes for up to four years now)? We would be incensed and crying foul.
  • Of over 500 prisoners, only 4 have been charged with conspiracy to commit war crimes. Why do we have the others in custody, if we haven't even charged them with anything? Do we think after nearly four years some new smoking gun is likely to be found? In one instance, a detainee is held on the basis of his name being found on a document from Osama bin Laden, but his name is a common one, shared with many others in his village and even two other Guantanamo detainees. And why were only 100 of over 500 testimonies released?
  • The tribunal president tells one prisoner "I don't care about international law. I don't want to hear the words international law again." Not a good sign, but on the other hand, maybe a sign that these papers haven't been whitewashed for content, either.


(I do realize that most of the allegations of U.S. prisoner abuse are for prisoners we've supposedly spirited away to other countries, not in our main and most public detainee center at Guantanamo, but in the interest of fairness, if we're willing to note with credulity reports of torture and abuse, then it behooves us to note their absense as well. I make this comment because if I didn't, some of my more liberal readers would likely tell me I let the government off easy.)

Monday, May 23, 2005

HR 1070 IH & S. 520

Wow, this is a scary bill. "The Constitution Restoration Act of 2005". Sounds like a good thing, right? But what it does in fact is seriously hamstring the Judiciary of this country, the important third pillar of government. Our government was set up very carefully, with the powers assigned to each specifically done to help perform checks and balances on each other.

The same argument was used to strike down line item veto (it changed the carefully crafted balance of power between the Congress and the Executive branch).

What the bill does, in essence, is removes the power from judges to make any ruling relating to relief sought in regards to a Federal, State or Local government official based on his or her belief in God or use of God and Christian laws in performing their duties. Perhaps this doesn't sound like such a bad thing, but it breaks the FUNDAMENTAL separation of Church and State that our country is based upon. It takes quite a step in the direction of setting up an official state religion.

This bill additionally says, effectively, that in reviewing cases, the courts may not refer to anything except the original Constitution as of the time of adoption of that Constitution. I'm not sure whether this means that all ammendments suddenly are off limits, but certainly it says that anything not expressly mentioned in the Constitution is off limits for the judiciary. No more interpreting the applicability of the Constitution to a given situation.

This bill provides for the impeachment of any judge or justice which oversteps their new very limited authority based on this bill, and removes as judicial precedent any ruling made at any time, past present or future which is outside of the new scope of the Judiciary's powers.

This is a blatent power grab by the Congress, and a dangerous step towards the establishing of an official state religion.

Personally, I don't have a problem with people having strong religious faiths, of any denomination. I do not, however, believe that has any place in the government of our country. I know that in some Muslim countries, the penalty for theft is loss of a hand. If we assume that this is Muslim law, I would not want to find that there was no recourse for someone who's hand was chopped off by an over-zealous Muslim governmental official, since it related to that official's use of his religion in the course of his job.

And as to the Christian religion, it's WAY too arbitrary to be counted on. Extreme Christians point to certain passages and insist that they are the literal word of God and should be followed exactly, and then elide over certain other passages. The list of offenses for which the Bible prescribes death by stoning, for example. Or the fact that a man should not approach a woman during her period. Does this law suddenly mean that if a local politician somewhere decides to stone someone to death for looking askance at a neighbor's wife, that the family of the stoned person should have no judicial recourse, because that stoning was "concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."?

Scary stuff. Freedom of Religion and Separation of Church and State are a two-edged sword, as are most of our rights. They have to be, or they are meaningless. My freedom of speech is as important as yours, even if you don't like what I have to say. It's vital that it be so, or you might next find YOUR speech infringed upon when someone else decides it's "bad speech".

Copyright (c) May 23, 2005 by Liam Johnson. http://www.liamjohnson.net

Kudos to Kuwait

Rumor has it that Kuwait is set to grand women full political rights. Good news in a part of the world that has had it in short supply of late.

(I don't wish to begin a debate on whether or not any American policies or actions had a hand in this change. Let's just enjoy it for what it is.)

Liam.

Sunday, May 22, 2005

Almost No Americans Hate America

Please, world, can we stop with the "The other side hates America" argument? No one here hates America. We have enough of that coming from the terrorists and other countries.

Liberals do not hate America, they just see ways THEY think America could be better, and use the freedoms at the very core of our American way of life to express their opinions in the hopes of making things better.

Conservatives do not hate America either. Even if Bush and his administration are guilty of the worst charges leveled against them (this is a postulate for a point, I'm not asserting that they are), it doesn't mean that they hate America or were out to damage it.

There are, of course, people who do things for impure motives. Human nature being what it is, I suspect there's quite a lot of that. And there may be people who act contrary to the best interests of this country in order to put their own interests or their own agenda first. But this does not equate to hating America.

It is NOT contradictory to hold the following two beliefs:


  • This is the greatest country in the world.
  • There are things about this country which could be better.


The truth is that no matter how good any creation of human hands is, it is never perfect and there is always room for improvement. I would argue that it is at the very heart of LOVE for America to want to continuously improve it, to want to make it better for our children than it has been for us.

We may not agree on what will improve this country, and we may not all be acting with the goal of IMPROVING the country as our primary motive, but it's downright deceitful to claim that any class of people here is acting with malice towards the country. And it weakens your argument against them.

(No one on this blog has asserted this argument tactic, but I've been reading through a batch of other news sources and blogs tonight, and I've run across several examples of the tactic I herein decry. "The NYTimes is compelled to hurt America..." "Liberals hate America". "Neoconservatives hate America". If I were to believe everything I've read tonight, I'd have to conclude that there's almost no one in this country left who loves it, and that's clearly absurd.)

Copyright (c) May 22, 2005 by Liam Johnson. http://www.liamjohnson.net

War Crimes Tribunal

Hmmmm. As more reports come out regularly of abuse of "detainees" in US custody, I'm wondering if perhaps the nomination of John Bolton is a calculated one by the administration, and not merely a poor choice they aren't willing to admit to. Perhaps this is a continuation of a policy if separatism began with the repudiation of the World Court treaty by President Bush two years ago. Forgetting for a moment the bad precedent set by telling treaty partners that treaties with us are only good until the next administration takes office, could this be part of a larger plan?

Suppose we send Mr. Bolton to the U.N. and during his tenure there, the U.S. decides to part ways with the U.N. Mr. Bolton has clearly stated his views with regard to U.S. participation in the United Nations. Perhaps his job is to extricate us from participation.

What effect would this have on U.S. responsibility to a U.N. created War Crimes Tribunal? We've already told the International Criminal Court (World Court) that we reserve the right not to be bound by its decisions, and now we are aiming to have an ambassador to the U.N. who believes we should be similarly free from any influence of the U.N., which would include War Crimes tribunals.

As the details come out of the attrocious things perpetrated in our name by this administration in pursuit of the "war on terror", it would not surprise me at all if at some point our leaders are called to answer for these attrocities. I'm just wondering if this policy of separatism may not be entirely separate from the war in Iraq.

Just some musings on a Sunday morning.

Liam.

Saturday, May 21, 2005

Extremism...

(Excerpt from Bill O'Reilly's radio program.)

O'REILLY: No, no. I want you to read it. Go to LATimes.com. I want everybody in the country to read this editorial, 'cause it just -- I mean, you'll be sitting there pounding the table like I did. How can they -- how can they think this way? How can anyone think this way? You know, "Shutting down Guantànamo and giving suspected terrorists legal protections would help restore our reputation abroad." No, it wouldn't. I mean that's like saying, well, if we're nicer to the people who want to KILL US, then the other people who want to KILL US will like us more. Does that make any sense to you? Do you think Osama [bin Laden] is gonna be more favorably disposed to the U.S. if we give the Guantànamo people lawyers?

E.D. HILL (co-host): No, of course not.

O'REILLY: I mean, but this is what they're saying. It is just -- you just sit there, you go, "They'll never get it until they grab Michael Kinsley out of his little house and they cut his head off." And maybe when the blade sinks in, he'll go, "Perhaps O'Reilly was right."



Perhaps O'Reilly was right? How can we, as a nation, stand for certain freedoms, but consider them to be disposable at our whim? We refer to these as "basic human rights". Our Declaration of Independence calls them "inalienable rights", and that all men were created equal, but apparently Bill O'Reilly thinks that that should read "...all men are created equal as long as they are American citizens".

There are certain rights which non-citizens should not get here, those would be the rights which relate to responsibilities they do not have. For example, I'm in favor of denying social programs (welfare, food stamps, etc) to non-citizens until they have paid some taxes and actually partaken in some of the RESPONSIBILITIES that go hand in hand.

But we don't say in either of the most two important formative documents of this country that people have the right to welfare. We do say that they have right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", and our legal system is set up to make sure that none of these rights is unfairly infringed. We all agree that you can give up these rights if you perpetrate crimes in our society, certainly there's nothing inherently immoral in incarcerating criminals, but we put our legal system in place on the theory that it's better for 10 guilty men to go free than an innocent incorrectly punished.

And yet people like Bill O'Reilly and (it seems) our current Presidential Administration feel that rights are negotiable, and should be suspended whenever they are inconvenient. The Patriot Act. Torture of prisoners. Ever increasing infringements on our own rights. (If you don't believe they are ever increasing, here's one article from The New York Times about a new plan to give the FBI broader powers to track mail.)

How can we possibly expect other nations to respect us, how can we even look at ourselves in the mirror, when we're so quick to throw away the rights which are core to our nations beliefs?

If being against breaking the core values this country was founded upon is a liberal value, then I'll happily accept the label.

Liam.

A couple of links...

...to show what a TRUE liberal whack-job is.

I've spent a lot of time focusing on conservative extremists, but when people like this are out there, is it any wonder some people can't abide the liberal viewpoint?

This is the problem with extremists of any variety: They tarnish the color of the REASONABLE people.

(These were both linked to from comments to this site.)

First, someone I hope is a complete nut case, or we're all screwed: Link 1.

Second, a news article from a London tabloid (Link 2) which is probably no more factually correct than the Newsweek piece is reported to be, but which the poster grabs on to with more faith than the born again have in the Bible.

Let me stress again, I DO NOT AGREE WITH EITHER. I just ran across these and they irked me, and since I've been accused of never reporting on the things on the Left that irk me, it seemed I should...

Liam.

Friday, May 20, 2005

This is Disgusting.

An excerpt from a New York Times article is posted in this entry on the Huffington Post blog.

Even if you don't read the commentary around it, read the excerpts, the parts in italics. Read what is reportedly going on in interrogation rooms in our name and then think about the atrocities we're told Hussein was guilty of which justify the war, even if we never found the WMDs or the link to al qaida.

And then think about the amount of trouble Newsweek magazine got into for reporting a comparatively minor atrocity which may not have been true. The complaint we heard the most was that Newsweek was making America and the administration look bad by reporting things it could not substantiate. I agree, they should not be reporting unsubstantiated things, but compared to the truly stomach-turning descriptions in the link above, I rather wish I could believe flushing a Koran was the ONLY thing we’ve done to our prisoners.

We need our press to be reporting these things (kudos to the Times). We as a nation need to be aware of the actions being undertaken in our names. The Christian Right needs to understand the very UN-christian behavior of those they support.

And to truly make yourself ill, read to the very end of the italicized excerpt, to the point where you find out that most of the interrogators believe that the man they described, who died in our custody after extreme torture, was an innocent. Driving past the wrong place at the wrong time, and he died an anguished, tortured death in the name of American freedom.

If that’s the price of freedom, I think maybe it’s just a little bit too expensive. If we’re willing to stoop to that level, perhaps we don’t deserve it after all.

Liam.

I have to ask...

Does anyone know who's lying this time? Or, more specifically, what each is counting? I don't have the energy to track it down, at least not right now. But...

I have seen both liberals and conservatives claiming that the majority of judges currently sitting were nominated by the other side.

So who is right? Conservatives point out that some really high percentage are Clinton appointees, as if this is any kind of surprise: He is our most recent ex-President, and was President for 8 years. People get older, they retire. At any given time, we're apt to find the largest numbers of sitting judges were nominated either by the current President or by the previous one, with diminishing numbers going further back.

I'd venture to bet that the percentage of judges appointed by Democrat Presidents that were not nomindated by Clinton is approaching zero. You have to go back 25 years before you find another Democrat President, and in 25 years, I'd best most of Carter's nominees have retired.

I'm betting that the "Clinton Majority" people are again using old numbers, the same numbers from 18 months into the Bush Presidency that show that, at that time, less than 50% of his nominees had been confirmed.

But really, both sides are making the claim. "Far and away the Judges of this country are Liberal appointments". "This country has had a majority of Republican appointees on the federal bench and Supreme Court for generations".

Anyone know?

Liam.

Thursday, May 19, 2005

Quick Joke

On the lighter side, is Joe Leiberman actually the evil Senator Palpatine from the Star Wars movies?

Cute site, with cameo comparisons between Gore and Darth Maul.

Liam.

An interesting commentary on the current world view of America can be found here.

(More Huffington Post stuff...)

Liam.

Wednesday, May 18, 2005

We don't need no Big Brother...

George Orwell missed the boat. Why have Big Brother watching everyone, when you can turn the nation into conscript spies? You don't need the government spying on the world, when you can make the world spy on itself.

What am I talking about? The "Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act" (H.R. 1528) bill currently making its way through the house.

I'm at work, so I need to do some more research into the text of this bill before quoting too many specifics, but as I understand it, this bill makes it mandatory to report drug offenses to the authorities, and then assist in the investigation of those offenses.

That chill you just felt was the icy hand of governmental control taking a better hold of your sensitive bits.

Have we learned nothing of what it means to be a free society? Now, if someone is caught for a drug offense, everyone who was in a position to possibly know about the crime and didn’t report it will now be subject to criminal prosecution?

The average citizen isn’t a trained drug agent. What do we do when, in the interest of avoiding prosecution, floods of calls start coming in because the next door neighbor swallows pills occasionally, and we can’t KNOW they’re merely aspirin? What is the repercussion for making false accusations? All the accuser has to say is “Well, it looked like drugs to me, and I didn’t want to go to prison for not reporting it, if it was.”

This sort of “turn in your friends and family” plan is contrary to the freedoms of this country. And especially when we’re talking about something as relatively benign as smoking the occasional joint. As a parent, if I suspect my children are using drugs, I want the freedom to search, and to confront them, and handle the problem without then being legally required to report the results to the authorities.

Do we really want to set up a situation where it’s safer for me to adopt a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy with respect to drugs and my children, because once I know about it, I have to send my child to prison? And what if I have a cocaine addiction, and I realize it and want to get off of it? I will need the support of friends and family and probably of a doctor and maybe a peer group. Do I really need to choose between trying to quit without the proper weapons at my disposal or asking my friends and family to break the law by knowing but not reporting?

I truly hope when I get a chance to research this more, it’s not what I’m told it is, and if anyone has more information, please post it.

Copyright © May 13, 2005 by Liam Johnson. http://www.liamjohnson.net

On Judicial Nominee Hold ups.

[This is a slightly re-worked comment I placed on another bloggers site. I think the argument it makes is worthy of posting here as well. --Liam]

The Republican argument against the filibuster seems to be that all judicial nominations have the right to a yea or nay vote, and that filibuster denies them the right to even be voted upon. This is presented as though to prevent such a vote is clearly thwarting the will of the masses, and the way the political process is supposed to run. So let's take a look at that twarting more closely.

Even forgetting the (attempted but failed) filibusters of two Clinton appointees, the Republicans in the congress of his day did something equally heinous: 45% of his nominees were returned without a vote during the time he had a Republican controlled Senate. Clearly a different tactic, but the result was exactly the same, fully 45% of Clinton judicial nominees were not allowed their yea or nay vote. This is 45% of the nominations sent by Clinton to Congress. If you'd prefer to argue that nominees which were nominated multiple times should only count once, then 35.3% of the nominees sent by Clinton were blocked. And as far as I can tell, none of these were voted down, they were all blocked and sent back to the White House without a vote.

According to one site I found, Clinton nominations were blocked at a rate 72% higher by the his Republican congress than Reagan/Bush Sr. nominations by their Democratic ones. Modifying again for nominees (to remove people nominated more than once), 39% higher.

Compare these numbers to the current numbers. The Democrats are filibustering or threatening to filibuster 10 of a group of 34 judicial nominees by Bush Jr. That's a rate of 29%, significantly lower than the 45% rate of blocking of Clinton nominations by Republicans in Congress. The Republicans changed their tactic from filibuster to outright blocking (without a vote) of nominees when they took over a majority of the Congress, but the result was the same, nominees who, according to the CURRENT Republican argument, deserved to have their up or down vote were prevented from having that vote.

And by the way, part of the reason why the Democrats are stalling as much as they can on the most far right-wing of nominees is because some of them are nominated to vacancies which SHOULD have been filled by Clinton appointees, but weren't because they were repeatedly blocked by the Republican congress. Not surprising, I'd fully expect Democrats to increase their attempts to block candidates as the end of Bush's second term approaches (in the hope that a Democrat will win next, and be able to fill those seats). But let's be clear on the numbers and the reasons.

The nomination confirmation process is supposed to provide another check and balance against "stacking the deck" with extremist judges in either direction. It's why I'd prefer to see the required number of votes to confirm a nominee INCREASED. The harder it is to get extreme candidates through, the more moderate our judicial benches will of necessity become, and the only way to confirm truly extreme nominees would be if the country were so overwhelmingly in favor of that extreme that one party truly controlled the Presidency and a vast majority of Congress.

But as to the current issue, the argument being made is that Democrats are performing an unprecedented prevention on nominations getting their rightful up or down vote. This is not only NOT unprecedented, the Republicans are being made to lie in a bed they made, and they don't like it.

Copyright (c) May 18, 2005 by Liam Johnson. http://www.liamjohnson.net

Tuesday, May 17, 2005

Another Modest Proposal

Both sides of the aisle dislike extremist judges. (The Right tries to define theirs as not "activist judges" on the basis that activism implies liberalism, but they have their share of extremist judges as well)

So how about we change the rules. Consistent with my belief that the country is strongest when one party controls the Executive branch and the other the Legislative, I don't think EITHER party should control the Judicial. Instead of this constant jockying for position, trying to push through judges on your end of the political spectrum while you're in control, and then watching the other guys load up the other end of the see saw when they are in charge, how about a new way of doing things?

Perhaps all judicial nominees should be subject to approval by both parties, regardless of who nominated them, or should be subject to a two-thirds majority in order to be confirmed. This would prevent activist (or extreme) judges in both directions and ensure that our court was centrist, middle of the road, right where judges really ought to be.

There are other ways to accomplish the same thing, but in the end, we want judges whose interpretation of the constitution is fair and balance, not too extreme in either direction. And don't fool yourself, it IS a job of interpretation. If it weren't, if every situation were explicitly spelled out in the constitution, there would be no need for judges, just librarians to find the related passage. When most rulings come from interpretation of what the framers of the Constitution and it's Ammendments WOULD HAVE MEANT, if they were around to apply it, there's room for differences of opinion. As a result, there is room for extremism in both directions.

Copyright (c) May 17, 2005 by Liam Johnson. http://www.liamjohnson.net

Monday, May 16, 2005

What Happened to the Free Press?

Janet and I were discussing government this weekend, and we came to one major sticking point. I won't go into details about our philosophical difference (if Janet wants to chime in and say what she believes, she's welcome to, it's her blog too).

However, in our discussion of it, we together seriously bemoaned the loss of an independent and fact-driven press.

What has happened to independent news? What has happened to reporting of unbiased news, and news which is important, as opposed to news which will get ratings?

News outlets once took this responsibility (and fundamental freedom) seriously. Today, too much of our news is just blanket repetition of press releases. It seems like we have too many reporters and not enough investigative journalists.

There was a recent minor flap when an executive from one of the networks (ABC, from memory, but I'm aging, my memory can be faulty) made a comment about how there is an on-going debate over whether to continue to cover the war in Iraq. The implication of the statement was that "People don't care, they're tuning out, we need to report on things people care about."

The problem is, in our special effects blockbuster movie society, we the citizenry have lost touch with what’s important. Iraq was interesting to us while there were bombs going off that we could WATCH. Now that they’re simply reported, we’ve lost interest. But guess what: We need this. Like children, we must be spoon fed a nutritional diet, and not allowed to gorge ourselves on chocolate and ice cream. We must be taught to recognize the difference between fiction and fact. We must not be allowed to let our entertainment so desensitize us that the more important (but infinitely more boring) facts of real life seem unimportant.

Some of our media outlets are clearly biased, pushing one agenda over another. The rest are merely lazy, opting to repeat press releases rather than spend any time confirming them.

Some folks have argued that bloggers are the new investigative journalists, filling that vital voice in our society. The problems are myriad. To name a few:

  • Bloggers have little funding, which limits their investigative possibilities.
  • Bloggers tend to be independent, so they can’t afford to send representatives to the places news is happening and verify it for themselves.
  • There are so many bloggers, there’s no central authority in which we can place our trust (in the past, we may not have known the reputation of a particular reporter, but darn it, they work for the Times, and we could trust the Times).
  • Again, like AP or UPI, bloggers have a tendency to proliferate each other’s stories, but with little regard to where it originally came from. If the story fits the model or viewpoint which the blogger ascribes to, and sounds like it might be true, it gets posted to blog after blog.
  • Many bloggers do not even pretend to be unbiased. Some, like me, are clearly opinion bloggers, focusing on commentary rather than news gathering. Some are not as honest about that as I try to be.


In order to downsize government (as most people pay lip service to, while building ever larger governmental systems), we NEED our free press to take up some of the slack. I wish I had any idea how to make it happen.

Copyright © May 13, 2005 by Liam Johnson. http://www.liamjohnson.net

Sunday, May 15, 2005

IMPORTANT NOTE

Folks,

I've decided that the humor posts should be on a different blog than this one. I think that separation will better allow me to keep the funny essays funny, and not be confused with the political rants which I seem to be posting more and more of.

This blog will continue to be where I post Rants, Short Fiction, the occasional Serious Post, and where Janet will post occasionally (although she hasn't posted as much as I'd expected she would).

Over the next few days, I'll be migrating the humor columns over to the new blog.

My plan is to keep the index here up to date, although it may take a few days for the links to work correctly again.

I hope you'll continue to enjoy both blogs, I'll just be more easily able to separate the funny from the serious.

Thanks, all!

Liam.

Hmmmmm.

I saw an article today that the Army is now offering enlistments of as short as 15 months, to try to entice more people to join.

How, exactly, is this going to help swell the ranks, when most of us know at least one person who is "over there" for longer than their tour of duty was supposed to be, having been kept beyond their term of service?

I can certainly see why, in the current political climate, there might be some trouble recruiting, but until signing up for a specific time frame really means at the end of it, your time will be up, I don't see how offering shorter stints will entice anyone.

Just my initial thoughts on the matter.

Liam.

A Modest Proposal

Earlier this week, there was a scare in our Nation’s capital, during which the Capitol was evacuated. Specifically, everyone in the Capitol building and the White House was notified to evacuate, instructing them (according to one interview I saw on the television) to "Run, not walk, as far and as fast as you can". Is this really as far as we’ve come since 9/11? In almost four years, our terrorism preparedness can be summed up by the Monty Python movie about the Holy Grail: Run Away!

It is frightening to me that the best we can do to protect the main governing bodies of our country is to make sure that they have new Reeboks and a good time in the Boston Marathon. Let’s face it, if that plane had actually been carrying a terrorist threat (a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon or even just the intent to crash it into the Capitol, the White House or the Supreme Court), by the time the message had gotten to anyone, the threat would have been realized.

It is astounding to me, when airplanes routinely travel at 500 mph, and the Concorde traveled at well over 1000 mph, that the protection for our country’s capital is less than 16 miles of radius around the building. A 747 covers that distance in under 2 minutes. I’m sure we have a greater awareness of the planes in the area, but a plane destined for Washington National or Dulles could get mighty close before there was any indication that anything was wrong.

In the age of instantaneous information transfer, is there really any good reason for a centralized seat of government anymore? Would it not make more sense for our Senators and Representatives to remain in their home territories and meet electronically? You can’t tell me with the huge investment that we’re making in national security, we couldn’t come up with one heck of a networked holographic system, so that it could FEEL almost like business-as-usual.

How much harder would it be for a terrorist group to have to hit 50 states’ US congressional offices than to take out the bulk of our Congress in one fell swoop with a nuke during congressional session? I think Congress (particularly the Senate) is actually a much greater potential for disruption than the President. We’ve had Presidents assassinated before, and the country went on, because there is a clear order of succession. Thus, even if someone were to manage to take out the Pres, the VP and a large part of the Cabinet, there’s a clear, unquestionable awareness of whose hands immediately take up the reins of the governmental bridal, and there’s very little time when the ship of State has no hands on the wheel.

Congress, on the other hand, has no clear line of succession. I’ve done some looking, and the best I can determine, the rules of succession for a Senator or Congressman are determined state by state. That means that while in mere moments after a catastrophic event in our governance we should be able to determine who is the President, it might be weeks or months before we could figure out who now made up the Congress.

Look, Disney World had some pretty impressive holography going on in it’s Haunted House when I visited there as a child, more than a quarter century ago. Tell me we couldn’t set something up whereby people testifying before Congress could get exactly the same experience they get now, minus only the shaking of hands. There would be issues, certainly. One would be how to make sure the network was truly secure when Congress was discussing matters of a top secret nature. Another, how to handle the (comparatively minor) disruption if a terrorist attack took out the network, thus temporarily preventing the congressmen from meeting?

Our country is well set up. An attack on our World Trade Center and our Pentagon (and even our White House, had that part been successful) by terrorists was not even close to sufficient to shake our foundations. But why run the risk, when we clearly have the technology available to protect our country’s core?

(I'm open to counter arguments. This is an idea I've been kicking around for a while now, but as with all radical ideas, there is a good chance I've missed some very important reason why it would not be possible or a good idea, and if they exist, I'd love to hear them!)

Copyright (c) May 15, 2005 by Liam Johnson. http://www.liamjohnson.net

Thursday, May 12, 2005

Halliburton Bonus?!?

More on why I think the current administration is corrupt and has to go, independent of their conservative or liberal leanings:

I saw a report today that Halliburton has received $76 million dollars in bonuses on the contract in Iraq.

Now, you can argue that Cheney's past running of Halliburton doesn't invalidate them from being the best company for the job at hand, and you might even convince me that the no-bid contract they "won" was fair because no one else could have handled the job. (I'm not saying it's true, I'm saying it's possible).

However, we hear reports on a regular basis that troops have insufficient equipment. One recent article on the Huffington Post blog pointed out instances of soldiers having to buy their own equipment (radios, batteries, tools, things which they need to get their jobs done), and we continue to hear reports of insufficiently armored vehicles. Meanwhile, Halliburton (or more correctly, KBR) folks drive around in multi-hundred-thousand dollar armored vehicles on the bases, but the folks we send out into danger have to drive un-armored SUVs.

Look at how much our armed forces make. It starts at less than $14000/year and goes up to just under $48000/year. And for this money, we require them to leave home and family, lose any momentum they might have had in a regular job, which would otherwise have the potential to make more in the future. We require them to put their lives in harms way in the cause (ostensibly) of keeping the rest of us safe.

We ask them to do this, for paltry pay, with insufficient equipment, and then pay out huge bonuses to a company which has already been caught gouging gas supply prices and in several other improprieties.

Halliburton was run by Dick Cheney before Cheney became the Vice President. Halliburton gave Cheney more than 30 million dollars when he left the company to run to become the Vice President. And so Halliburton gets rewarded for (it seems) repeatedly providing insufficient service at inflated prices.

How do intelligent people not look at this and think "Y'know, this smells a little bit fishy."

Look, I don't care if they were actually doing a bang up job. I don't care if they had done everything 100% perfectly and gone above and beyond for this country. The fact is, we have troops who are asked to risk their lives, and we're not supporting or supplying our troops sufficiently. Until that situation improves, every available dime that we have to spend over there should be spent in the service of that cause, not to line the corporate coffers and pad the stock holders' bottom lines.

Copyright (c) May 12, 2005 by Liam Johnson. http://www.liamjohnson.net

Tuesday, May 10, 2005

Conspiracy

What is wrong with our society today, that we are so quick to jump on conspiracies that seem outlandish or flat out impossible, but have become so jaded that we can't even work up the energy to even comment on conspiracy theories which might actually be true?

Case in point (and I don't for a second mean to suggest I think this is true, it is merely the thing I was reading that led me to this thinking), Arianna Huffington has a new blog "Huffington Post" (www.huffingtonpost.com), on which famous people on both sides of the political spectrum have been invited to blog.

So far, it seems to be largely liberal, but I suspect that's for the same reason that I come across as mostly liberal: Most outspoken criticism is going to be against the party in power. Since that party is almost universally conservative right now, there's just not a whole lot of liberal shenanigans to rail against.

Anyway, this article was one that I read on the site:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/2005/05/biggest-story-of-our-live.html


My initial thought was "Hmmmm. That's interesting." and I continued on. I'm curious if the facts (with respect to both the margins of error in the 10 swing states this time, and then rarity of the margin of error being wrong in the past) are true, but I'm so jaded to the political machinations of this country and the inability of anyone to get to the "truth" or do anything about it when they do, that I almost blew right past the article without another thought.

Being a profound Bush detractor (again, I'll stress, having nothing to do with his party and everything to do with his policies and decisions), you'd think I'd care enough to get a little bit worked up. You'd think I'd want to look up the facts and if they bore out, trumpet them from the highest rooftops.

Instead, I find myself thinking "Yeah, it's probably true. What's the point? It's all lies, smoke and mirrors anyway". How do we get so jaded? How did I get so jaded?

Copyright (c) May 10, 2005 by Liam Johnson. http://www.liamjohnson.net

Monday, May 09, 2005

Final Wish

“Excuse me, young man, but would you mind terribly much if I died here?”

It was an odd day, a strange day, a bad day. A Tuesday. I turned around to see who had made this absurd statement with a tired customer service smile plastered on my face and thoughts of my troubles in my head. Just what I needed. The car wouldn’t start this morning. My daughter’s dentist had just informed me that she would require braces. My feet hurt. Why do I get all the crazies.

Before me sat, in a wheel chair, probably the oldest woman I’d seen come to the park. You don’t see the octogenarian set visiting amusement parks, even one as nationally famous as the one I was working for. If they come at all, it is with children and grand children and (as often as not) great grand children surrounding them. This lady was quite alone.

I must have paused for longer than I intended, or had a puzzled look on my face, because she repeated “Son, I’d like to die here, if it wouldn’t be too much trouble.”

My lord, she was serious. I couldn’t figure out what would make someone ask that question, it seemed so patently absurd. Was she toying with me? Did she have some burning desire to ride the Titan Coaster, knowing her frail body would not survive? Was it a joke?

“Ma’am, I heard the question, but I don’t understand.” I said, not quite sure how to proceed.

“Well,” she said, “do you have time for a story?”

I really didn’t, but I was also mildly curious. The clock on the wall said 11:39, it was too early for lunch, but I told myself that I had a customer in need, and corporate policy is to give the customers what they want, with a smile, and to avoid whenever possible answering in the negative, so I put up the “back in 30 minutes” sign and said “Why don’t we walk and you can tell me.”

I stepped behind the chair and began to push, and she started in on her story.

“It was 67 years ago that I met my Harold. There was a dance held in the town hall, and all the young ladies were encouraged to go, to dance with our servicemen newly returned from over seas. I wasn’t comfortable, it felt as if the responsibility for expressing the gratitude of the nation was entirely on our shoulders, and it just wasn’t fair. In those days, though, you didn’t rock the boat. You did what was asked of you, and so I went. I was just 18, my birthday just the week before.

“The boys were everything we’d feared. Years away from home, hearth and any women makes men brutish and crude, and although I didn’t begrudge them some time to readjust, I was not comfortable. One particularly aggressive soldier made a rude suggestion, and Harold stepped up and made him apologize. He’d seen me across the room, looking completely out of place, and had come to talk to me. I think to protect me.

“We talked for most of the dance, not realizing the time until my father arrived to pick me up. As we were bidding a quick goodbye, Harold asked me if I’d like to go with him to the new amusement park. ‘A date?’ I’d asked coyly. ‘Why not?’ he’d replied. I told him I would love to, and was whisked away by Father to the waiting car.

“Our first date, then, was right here in your park. This was before you were born, the year the park opened. It wasn’t nearly as big as it is today, just the one park and the one hotel for out of town guests surrounded by acre upon acre of empty swamp land. We walked and talked, we ate the treats and rode the rides, and the whole time I felt like I was floating on a cloud.

“June of the following year, we were married, and it was the most wonderful marriage I could ever have had. Of course we disagreed occasionally, married couples always do, but whenever we did, we’d come back to the park to walk and talk and remember and make up.

“We were married for 50 years, and we must have come to the park 300 times. Not always to make up, of course. We came to celebrate our birthdays. We came to console ourselves when we learned we could not have children. We came when the park opened new attractions. We came when the world just got to be too much to take. This park was our special place, and we used it as frequently as needed to celebrate the good times and help the bad ones pass quickly.

“When you built the EarthView ride, it became our favorite. By that time, we were both in our 40s, and no longer had interest in the faster rides, but EarthView was just our speed, as I’m sure you’re aware, with its 24 minute slow journey through the ages, culminating in a slow, peaceful two minute journey across the Sunset room, with the barest hint of sun’s last glow on one rim of the dome overhead, and the beginnings of stars on the other side.

“Harold always said that in all the world, that two minutes was the most at peace he ever felt. We’d hold hands and just watch the sky, projected on the dome, and no matter what we were there for, or what we’d been discussing, for those two minutes we’d be silent and just watch. And then soon the end of our time in the Sunset room would come, and our trip back down to the end of the ride, and we’d shake off the melancholy at having to leave and begin our conversation anew.

“18 years ago, my Harold got sick, and for a year I watched him get slowly weaker. There was nothing they could do. But he never complained, and we’d come to the park as often as we could and ride the EarthView. When we arrived, Harold was my dying husband, and when we left he was again, but while we were on the ride, and particularly while we were in the Sunset room, he was my young soldier, newly returned from the war and sweeping me off of my feet.

“One day, when we were in the room, Harold broke the silence, and told me that there was one star, brighter than the rest, that he’d always had a fondness for. I knew just the one he was talking about. He said that it was his star, and that after he was gone, if I ever needed him, I should ride the ride and look at his star, and he’d be watching me from the top of the dome.

“Well, after Harold died, I couldn’t bring myself to come back to the park. There were too many memories, too much pain to be alone in the place where my love and I had spent so much time together, and so in the last 17 years, I have not been back once.

“Two months ago I found out that I was dying. This isn’t the tragedy it might seem, I’ve had a full life, and without my Harold, the last 17 years haven’t been terribly good ones. We had no children, and most of our friends have long since passed, and so I am ready to die.

“But the thing is, my Harold is still up there, in that star. I know he is. He’s waiting for me, waiting until I join him, so we can go on to heaven together. I know that’s silly, but even if it is, I want my last sight of this life to be that star in that sky on that dome that we together loved so well. That room and that star are everything that gave my life meaning and joy.

“I woke up this morning, and I know it’s the day. Don’t ask me how I know, it’s just a feeling in my bones, but I know there won’t be another morning for me. So I ask you, would it be too much trouble if I died here?”

My mind was reeling. I looked up and realized we’d walked clear to the other side of the grounds, and I hadn’t realized it. I had no idea how much time had gone by. Suddenly my troubles, the car, the braces, my feet, just didn’t seem as important. And without realizing where I’d been pushing her, we’d come to the entrance gate of the park nearest EarthView.

This was crazy. How was I going to explain this. I put an 85 year old woman onto a ride she had no business being on, and when she came back down, she was dead. That was going to look real good on my next performance review. And yet somehow, I couldn’t let her be denied.

Since it was Tuesday, the park closed early at 5pm (we close one park early each night for maintenance), so I took her inside and bought her lunch. It was 4:30 (where had the time gone?), but during our walk neither of us had eaten, so it was still lunch time. She didn’t eat much, whatever was killing her had clearly taken her appetite, but she chatted on politely as I ate, telling me more little details of Harold and their life together.

When we were done, the paying customers were filing out of the park. I pushed her in her chair over to the entrance to EarthView. The ride operators, just leaving the building, gave me an odd look as I opened the door and pushed her inside. But it was quitting time, if one of the customer service people wanted to show someone around after hours, it was none of their concern, and very soon they were out of sight and gone for the evening.

She got quiet as we made our way down the hallway into the ride-boarding room. The ride was still, now, having been shut down for the night. None of the music, none of the animatronics, none of the display lights were on. I pushed her over to the nearest car, bent down and lifted her little body out of her chair. She can’t have weighed more than 70 pounds, and I set her down easily in the car of the ride. Her deathbed. She looked at me gratefully as I climbed the ladder into the control room and gave me a last little wave as I disappeared inside.

I made sure to boot up all of the displays and the music and everything that makes the ride what it is before starting the car moving. I watched her progress through the ride on the closed circuit cameras, normally used to keep watch on teenagers who might try to climb out of the car mid ride and touch the displays. She looked peaceful. She looked happy.

For almost 20 minutes I watched her, occasionally catching a glint of a tear running down her face, and at last the car she was in reached the Sunset room. I waited about a minute, until she was dead center in the room, and then cut the forward motion and left her sitting in the silent stillness, watching the sky overhead.

She sat quietly for what must have been 10 minutes, and then suddenly she beamed a smile of pure joy and spoke a single word, obvious to me even though I had no microphones on in the room and could not hear it: Harold. Then she died. She just slumped down in her car and died. I started to turn my attention back to the controls, ready to bring her body back down and figure out what to do next, when out of the corner of my eye, one of the stars, the brightest I could see on the camera, twinkled. Clearly, brightly, in a way that it never had before in all the rides I’d taken on this ride during my time at the park. Twinkled, brightened, and then like the life of the woman who’d shared her story with me, the light faded and went out.




[Don’t ask me what brought me to write this story. I’m not even sure from what tortured corner of my soul it came. I had an urge to write with no specific story or topic in mind, and this is what emerged. In hindsight, it occurs to me that I have in the past thought that the final room at the acme of the “Spaceship Earth” ride in Epcot Center would be a very peaceful place to draw one’s last breath. But I sure didn’t know that’s what I was going to write, when I started writing. Oh the interesting things that come out of my mind when I’m exhausted but (due to a touch of “nervous flyer” syndrome) unable to sleep.

I'm not even sure why I decided to lightly fictionalize the place. Probably so that if I ever publish a book of my short fiction, I won't have copyright or trademark issues. – Liam]


Copyright © May 4, 2005 by Liam Johnson. http://www.liamjohnson.net

Friday, May 06, 2005

Interesting question...

What's wrong with someone who reads an ENTIRE blog, and then talks about how they don't want to hear what you (I) have to say?

Why would you read it all, and then complain that I should shut up?

There are authors I don't want to read, but guess what: I don't buy their books. I don't try to claim that they shouldn't be allowed to publish, I'm perfectly content to let them continue publishing for those who might WANT to read them. I'm just smart enough not to read things I know I don't want to read.

There's a certain segment of the population that seems to feel:

1) Superior to everyone else, and
2) a great need to convince themselves of that fact.

If you don't like what I have to say, fine, don't read it. And if you don't think I'm funny and think I'm deluding myself, fine. Go away. Find someone whose writing you like better. Don't waste your time.

Meanwhile, I enjoy writing, and I know there are people out here who enjoy reading what I write. And even if there aren't, if it's something I enjoy doing, then I have every right to do it. And if I think people might want to read it and they don't, it hurts no one that they're up on the Internet in blog form. I didn't force you to read it, your own obsession did that. And you know what? If you keep reading my stuff, then your actions speak louder than your words. Clearly you DO care what I have to say. If you really didn't, you wouldn't waste your time.

Liam.

 

Career Education