home | archives | bio | stories | poetry | links | guestbook | message board
previous | archives index | next

July 2004

July 31, 2004

I met Steve in Fremont today to visit the Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Estate and Library. I had been there, once, when I was about nine and on a field trip from school. Steve had never gone.

It was, as might be expected, seemingly much bigger than I had remembered it. It was also just as boring as I'd remembered. I had thought that maybe my memories of being bored were just due to being a hyper kid without much interest in museums, but the whole place was indeed quite a plain. Still, there were interesting things to be seen, and I had a good time if for no other reason than to see Steve get such pleasure out of observing the gun and weapons collection. The estate seems, to my belief, to be running low on funding, and a number of maintenance issues were clearly piling up from years of neglect. Of course Fremont isn't a hot spot for tourism, so I doubt that there is a lot of traffic to the estate, even by historians and scholars.

Still, it was good to get out. I've had a migraine for three days, today making a fourth, and fresh air and activity had been something that I'd hoped would make things better, but that wasn't meant to be. I did enjoy my time with Steve, and we walked around Fremont a bit and stopped for lunch at a Chinese restaurant, talking about various things all the while. I had expected to spend the whole day with Steve, but after we finished lunch at about 3 PM, Steve decided to go on his way. He apparently had plans with someone else, so he had to go. It shouldn't have bothered me by then, because my head was pounding and I was feeling exceptionally thirsty, but I was disappointed that I wouldn't have more time with Steve. That all makes me seem, rightly so, quite needy, I guess, but I miss spending time with friends.

Now if I can just get rid of this headache I'll be much better. That doesn't seem to be working my way either, though.

Posted at 1:42 AM

July 30, 2004

My original intention today was to write sort of a wrap-up to my thoughts about the Democratic Convention and the new political jousting that has begun now that both candidates are now back on the trail. That was my original intention, and there would certainly be much to say.

Instead, however, I came across this column in the New York Times and felt that it was much more relevant and true than anything else I could point out.

I have written before, not that long ago, about the failings of the media, both in the sense of failures to be unbiased and not conservative spin doctors as well as in the sense of reporting upon closely checked facts and not sensational heresay. The media is nearly worthless as a source of information because it is so flawed and biased. Anyone seeking the truth has to, like I do, search dozens of newspapers and other media sources for enough perspectives to see the reality of any situation, and most people just don't have the time (or patience) to do that sort of thing. Instead, they have to accept what they find on the nightly news or in their daily newspaper. Sadly, they aren't getting fair and balanced information, as suggested in this column.

Triumph of the Trivial

Under the headline "Voters Want Specifics From Kerry," The Washington Post recently quoted a voter demanding that John Kerry and John Edwards talk about "what they plan on doing about health care for middle-income or lower-income people. I have to face the fact that I will never be able to have health insurance, the way things are now. And these millionaires don't seem to address that."

Mr. Kerry proposes spending $650 billion extending health insurance to lower- and middle-income families. Whether you approve or not, you can't say he hasn't addressed the issue. Why hasn't this voter heard about it?

Well, I've been reading 60 days' worth of transcripts from the places four out of five Americans cite as where they usually get their news: the major cable and broadcast TV networks. Never mind the details - I couldn't even find a clear statement that Mr. Kerry wants to roll back recent high-income tax cuts and use the money to cover most of the uninsured. When reports mentioned the Kerry plan at all, it was usually horse race analysis - how it's playing, not what's in it.

On the other hand, everyone knows that Teresa Heinz Kerry told someone to "shove it," though even there, the context was missing. Except for a brief reference on MSNBC, none of the transcripts I've read mention that the target of her ire works for Richard Mellon Scaife, a billionaire who financed smear campaigns against the Clintons - including accusations of murder. (CNN did mention Mr. Scaife on its Web site, but described him only as a donor to "conservative causes.") And viewers learned nothing about Mr. Scaife's long vendetta against Mrs. Heinz Kerry herself.

There are two issues here, trivialization and bias, but they're related.

Somewhere along the line, TV news stopped reporting on candidates' policies, and turned instead to trivia that supposedly reveal their personalities. We hear about Mr. Kerry's haircuts, not his health care proposals. We hear about George Bush's brush-cutting, not his environmental policies.
Even on its own terms, such reporting often gets it wrong, because journalists aren't especially good at judging character. ("He is, above all, a moralist," wrote George Will about Jack Ryan, the Illinois Senate candidate who dropped out after embarrassing sex-club questions.) And the character issues that dominate today's reporting have historically had no bearing on leadership qualities. While planning D-Day, Dwight Eisenhower had a close, though possibly platonic, relationship with his female driver. Should that have barred him from the White House?

And since campaign coverage as celebrity profiling has no rules, it offers ample scope for biased reporting.

Notice the voter's reference to "these millionaires." A Columbia Journalism Review Web site called campaigndesk.org, says its analysis "reveals a press prone to needlessly introduce Senators Kerry and Edwards and Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, as millionaires or billionaires, without similar labels for President Bush or Vice President Cheney."

As the site points out, the Bush campaign has been "hammering away with talking points casting Kerry as out of the mainstream because of his wealth, hoping to influence press coverage." The campaign isn't claiming that Mr. Kerry's policies favor the rich - they manifestly don't, while Mr. Bush's manifestly do. Instead, we're supposed to dislike Mr. Kerry simply because he's wealthy (and not notice that his opponent is, too). Republicans, of all people, are practicing the politics of envy, and the media obediently go along.

In short, the triumph of the trivial is not a trivial matter. The failure of TV news to inform the public about the policy proposals of this year's presidential candidates is, in its own way, as serious a journalistic betrayal as the failure to raise questions about the rush to invade Iraq.

P.S.: Another story you may not see on TV: Jeb Bush insists that electronic voting machines are perfectly reliable, but The St. Petersburg Times says the Republican Party of Florida has sent out a flier urging supporters to use absentee ballots because the machines lack a paper trail and cannot "verify your vote."

P.P.S.: Three weeks ago, The New Republic reported that the Bush administration was pressuring Pakistan to announce a major terrorist capture during the Democratic convention. Hours before Mr. Kerry's acceptance speech, Pakistan announced, several days after the fact, that it had apprehended an important Al Qaeda operative.

Posted at 11:28 PM

July 29, 2004

<Yawn>

The fourth and final night of the Democratic National Convention has finished, and I must say that I was supremely underwhelmed. Yes, I was pleased to hear Barney Frank allowed to speak directly about gay rights, but he was far and away the best speaker in the early aspects of the day. How lame can you get than to have Joe Lieberman and Wesley Clark, among others, both very dry and emotionless speakers. Maybe the DNC was going for people who would be more boring than Kerry, thus making him look better by comparison when he spoke. That might also explain why so many people used such horrible extended metaphors to try to make their points. If they all looked liked the worst speakers possible then maybe Kerry would look decent when he followed them.

In truth, Kerry's acceptance speech was probably the best of his recent political life (although I would maintain that his speeches in protest of the Vietnam War, when he was a young man, were much more impassioned, motivating, and genuine than anything he is likely to ever produce any more). He made a number of good points that made much more clear certain policy stances and specific plans he has in mind. It also served to answer charges that Bush and the Republicans have made against him and show the conservative propaganda to be false or at least misleading. Still, he never really seemed passionate or excited about anything he said, and that was, although typical for Kerry, truly disappointing. Potentially worse for him was the amount he was sweating under the spotlights. I don't think many people will have noticed or made anything of it, but if he sweats like that during the debates, he may be as doomed as Nixon was against Kennedy when his sweating under the lights made him look shifty and nervous. Time will tell, I guess. Heck, Bush still hasn't even committed to debates yet, so maybe I shouldn't hold my breath.

Actually, the best speech made during the past four days of this convention wasn't even made at the convention. It was made by filmmaker Michael Moore during a rally in Boston where a number of people from a variety of liberal political groups made speeches. Moore, as usual, held no punches, but he made a polite speech nonetheless, even though it was quite impassioned.

Here is the transcript of Moore's speech:

I don't know what it is with right-wingers and Republicans. They seem to have hijacked over the years the word "patriotism", the American flag, these things. And it's an odd thing. I have been thinking about this lately. Because the true patriots are those who believe the important thing is to ask questions, you know. To dissent when necessary. And I know a lot of people have seen my film and the obvious bad guy in the movie is George W. Bush. But there's the unstated villain in the film. And that's our national media.

You've seen the film. Right? A lot of them are mad at me right now because I can't go on a show without them, you know. But I would be mad if I were them too, because the film outs them. It outs them as being for the Bush administration. It outs them as people who were cheerleaders for this war. It outs them as, to be kind to those who are actually good journalists, journalists who fell asleep on the job. Journalists who didn't ask the hard questions. The one thing I hear when people come out of the theater over and over again is I never saw that on the news. Right? I never saw those Black congressmen being shut down one after another. Did anyone see that?

I didn't know there was a riot at the inauguration parade. I never saw the egg hit the limo. I never saw that! I don't hear from the amputees who sit in our hospitals, 5,000 or 6,000 of them. How come I don't hear from them on the nightly news? I don't hear from the mothers. I don't see them on the evening news, the mothers of children who have been killed in Iraq and who state their opposition to this war. I haven't seen them on the news.

Why haven't I seen this? I live in a free and open country that has a free and open press where you can show us anything. That's the great thing about America. You can show us anything! You can ask any question you want to ask. And this is my humble plea to those of you from the press here. And don't any of you take this personally. I don't mean it this way, but I – we, the people, we need you. We need you to do your jobs! We need you! To ask the questions, demand the evidence! Demand the evidence! Don't ever send us to war without asking the questions!

You do us no service by hopping on a band wagon, by becoming cheerleaders, by looking the other way, because you know that's the safest way to play it if you want to keep your job. Or, you are just afraid of being accused of being un-American if you were to ask a hard question to the President or his administration. That's not un-American. That's pro-American! To ask the questions. That's patriotic! But I know it was rough. I know in those first days of the war, I know. I stood on an Oscar stage five days into the war. I know what the mood was like. It was not easy to say we are being led to war for fictitious reasons. Right?

And those of you who felt the same way at the beginning of this war, you know, remember what it was like at work or at school? You had to be kind of careful. Right? And if you expressed any opposition to the war, you had to immediately say, but I support the troops! Right? But I support the troops. You didn't need to say that. Of course you support the troops. You've always supported the troops. Who are the troops? The troops are those who come from the other side of the tracks. The troops are the people who come from families who have been abused by the Bush administration. You've always supported them. You've always been on their side! This no one should question that!

The way that you don't support the troops is to send them into harm's way when it isn't necessary. The way that you hate the troops is when you send them off, some of them, to their death, so that your rich benefactors can line their pockets even more. The Halliburtons, the oil companies. That is anti-American. That is unpatriotic. You do not support the troops when you do that. The thing here is, and again, and I am not picking on the press who are here, but it is true. We are talking about our mainstream national media. A media, for instance, NBC, owned by General Electric. You know, I understand General Electric now has over $600 million worth of contracts in Iraq. They are war-profiteers. It doesn't surprise me that their news arm has failed to do the job that it needs to do to tell the truth to the American people about this war. There's nothing surprising about that. I understand that.

I understand the Matt Lauers and the Lisa Myers and the people that have to work for this entity. You have cameras and microphones and the ability to get into places of power that the people in this room can't get in. To ask these questions. And the great thing about this country is you can ask any question you want. You can ask any question you want and not be arrested. Right? You would not be sent to prison if you ask a question. So what has prevented you from asking the question? But you've got the little lapel flag pin. Right? And the TV. Screen filled up with American flags flying. See, we are patriotic. We are patriotic. But you've thrown down with the wrong people. You haven't just been embedded. You've been in bed with the wrong people. You've listened to those in power and just report their lies as truths....

The majority of our fellow Americans are liberal and progressive when it comes to the issues. That's not just me saying this or wishing it to be true. Every poll shows that the majority of Americans believe in women's rights. The majority of Americans want stronger environmental laws. The majority of Americans want government laws much the majority of Americans are pro-labor. Put down the whole list of issues, Americans, whether they use the label or not, and most Americans don't like labels, but most Americans in their hearts are liberals and progressives. It's just a small minority of people who hate. They hate. They exist in the politics of hate. They don't believe two consenting adults should have the right to be in love and share their lives together and be legally protected by the state for doing so. What would motivate that?

What business is it, anyway, of these people? These, they aren't patriots. They are HATE-triots and they believe in the politics of HATE-riotism. That's where they stand and patriotism is where real Americans stand. And that's the truth....

They keep saying that this is a 50/50 country. This is not a 50/50 country. In their wildest dreams, it's a 50/50 country. Look at all the polls I just, and I've got all the statistics in my book and I cite them all. And these aren't left wing polls. These are Gallup polls and even ABC and CNN polls and they go right down the line and you see where Americans are at. When they, when you hear about this close election, about the 50/50 country, don't forget the key words they always use. In a poll of likely voters. Likely voters. This is how far behind the media is with the times in which we live. They are using an old paradigm. They only poll people who have consistently voted in previous elections. But the other 50% of the country doesn't vote. If they wanted to be honest, they could say it's a 50/50/50 country because they never ask the other 50% how they feel. And I got to tell you, this is what they are in for a big surprise.

Come November 2, the other 50% you can't compare this election to any election before September 11, 2001.

That day and since that day has made average Americans more aware of what's going on in the world. They want to know more about what's going on in the world. They talk politics now. We all know this. Right? At work, you go in the bar, people are talking about politics. Anywhere you go, people talk politics. It's cool now to talk about politics. Right? It's uncool if you don't know what's going on in the world. It's uncool to be apathetic. Now that has not been the case for most of our lives much. Right? If you talked too much politics you were seen as kind of strange and wonkey. Right? But that's not the case. That's why John Stewart is so popular, because people want to talk about politics. They want to hear about it, and that's the big story that the media has missed. That there's been this shift in the country. And who are these 50% who don't vote? Who are they? Are they the wealthy and the privileged?

No. They are the people who have been most hurt by the Bush administration. They are people of color. They are single moms. They are poor. They are working class. They are young people. These are the people most affected by the policies of the Bush administration and they are now talking politics. And they are not apathetic. And I think we are going to see a significant number of them leave the house on November 2 and come out to vote.

I believe we'll have the largest percentage of people voting in our lifetime come November 2! I really, really believe, you don't hear that, though. You won't see that story reported because they are just focusing on likely voters from 1992, 1996 and 2000. And it's a 50/50 country. Like if they just keep repeating it enough, it will be true. It's a 50/50 country. Put your heels together now. It's a 50/50 country.

I got to tell you, I have traveled across this country quite a bit in the last year. It ain't a 50/50 country. People are angry. They want Bush out of the White House. They want to be able to send their kids to college. (applause) They want to be able to go to the doctor. This isn't a 50/50 country. Speak the truth. Come on. Take a real poll. Take a real poll!

A few weeks ago I was flipping around on the dial and I came across a NASCAR Race on FOX and there was NASCAR champion Dale Earnhardt Jr. He said what would you do, what did you do the night before while you were getting prepared for the big race? He said, "Well, I took my crew to go see Fahrenheit 9/11." And then he said, and "I think all of America should see this movie." I fell off the couch! I said a little prayer for George W. Bush. I'm thinking oh, my God, I hope he's not watching this race now and eating pretzels!

Whoa. I thought, man, if the movie has gone that far into middle America, and this is where the country's at, how come we don't know this? How come this isn't being reported? What's wrong here? Well, we have our conventional wisdom and our conventional wisdom tells us that the paradigm that we have been following over the last 20 years is the one we must follow and that's the one we are worried about. Thank you. It doesn't hurt to report the truth. It's ok. You know. I was on a, one of those morning talk shows and after we went to commercial, the person who was interviewing me said you know, you are right, I mean when the war started, it was very difficult here to book the people we wanted to book, ask the questions we wanted to ask. In fact, I got a memo about my tone of voice. And apparently the brass had received a call from the Dick Cheney's office is what – and said that he didn't like my tone of voice. And I got a memo on it to watch my tone of voice. Well you've got to tell that story! You've got to tell that story. I can't. Well why? They can't fire you.

You are like one of the most well-known people in America. And, you know, you've got to tell this story. If you don't tell it, I'm going to wait like maybe another week. What's today? Within the week, I will put this on my web site. I'll tell the whole story and I'll name who said it. So this person is unnoticed now and I am doing it in a friendly way. Because this is a good person. You know? Just that I think the people deserve the truth and they need to know how the decisions get made behind the curtain. Who is pulling the strings here? Who's calling the shots? It's like, coming from where I come from politically, we always are in this place of yeah, the man this and the man that and this corporation and this and that and there's probably a part of us that says oh, you know, it's really, there's, maybe it's not that bad. You want to believe it isn't that bad. You know? And then, they have made the mistake of giving me a peek behind this curtain and I've seen this happen and it's stunning to me, for instance this whole experience with Disney not releasing the film and it's like what? – you know, the film has gone on now to make more money than any Disney film this year.

It shocked me at the time, because the way I have been able to get my work out there over the years is that usually when the media companies, greed always supercedes politics or personal animosity toward me. Oh, I can't stand the guy. Oh, how many books did he sell last week? Well, OK. Print a few more. You know this incredible flaw of capitalism that has always worked in my favor.

You know the old saying that the rich man will sell you the rope to hang yourself with if he can make a dollar off it? That will eventually be their undoing. But this time it didn't happen. This time a film made for a very small amount of money that will now make, you know, at least a quarter billion dollars around the world by the time it's done, the greed didn't motivate them to release this film. I couldn't figure it out for the longest time and it took a Canadian journalist to finally do the story and thank god for the Canadians, you know?... The Canadians really do like us. They just wish we would read a little more and – but it took a Canadian journalist to write that perhaps one of the problems that Mr. Moore had with Disney is the fact that the Saudi world family owns almost 17% of Euro-Disney. And that in 1994, Prince Walid, one of the richest men in the world, and a member of the Saudi Royal Family, wrote Michael Eisner and Disney a check for over $300 million to bail out Euro-Disney. And the people that helped put the thing together to bring the two together was a company called the Carlyle group.

Now my film was already done, you know, but I was like can it get any worse? Are they everywhere? But no journalist will ask Mr. Eisner or Disney the question: Will that have anything to do with the decision because their good friends maybe don't look that good in this movie. But this is what, just a small example of what we have come to expect. But the good news is that things are going to change very soon. And the other side, the unelected side, who occupy our white house, they are not going to go peacefully. They like being in charge with no mandate. All right? They actually believe they could take us to war based on no mandate from the people. And they knew that they had to lie to the people to get them to believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with September 11th and that there were weapons of mass destruction and this, this, and that.

So they aren't going to go without a fight. And believe me, they are better fighters than we are. They have proven themselves; you have to give them their props for that. I mean, they are up at 6:00 in the morning trying to figure out which minority group they are going to screw today. The hate that they eat for breakfast. I mean, our side, we never see 6:00 in the morning unless unless we have been up all night.... So they are going to fight and they are going to smear and they are going to lie and they are going to hate. And we have to get out there and counter that with the truth. We have to get out there and we have to get up and we have to get moving. And we must not stop between now and November 2. No stopping! No stopping! I'm telling you, if we don't do it....

[R]eporters have been asking me while I have been here at the convention, so how do you square the fact, this John Kerry, that he voted for the war? And my answer to them is similar to the answer actually I gave a soldier who stopped me on street a short time back. And he said to me, you know, I was on a ship off Iraq the night of the Oscars and we watched you give your speech. And we booed along with the audience. I was very angry at you for what you said that night but now that I have been there and served my tour in Iraq, what you said was the truth. They sent us there under false pretenses. And he said to me I want to apologize to you for booing at you on that ship. And I said to him, you owe me no apology. It is we, the American people, who need to apologize to you for sending you into harm's way based on a lie. I apologize to you. And I said to him your only crime is that you believed your president. Why would you apologize for believing your Commander in Chief? You are supposed to be able to believe your commander in chief. You are supposed to be able to believe the president.

Because if we don't have that, that basic thing of being able to believe what comes out of the mouth of the president of the United States, my friend, what are we left with? What are we left with if you can't believe anything that's being said from the man who sits in the white house? John Kerry did what 70 to 80% of our fellow Americans did. He believed. And he believed that he was going to do something in a different way, but he believed in the majority of our fellow Americans believe. Do we point our finger at them now? Do you point your finger at your neighbors and your friends who supported the war at the beginning but no longer support it because now 54% of this country believes the war is wrong and never should have been fought? Do you?

Does one in this room sit on your high horse and look down at them? Oh, you supported the war! I didn't! Does anyone in this room have that attitude to your friends and neighbors and family members? Of course not. Of course not. People come to the wrong conclusions at their own speed. And you know what, friends? We are getting better at this. Because during Vietnam it took years before we figured it out. This time, it only took months. It only took a few months before the majority of Americans figured out how wrong this president was.

And that applause is for our fellow Americans, because they will always respond in the right way when given the truth. They will always come from a righteous place when they have the facts and information available to them. As soon as it was made available, as soon as that happened, they create, the shift took place, didn't it. And it's a long way from the 16 months but not that far, really, from those first days of the war. We now are the American majority. Would are with them and they are with us. And this is the American majority that's going to show up on November 2 and remove George W. Bush from the White House. I so believe that.

But it's only going to happen with our hard work and us coming from a good and gentle place with those that we speak to in the coming months. To hold out our hand and say, come on. It's ok. I mean, you should see some of the mail I am getting from Republicans. I love these letters. You know? Because there are good Republicans. And I predict we are going to see Republicans for Kerry movements across the country. Because a lot of people who call themselves Republicans are that way because they, you know, they just don't like the government sticking their hand in the pocket. Right? That's really their big issue. You know. You've got one in your family. Come on. Everyone in here. Right? They just don't like paying their taxes. Do they? Hum? [laughter] ok. But they are good on everything else, aren't they. They believe women should be paid the same as men. Right? They don't believe companies should be dumping crud into the river. Right? They don't believe assault weapons should be made available easily on the streets. They are good on all the other things. They just don't want their hard-earned money taken out of their pocket.

Well, all we got to do is show them how George W. Bush has taken this money from them and from their children and grandchildren. These are the people that are going have to pay off this incredible debt that this war has created. George W. Bush has gone from being the compassionate conservative to the anti-conservative. He doesn't really believe in conservative values. And we need to do that. But here's my plea to the Democrats and to Mr. Kerry. You will not win this election by being weak kneed and wimpy and wishy-washy and lacking the courage of your convictions. The only way this is going to happen is if you stand up forthrightly and say what you believe and push for the liberal progressive agenda that the majority of America already agrees with. If you move to the right, thinking that's how you are going to pick up a few extra votes from that very small sliver of likely voters who haven't made up their mind yet, if you give up the very principles and things that the people in this room and those delegates believe in, to get those few votes over there, you will encourage millions to stay home.

The people who are already feeling disenfranchised who are full of despair and have sunk into their own cynicism believing what's the use? What's the use? You know, if the Democrats move that way, they will in the only energize the base, the base will stay home. I went to one of these meeting of ACT, I forget what it stands for. America coming together, one, two, and they put up on the screen a map of Cleveland, Ohio and they showed a precinct in Cleveland that was 96% African American. 96%. Total vote are turnout in 2000, 13%. You can't get more base of the Democratic Party than African Americans and if you don't have a message that will inspire them to come out on Election Day and tells them with no B.S. and shows them how their life will be better, we will not win this election....

I say this not to rain on the party. We are all in this together. And as they said last night, we have a big tent. And all of us, from conservative democrats to greens who are voting democrat, are all in this tent right now for one common goal. That's to get our white house back in our hands, the majority's.

And a word about Ralph Nader. Yes, the Republicans do love Ralph. I just came from Michigan where Ralph turned in 50,000 signatures. 43,000 of which were gathered by the Michigan Republican party. This is a painful thing to witness, because of the great Americans, Ralph Nader is one of them. His legacy, what's done for this country has been incredible. And what I and others try to explain to Ralph before he decided to run is that you already did your job. The Democratic Party of 2004 is not the Democratic Party of 2000. The threat that you posed in 2000, they got the message. And it was carried on by Howard dean and Dennis Kucinich and others in this year. And they helped push the Democrats toward where the majority of Americans that liberal progressive majority, is at.

You did a great thing and now, they are in a better place. You have to admit that. Even Al Gore of 2004 isn't the Al Gore of 2000. He's moved! And all you have to do, if you think the Democrats this year are the same as the democrats four years ago, ask yourself this question. Do you think john Kerry will ask Bill Clinton not to campaign in Arkansas for him? Hum? I don't think so. So my appeal to the Nader voters, to the greens out there, is that we have a different job to do this year....

I think that when it comes to that day people will know what to do. But I would not have the Democrats spending any time attacking Ralph Nader. All right? That is the wrong way to go. What the Democrats should be doing, and I have heard Kerry say this, is we need to give, we need to give those who are thinking of voting for Ralph Nader, a reason to vote for John Kerry. That is the right answer.

When I was in Cannes with the movie, I showed it to the American students whose were working there. There were about 200 of them. At the end of the movie, I asked them, let me just ask you a question, how many of you are college-aged student, how many of you are thinking for Ralph Nader? Nearly had a lot of them raised their hand. I invited Kerry's daughter, Alexandra, to come and sit in the back. They didn't know she was there. And she witnessed this. And we went out to lunch afterwards and she was shocked. How could they, after watching this movie, for two hours, with the message of the movie that seems to be that Bush must go, that nearly half of them would say they are still considering voting for Ralph Nader?

I think I saw one poll recently that said 12% of 18-25-year-olds are planning on voting for Ralph Nader. And I said to her, I said you have to tell your dad that, you know, because they, some of the kids that gave their reasons and they spoke with all that great honesty that comes out of an 18 or a 19-year old. Right? Because there's [beep] right? When you are 18 and 19. And they call you on it really quickly. I said you need to tell your dad that the way to deal with this is to take the strong stand that needs to be taken. The majority of Americans are already with you. Don't be afraid. Speak out on these issues. Speak out about health care in the right way. Don't put ads on TV that say we will provide health care for nearly all Americans. Don't do that. Stand up for something. Don't be afraid. Don't try to be the hamburger version of the Republican Party. And I think he got that message. And I think that from what I've heard in recent weeks, I got to say this and I've said this to everybody here who's been asking me about the war.

One thing I do know about Kerry, he will not invade a country like George W. Bush did. I believe in my heart of hearts – that this man, because you know, when you have been shot three times and you have been in that situation and you know this – if you have family members whose have been to war, if you have parents who were in World war II, my dad always says to me, he was in the Marines in the south pacific and he said, you know, if you have been there, you never want to see anybody else go there. And you want it to be the last resort. And so in my heart, I trust that when he says that. In closing, I just want to thank you for everything that everyone here has done. We are all in the same boat together....

I am glad these rallies are taking place, because, you know, I don't know how the press will write about these gatherings of these rallies.... This is not a niche of the Democratic Party. The things that the people in this room believe in is where the American public is at. Especially where I believe a large chunk of that 50%, that non-voting public, is at. And it's going to be our job to get them out on November 2 and that's what we are all going to do. Thank you very much for being here. Thank you.

Posted at 12:17 AM

July 28, 2004

In a completely unpredicted development, the delegates of the Democratic National Convention nominated John Kerry as the Democratic candidate for president, voting 4254 to 43. Actually, the only real surprise here was that they didn't twist each others' arms to make it a unanimous vote for Kerry, because that's certainly the message that was to be gleaned from the rest of the convention thus far.

I understand that the Democrats decided early on that they would focus their hopes of one candidate well before the convention, all in the hopes of having longer to gather support, money, and speaking time, but it seems ridiculous to me that the Democratic National Convention seem to be exclusively made to support John Kerry and nobody else. What about the candidates for the Senate and the House of Representatives, let alone the governors and state and local representatives who are running in very important races to change the Republican dominance of both houses of Congress and the National Council of Governors. What does it matter if Kerry and Edwards get elected if the Senate and House, as well as state and local governments, are left to founder and possibly become even more entrenched with Republican dominance? There would be little to nothing that could be accomplished by a Democratic White House if the Democrats don't also hold or increase their numbers in various legislative bodies across the country. It bothers me that the Democrats are so worried about Kerry's ability to face off against Emperor Bush that they throw all interests into a focus on Kerry and Edwards and sacrifice important dialogues that would detail the platform of the Democratic party and dialogues that would exemplify the importance of key races that could give Democrats control of the U.S. Senate as well as other important races. This should be not merely a nominating festival that celebrates the nominee, it should be a celebration of the Democratic party and its values. This, more than just about any other aspect of the Convention, has disappointed me tremendously.

This focus on Kerry, to some extent I think, is part of the cause for so many pundits to claim that the Democratic Convention is almost entirely composed of attacks on Emperor Bush. I would disagree in that I think much has been said of what Kerry would do if elected to office and how he can benefit the country, however every portion of that message carries with it a comparison with the failings of Emperor Bush on the respective issues (whether that comparison is explicit or implicit). It seems a necessary evil to me to frame the strengths of Kerry and the plans of Kerry against the performance and ideas of the incumbent, Emperor Bush. This is why I think that the pundits are (in their capacity as a branch of the conservative press) distorting the tone of the Convention and claiming it to be negative. I do believe, however, that a large part of the problem is what I was expressing earlier, that the Convention has focused solely on Kerry and not of the Democratic platform. If the Convention had focused more on explaining the platform and more on presenting candidates for other important offices, then the positive message of what they have to offer would have been more clear and the comparisons to Emperor Bush, which are seen as negative, would have been minimized.

All of this flies in the face of the fact that the Republicans are waging, as they call it, "a war" against the Democrats by throwing immediate criticism against each and every comment from within the Convention. The practice, for the entire history of political conventions, has been that the opposing party does not campaign and does not try to take away the spotlight from the few focused days allowed the other party. It was always just a common courtesy. That has ended this year, however, as the attack dog policies of the Republicans continue as usual and throw away any concept of decorum or decency. I'm not surprised, but I am certainly disappointed that then Republicans, regardless of how desperate they may be, would stoop so low.

I was quite pleased and impressed by various speeches today. John Edwards was a decent speaker with a natural style, and his "Two Americas" theme still strikes a clear chord with most convention delegates and most Americans. I was very impressed with two earlier speeches, however, the first by Reverend Jesse Jackson and the second by Reverend Al Sharpton.

Jesse Jackson has always impressed me for his tireless fight for equality, but I'll admit that I feel his speeches are hit and miss, sometimes quite good and sometimes not so hot. Today's speech was quite good, quite motivating. He had one line that I thought was particularly well-written since it embodied a thinly-veiled attack on the current administration, a positive vision of hope, and a bit of humor all wrapped together. He said:

"Out of the darkness of the Bushes we see an American eagle arising."

Anyhow, I thought it was a great line.

As much as I liked Jesse Jackson's speech, I was simply overwhelmed by Al Sharpton's speech. He was passionate, powerful, and tremendously inspirational. This speech, in fact, could well be something that I see being quoted from in future years. I jotted down three quotes from Al Sharpton that I found particularly well-written.

"I submit to you, if George Bush had selected the [Supreme] Court in '54 [when Brown vs. Board of Education ended segregation in schools], Clarence Thomas would have never went to law school."

"The issue of government is not to mandate what you can do in the bedroom but to provide for what you need in the kitchen."

"[My mother] taught me that life is not about where you start but where you're going. That's family values."

I encourage you to Google for a copy of the text of Al Sharpton's speech or a link to it. He spoke for about ten to fifteen minutes, but it was a fantastic speech that is well worth hearing.

Tomorrow is mostly Kerry's night to accept the nomination and speak, but I'm looking forward to also seeing Representative Barney Frank speak during prime time.

I've had a migraine all day today and a stiff neck to boot (not to mention a continuing blast of heavy depression that's been hanging on me for weeks), and I'm looking forward to anything that makes me feel more pleasant.

Posted at 12:19 AM

July 27, 2004

It was another interesting day of convention coverage today. Barak Obama's keynote speech was fantastic, even better than any of the major-players who spoke last night, and he was able to truly characterize the things that this country needs and deserves from their government. He was smart, inspiring, and straightforward.

I was further impressed, not long after Obama's speech, when Ron Reagan, Jr. spoke about stem cell research. He is an incredibly natural speaker, even better than his father was, and he could certainly go far in politics if that was his desire. I was impressed not only by his delivery but by his rhetoric. He was careful not to specifically indicted the Republicans for voting against stem cell research, and he was very clear in his descriptions of how stem cells are just a cell culture in a laboratory petrie dish and not in any way close to being a fetus (that being the contention of overzealous anti-abortion activists who haven't really even looked into the issue before shooting off their mouths). Ron Jr. was very smooth and calm, and his speech was well received.

Less than impressive, however, was the closing speech of the day by Theresa Heinz Kerry, wife of presidential nominee John Kerry. Granted, she may be a great match for her husband's incredibly dry, put-me-to-sleep speaking style, but that's hardly a positive attribute. Her speech itself was as dull as could be, but her slow, seemingly-drugged-out delivery was additionally mind-numbingly boring. Two different people earlier in the day had said that she was a truly inspirational speaker, and based on this speech I can't see her even inspiring people to keep their eyes open much less anything else. And who was responsible for dressing her and doing her hair and make-up? She could very clearly have looked much better, but it almost seemed as if she didn't really care - hardly the sort of attitude you want to convey as a potential First Lady -to-be. Maybe it just wasn't a good day for her, or maybe I was expecting too much. Maybe she just came off poorly after following the great speeches from Obama and Reagan. Maybe. Still, I was personally less than impressed.

I'll be interested to see what tomorrow brings.

Posted at 12:45 AM

July 26, 2004

Strangely, many people seem to be dissing or bypassing Al Gore's speech at The Democratic National Convention tonight, and I thought that it was the best speech of the evening. He had humor, even poking fun at himself; he had great delivery, even better than Bill Clinton during his speech; he had substantive issues laid against Emperor Bush; he had substantive personal anecdotes of support for John Kerry; and he had great energy. Why other people don't see it this way is beyond me.

Sure, Jimmy Carter's speech had some good elements, but his delivery of it was dry, and his speech didn't have much passion. Hillary Clinton was cut fairly short, so her comments were hardly anything that could be fairly called a real speech, and Bill Clinton, while he had great points and very positive energy, still didn't seem to have the passion nor the strong delivery that Al Gore displayed.

There's this undertow of anti- Al Gore sentiment from various directions, both from Republicans and Democrats alike, and I just don't get it. I think he should be given much more credit than he has been given, and it's a shame that he is likely to altogether fade from the political forum entirely.

Posted at 12:28 AM

July 25, 2004

I've watched a few tv backgrounds of John Kerry today, giving me a better idea of where he's been and what he's stood for, and I feel much better about supporting him as president. Still, I can't help feeling like he is only the lesser of two evils and not really a great (or maybe not even a good) candidate. I am particularly worried that, if he gets elected, four years won't be enough to turn around the problems created by Emperor Bush in such a way that any tangible improvement will be seen or felt by the American people. If that's the case he will have trouble getting reelected, and the second term is imperative if Kerry and the Democrats are to have enough time to really have time to reverse the madness of George W. and also add in distinct improvement.

Maybe Kerry will be more decisive and strong in office than he is now. Maybe he won't be as worried about alienating certain segments of the population and he'll be a bit more proud of liberal interests, but I largely doubt that. Time will tell, I suppose, and we'll certainly see if he manages to win.

I'll be watching the Democratic Convention closely in the next few days to see what sorts of ideas for change will be proposed. I'll also be looking to see how wimpy Kerry and the Democrats are. If they continue to run away from being called liberal, and if they continue to try to suggest they'll increase the size of the military and such crazy things, then I'll be much more certain that the Democrats have strayed much too far from their traditional platform to be respected. But again, we'll just have to wait and see.

Posted at 12:57 AM

July 24, 2004

I proudly accept the label of "liberal." I'm more liberal than most people, and I am quite proud of it. I do not, however, consider myself a Democrat. Yes, I support the Democrats over the Republicans for the most part, but the Democrats, to me, often seem to wishy-washy when it comes to having a clear position. While the Democrats used to be a semi-liberal party, now they seem to quiver and run whenever anyone suggests they are remotely liberal. They have taken a position as "moderates," hoping that they can retain their former liberal base while drawing in undecided voters or even, in some cases, moderate Republicans. This, I have long felt, is the greatest weakness of the Democratic party.

While the Republicans can be proud of their conservatism, even accepting the most extreme right-wing Christian Fundamentalists as clearly a part of their party, the Democrats cringe whenever they are seen as liberal. It wasn't always this way, but the last 25 years of politics have somehow made the Democratic party fear showing their roots. That truly disappoints me.

As we go into the highly scripted and highly neutral, non-liberal-seeming Democratic Convention, I am combing the front pages and opinion pages of about two and a half dozen major U.S. newspapers online each day. Already I have found one column that expresses similar disdain for the wimpiness of the Democrats to accept being liberal. There will be more articles to be seen, certainly, and I will gladly read them. I would be thrilled to see at least one Democrat enjoy being liberal and proud of it, but I won't hold my breath. It's a darn shame.

Loony Over Labels

As all eyes turn to Boston, where the world's oldest political party meets in con- vention beginning tomorrow evening, the Democrats face both a challenge and an opportunity. They must demonstrate that they have abandoned McGovernite liberal extremism and have restored their party to the mainstream moderate tradition of Harry S. Truman and John F. Kennedy.

Only kidding. Fooled you, though, didn't I? It's true enough that this is a moment when the Democrats are called upon to reject extreme liberalism (whatever that might be) and to embrace moderation. But that is only because every moment is such a moment. The opinion that the Democrats need to foreswear McGovernism and prove their commitment to moderation is one of the very safest in all of punditry. It is sure to be taken out for a spin more than once during this week's Democratic convention.

Extremism versus moderation is a beloved media leitmotif at the Republican convention as well. But there's a difference, at least in tone. It is generally considered enough if the Republicans prevent their nuttier element from actually taking over the convention. The GOP is rarely threatened with oblivion if it fails to stage a public festival of contrition.

And the Republicans are under no pressure to avoid the word "conservative."

By contrast, much of the entertainment at Democratic conventions comes from watching politicians duck and parry as some journalist chases after them like a process server, trying to get them to accept the label "liberal."It is an odd notion that the Democratic Party is about to flicker out and, like Tinker Bell, can be saved only if all the delegates chant, "We do believe in moderation. We do. We do." An especially irritating variant, usually from conservative commentators, holds piously that the Democratic Party must save itself because two parties are essential to democracy or because competition is good for the Republicans.

These themes have reverberated around Democratic conventions since the first post-McGovernite election year of 1976. By now the word "McGovernite," never exactly filled with schismatic drama and romance, must be about as meaningful to the average voter as "Shachtmanite" or "Albigensian." George McGovern, children, was a senator from South Dakota (a region of the upper west side of Manhattan in the geographical mythology of Democratic Party critics) and the Democratic presidential candidate in 1972. He was, and is, a left-liberal. The Republican offering that year was Richard Nixon (with Spiro Agnew for dessert), but it is the Democrats who have been apologizing for their choice ever since.

You would not know from the Democrats' three decades of defensiveness about themselves and the label liberal that the Democratic candidate got more votes than the Republican one in each of the past three presidential elections. Another way of putting this is that the candidate the world labeled a liberal, whether he admitted it or not, got more votes than the candidate who proudly labeled himself a conservative.

Going back to 1976, when self-flagellation first became mandatory for liberals and Democrats, the Democratic presidential candidate got more votes in four out of seven elections. Going back to 1960, the record is six out of 11.

Even if you start counting in 1980 -- the first Reagan election, and a turning point in the history of the universe to many Republicans -- the result is a tie, 3-3.

That ungainly formulation "got more votes" is necessary, obviously, because in 2000 the candidate who got more votes didn't win. Or he did win, but was wrongfully denied the prize. Take your pick.

Republicans and most neutral commentators are very, very tired of this sore-loser stuff about how Al Gore won the election in 2000. But even if you put this entire controversy aside (and I see no reason why you should), there is no disputing the fact that the Democratic candidate in 2000 got more votes. He got more than the Republican, even though that year's third-party pest -- another recent but treasured election-year tradition -- took more votes from the Democrat.

Look for very little mention of the whole 2000 imbroglio this week in Boston. This is partly because that year's Democratic nominee, Al Gore, seems to be undergoing some kind of metamorphosis and is not a popular figure at the moment. It is also because suggesting that the Bush presidency may be illegitimate is itself considered illegitimate. Although Democrats sincerely believe that election was stolen from them, they have been cowed by the successful Republican campaign to make any reference to 2000 seem like bad form.

However, it is one thing to shut up about cheating. It is another to pretend that George W. Bush is president today because he got the most votes. And yet the Democrats-must-abandon-extremism story line is so ingrained that professional commentators and freelance scolds often give 2000 the same will-they-never-learn treatment they use to explain the Democratic losses of 1980 and 1988.

Sure, it might have made the crucial difference if Gore had been just a bit more moderate in this or that, or if voters watching the Democratic convention had heard yet another heartfelt assurance that the party had learned its lesson and had written "I will not be McGovernite" on the board a thousand more times. But the party that gets the most votes is not "out of the mainstream," whether getting the most votes is enough to win the election or not.

Posted at 12:52 AM

July 23, 2004

Mmmm ... black bean soup ...

I took my grandma out to lunch today after taking her to a doctor's appointment (and before driving her to her hair appointment ... yes, the fun never ends, as evidenced by these "exciting" appointments). We went to Berardi's a locally owned family restaurant with wonderful food. the Berardi's are famous locally for their food, having been the original vendors of the renowned wide-cut flavored french fries at Cedar Point. After Cedar Point bought out all of the vendors at the park in the late '70s, the Berardi's focused on restaurants in the area with great, home-cooked food.

It's always fabulous food, and I haven't been there in a while. I had a bowl of black bean soup that was incredibly wonderful, and I had a great chicken sandwich with some of the wonderful family-recipe french fries. It was quite delightful. It's sad, in a way, that I find my greatest pleasure in food lately, but that's largely the truth. That has its dangers, of course, because I don't want to eat so much as to become huge, and it's something I have to struggle against. Still, any pleasure is far better than none, and lunch today was quite fulfilling.

Posted at 2:11 AM

July 22, 2004

Mecha-lecha-hi, mecha-hiney-ho!
Mecha-lecha-hi, mecha-chonney-ho!

Come on, Jomby, I know I still have one wish left for the day ...

... if only it were that easy ...

Posted at 1:49 AM

July 21, 2004

I talked to Christiana on the phone tonight for the first time in a couple of weeks. I haven't talked to her for a while, partly because I wasn't around when she called me or she wasn't around when I called her, but also, largely, because I have been rather depressed and, potentially, depressing, so I decided to sit in silence rather than bemoan my sadness to Christiana. I finally decided to call tonight, however, just for a little while, so that she would know I wasn't avoiding her or anything like that.

We spoke for quite a while, contrary to what I had originally felt would be quite a short call, and our talk made me less conscious of my depression as we talked about various current events and politics and traded thoughts about the coming election, the Scott Peterson case, and the death of the Frugal Gourmet, among other varied topics. I actually became much more relaxed and talkative as we went along - that is until Christiana decided to tell me how to live my life.

It's not an unusual thing for Christiana to do, but she has become very determined that she will force me to tell my family that I'm gay and to tell them that my father sexually molested me as a child. I continue to contend that I want to do both of these things in my own time, and that I want to be in a position where I'm prepared to deal with the inevitable fallout. When I was outted as gay by Sam, a former coworker in Toledo, immediately after I moved to Lafayette for my first management job with Kinko's, I dealt with the problems but it was difficult. I had been coming out to certain friends, individually and in controlled circumstances, and I'd had very positive results. When Sam outted me to everyone I was left with a mess among my friends who didn't understand or accept things, and it took me months to smooth things over (and for two certain friends it took two years before things were smoothed over). Once I had moved to Lafayette I had been much more open about my sexuality, both at work and with friends - even with strangers - but broaching the topic with long-held acquaintances proved terribly difficult in the aftermath of being outted when I hadn't been able to approach the situation properly. I feel (and have felt) that the situation has been the same with my family. I have, in fact, approached telling various family members at certain points, but have decided to wait based on something they have said or done just before I was to tell them. I will come out to my family, but in my own time and in my own way, not just because Christiana wants me to because she thinks it will "Make me feel better." Blindly coming out when I'm not ready to deal with it will in no way end up making me feel better. I have tried to get this across to Christiana, but she doesn't understand. Still, I am patient with her arguments and her insistence because I know that she only means well. Still, she just won't let up on the subject once she gets going, and I end up getting frustrated.

In the same spirit Christiana feels that I should confront my whole family with my father's sexual abuse of me as a child. She feels certain that this, too, will make me "Feel better," regardless of the fact that telling what has happened won't change the past or, really, change the present. My mother, if she is even willing to believe me, will undoubtedly still stay with my father in marriage and still love and care for him, something that I know would be quite hurtful to me, but I also have no doubts that this would be the way things would happen. My father, whom I have been happy to avoid and dismiss from existence, would suffer no criminal penalties and, knowing him, would suffer no shame for his actions. And really, what would be gained from such a declaration except conflicted feelings within the family not only towards me and my father but also toward my caretakership of my grandmother, who would be devastated my the knowledge of what had happened. There will certainly be a time when I will speak of these things, but again - it will be a time of my choosing, when I can feel stable and secure enough to handle the fallout of the situation, a time when I might truly feel not necessarily "better", but at least 'alright.' Christiana, unfortunately, has no patience for me wanting to lead my own life, and she feels determined to badger me into opening up a huge can of worms at a time when I'm not truly ready to deal with it.

Our conversation had become strained enough with Christiana making these same old demands without remittance, but when she began to tell me, basically, what she "knew" that I was feeling and thinking, I had become quite frustrated and tired. I kept my cool and tried to maintain a decent dialogue, but Christiana was unwilling to listen to what I had to say. She believed that when I disagreed with what she claimed I "felt", that I wasn't listening to what she was saying. I was listening, alright, but I disagreed. Heaven forbid I wouldn't feel what she believed I was feeling. How horrible of me to make clear that her beliefs of what I was feeling, thinking, or doing were wrong. Surely I should have just changed myself to fit what she expected - not!

As I said, I continued to try to keep a civil dialogue, but Christiana apparently didn't like me disagreeing with her, so she made a curt, angry goodbye and that was the end of her call. So now, a couple of hours later, I'm still thinking of all of this, still feeling wronged, and knowing quite certainly that Christiana will avoid me for weeks, if not months, in her perceived-self-righteous indignation. For my part, I will be only too happy to accommodate her.

Posted Written at 2:26 AM

July 20, 2004

Ha-ha, you fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is never get involved in a land-war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this --

Yeah, yeah ... 'never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line' ... right ... why couldn't you give me some useful advice like how to be happy or at least not be miserable?

Posted at 12:08 AM

July 19, 2004

Well, the tv repair may not be as bad as I'd feared. After the shock of actually having a tv repairman come to the house (in this age of universally poor and minimal service that we live in), I was pleased to hear that the repairman thought that the problem was likely a burnt-out board that transfers current to the picture tube, something he says is a common problem with this model. He has ordered the part and should be back to finish repairs by Wednesday (which is great), and the price, while it sounds costly, certainly won't be as bad as buying a new 32" console tv.

The other big event of the day (and I'm leaving out a lot of smaller events of minor significance) was getting new testing and fitting for the replacement to my grandma's lost hearing aid. The warranty actually covers simple loss, so a new $3100 replacement digital hearing aid (just for the one ear - the original set cost $6200) only cost a $200 deductible today. That's a huge plus. Even better, we paid an additional $50 based on a suggestion of upgrading the replacement to have an additional feature that wasn't on the original, a button that adjusts the hearing aid to work with a telephone. My grandma has had a consistent problem with her hearing aids that she has to take them out when answering the phone because she will otherwise get feedback from the hearing aid. With this new feature, she simply presses a button on the hearing aid, while it's still in her ear, and it adjusts for the phone without her having to remove it. Considering the one hearing aid was lost because she took out the hearing aid to answer the phone, setting it down where it is never to be found again, this new feature should hopefully stop any similar incidents in the future.

It was pretty much a nothing day for me, but I got these and a number of other things done for my grandma, so there has been some sense of fulfillment. I have lots of stuff that I need to get done for myself and little of it getting accomplished, and that is quite frustrating, but I'll have to do what I can do when I can do it, and a lot of these things for my grandma have to come first.

Posted Written at 1:58 AM

July 18, 2004

Since I haven't said it in a while, and since it's still true, let me share today's mantra:

Life sucks, and then it sucks some more.

Doesn't that say it all?

Posted at 12:52 AM

July 17, 2004

Today brought some bad news to my grandma and, by extension, to me as well. We were fine until dinner time - well, I was depressed, but that actually was still an improvement over the raging and changing emotions I've been going through during the past couple of days, so when I say I was "fine," I use the term relatively.

Anyhow, as we were finishing dinner, the phone rang, and my grandma spoke to the person on the other end for quite a while. It turns out that the call was from Mary, my grandmother's closest friend. Mary swims with my grandma at the YMCA, goes to church with my grandma, and shares time going out to lunch, movies, and shopping with my grandma. Unfortunately, that is about to end. Mary is moving to Columbus where she'll be nearer to two of her three children and where she will have her family around to help her out. Mary is nearly ten years younger than my grandma, and she is much more active and energetic than my grandma, but she's decided that she should be better prepared to be helped as she ages. Inevitably this will all be much better for her, but it will suck for my grandma.

As my grandma has grown older, most of her friends have died. Nearly all of the others who remain are in rest homes. Mary was pretty much the one holdout of my grandma's friends, and she was someone for my grandma to talk to and spend time with. It was particularly good that my grandma had Mary so that she could get out of the house more often. Now, with Mary leaving, my grandma will become pretty much entirely dependent upon me for conversation and entertainment. Whereas Mary still drives and would take my grandma here and there with her, now I will be the only one who my grandma can count on to drive her anywhere. It's going to place much more demands upon me, but Inevitably it will also mean that my grandma will get out less frequently as time goes on, particularly during the school year.

As if that alone hadn't been disappointing enough for my grandma, her main television lost its picture tonight. My grandmother spends a lot of time watching tv, and she spends a lot of time dozing/napping in front of the tv as well. She has a small tv in her bedroom, but she uses the larger tv in her living room much more often. It's a 32" color console set that's about eight years old, and while it was still broadcasting a clear sound signal, there wasn't anything at all to be seen in the main picture tube. I made some tests with her tv and VCR, and the problem is clearly with her tv. My best bet is that the picture tube is blown, although it seems odd since that tv isn't really that old. One way or the other, finding out what is wrong will be a pain in the ass; replacing the tv (if it comes to that) will be a pain in the ass; and listening to my grandma bitch about it constantly throughout each day until its fixed or replaced will be an incredible pain. I'll be sure to get this problem sorted out as soon as possible, believe me, but it won't be any fun for either my grandma or me until there's a working tv in her living room.

I guess in the big scheme of things these are both small problems, but for my grandma they have a tremendous negative impact upon the entire way she lives her life. That, in turn, will have a huge impact upon the entire way I live my life. Oh joy.

Posted at 11:48 PM

July 16, 2004

It's been another moody day, and I've been set off time and again by people, my grandma mostly, to the point that I've had headaches and gotten weak. Some days, like today, my grandma is really just a bitch: criticizing my driving without cause, complaining about things that happened thirty years ago as if I can change them, telling me I don't know what I'm talking about when I have actual documentation in my hand (the recent "I had $13000 deposited in my checking account from my money market and now it's gone"-incident which was a complete fabrication of her tendency to worry about everything, even after I had showed her the last three months of statements of both her checking and money market accounts). Some of these bad days with my grandma come from days where her memory is particularly bad and she gets some worry stuck in her mind to such an extent that she won't use any reason or common sense and she becomes so obsessed that she doesn't even pay attention to anything I say. She'll even admit these things to me, and that just irritates me all the more. I can accept the memory problem as something that she doesn't like any better than me, and I can see how it isn't her fault, but she admits to not paying attention to what I say and to not really thinking about what she says. That, to me, is just rude and mean-spirited. I try to be accepting because, to some extent, these are the kinds of failings that many older people suffer. The problem is that on days that I'm really depressed, she can upset me like you wouldn't believe, and she just keeps goading me and goading me when all I want is to be alone. It sucks, and it has caused a number of ugly confrontations for both of us recently. I don't have the patience for days like this, and I simply must figure out a way to diffuse or avoid these types of situations.

On the plus side, the season premiere of Stargate SG-1 was repeated tonight (and I'm still just saying, "Wow! That was just so incredibly beyond anything I expected."), and I had a great time watching that again. Following that repeat was the series premiere of the new spin-off of the series, Stargate Atlantis. I have mixed feelings about the new series. I like the cast of characters they've presented, and there has been a whole panoply of enemies and troubles developed for the cast to face for some time to come. The special effects, as usual with SciFi projects, is fantastic, and the technical/science-fiction concepts were exceptionally well thought-out. Even the typical humor I've come to love from the original series seems to be embedded in the new. With all of that said, however, I felt like my suspension of disbelief was being pushed a bit too far in certain situations. The initial launch of the entire project, in fact, seems unrealistic based on the decisions we've seen in the original series. The new team has little doubt that they will be going into an unknown place in a distant galaxy with no likely chance of ever returning to Earth, and they will end up using the only alien power-source they posses on earth, even though that power-source is the only thing that can power the alien weapon that is Earth's only defense against its own enemies. It just seems far too unlikely a choice. But... we'll let that slide. My next problem was the new set of Atlantis. It just looks sort of fake. Yes, it's supposed to look "alien", but it doesn't seem as realistic as every other world that we've seen on the original series. And the new enemies, the "Wraith", seem a little over-the-top in the make-up aspect, just (once again) seeming quite unrealistic. Maybe that's okay since they're supposed to be so far removed from what we know in our reality, but it just struck me as a bit "off".

One way or another, I think my displeasure with certain aspects of the new series will be overcome. One problem in any new series, even a spinoff, is that the first episode (and even the first few) will invariably be sort of an introduction to the who, what and where of the show as well as a set-up for what you should expect (or at least what you should expect to wonder about). Even the best sci-fi shows suffer through this "getting you acquainted" situation, all while the cast needs to learn who their character is and how they relate to each other. With that in mind, the new series shows tremendous promise, and I look forward to seeing how things play out. I'm notably more excited about Stargate SG-1, but Stargate: Atlantis will certainly be keeping my attention for quite some time.

Posted at 1:11 AM

July 15, 2004

Meh.

Posted at 11:44 PM

July 14, 2004

Welcome to my schizophrenic world, where I switch from one overpowering emotion to another like a raving lunatic.

The day started out innocently enough, getting up and getting myself together so that I could drive my grandma to the YMCA for her aquarobics class. I made sure that she had a ride from one of her classmates to get her to lunch and then home because I wouldn't be able to pick her up - I would be out of town.

That simple beginning to the day went fine, and when I returned to the house I had an even more pleasant treat in the form of my new Airport Express devices from Apple, both of which had arrived this morning after just having left Taiwan yesterday (I've been tracking them). Nearly two months ago I bought a new telephone for my grandmother to replace her old and problematic phone/answering machine that barely worked in any useful manner any longer. The new phone had a digital answering machine that worked much better and had a time/date stamp, and the phone itself had much better volume control and audio clarity, helping my hearing-deficient grandmother wonderfully. She was (and continues to be) thrilled with this new phone. The problem involves the fact that this new phone is a 2.4 GHz device, having much better range and reception than older model cordless phones. I have yet to understand why, but this phone causes constant interference with my wireless internet through Airport Extreme. I have had a 2.4 GHz cordless phone myself for a few years, and while it does cause signal degradation and even signal loss on my wireless internet access, it only does so when I'm actually using it. This new phone of my grandmothers causes constant signal degradation, even when it's not in use and just charging. The end-result is that my broadcast area has shrunk and that has been rather frustrating. About a month ago Apple premiered the Airport Express, a small wireless broadcast device that also allowed for creating a wireless connection to a home stereo. My interest was in the possibility of using the device to extend the range of my Airport base station, however, putting one of the new devices in my bedroom and one in my living room. Now they're here, and the resulting signal strength is wonderful. I'm getting better signal strength than ever in certain areas, and I have none of the degradation I've experienced since the new phone came into the picture. So once again Apple came to the rescue, even in a timely manner, and I couldn't be happier.

Having geeked out on the new technology, I got myself together and headed out, gassing up the car and grabbing some food for lunch on the road. The trip to Bowling Green was relaxing. I hadn't realized how little music I've been listening to, and having and hour or so of driving to listen to songs from my iPod was very enjoyable. I didn't even mind the moderate construction around Fremont (although it seems to me that they should be done by now, after over three months simply resurfacing a one-mile stretch of highway), and I didn't mind the single-lane traffic on the one bridge that's being rebuilt. I did mind the construction in Bowling Green, an omnipresent mess that envelops a huge part of the city (the entire part containing the campus). What made my blood boil is not the mess and confusion, not the fact that the amount of progress over a four month period is negligible to the naked eye, and not that it looks like the construction will almost surely continue through most of the school year (although all of that did bother me). No, what truly irritated me about the whole situation is to see that for all of the mess and slow-progress and for all of the trees that were felled, they are adding only one lane. Previously there had been three lanes: one lane each way plus a "suicide lane" for turning in either direction. My understanding was that there would be five lanes: two in each direction and a turn lane, but that apparently is wrong. There will now just be two lanes going each way, and not even extra lanes for turning at major intersections. For all of this time, expense, and hassle, the end-result is not going to have been remotely worth it. It just makes me crazy to see such an inane situation. There is clearly enough room for an additional lane, extra space that has already been dug up in the process of laying new sewer lines, and there is no reason that there shouldn't be a useful creation out of this project. It just defies all common sense.

Regardless of the construction mess, I turned in the new batch of financial aid paperwork that was required of me, and I dropped off a "Hello" note to Phil since I hadn't caught him in his office.

As I drove back to Sandusky I tried calling Christiana and Sarah, but neither of them were home. I would have enjoyed a nice long talk with either or both of them, but I ended up listening to more music, and that was nice in its own way. I got a bit depressed, though, having time to think and feeling sort of lonely. I haven't quite escaped this last bout of depression, and it comes back strong at times, and today was no exception.

Once I was back in Sandusky, and before I fixed dinner, I found out that the Senate had voted on the Federal Marriage Amendment's procedural vote and had failed to get even a simple majority, failing 48-50. I was pleased to see that 45 Democrats, 6 Republicans, and the 1 Independent voted against the measure, and I was not surprised by the 3 Democrats who voted for it (knowing their past records of voting), but I was truly indignant that two Democrats, John Kerry and John Edwards, the presidential and vice-presidential nominees, were the only two members of the senate not to vote. Apparently taking a stand for the rights of a minority isn't important enough for them, even though it was for every other Senator. It pisses me off to no end that these two schmucks are trying to play some political game of being able to claim they didn't vote against the FMA but that they would have, hoping to please people on both sides of the issue. As far as I'm concerned all they have done is proven to both sides that they don't hold the values either conservatives or liberals expect and demand. I doubt that I will ever be able to muster any respect or appreciation for Kerry-Edwards, regardless of what they might do in office, assuming that they even get elected. I hate to say it, but even as much as I want Bush out of office, I don't want Kerry in. And I don't think I'm alone in this feeling. It's amazing to me that the Democrats can screw up an election where it was clear that "anybody other than Bush" was all that was required. It should have been that simple, but in attempting to please everyone and upset no one, Kerry is failing to satisfy any potential voters, and that could well be his undoing. I guess we'll see.

Anyhow, that's my day on the emotional roller coaster. There's more, really, but those emotional shifts are minor and inconsequential (not to say that this stuff isn't probably inconsequential as well). But I'm pretty fucking tried now. Rolling through so many strong emotions is exhausting, and I'm pretty much done for the day.

Posted Written at 12:49 AM

July 13, 2004

The Republican leaders of the Senate now realize and admit that the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment cannot possibly be passed and may not even have a majority of votes. Yet rather than move on, as they do with countless other bills in similar situations, they plan to continue forward to hold voting in the hopes of setting up an ideological war between those who support the amendment and those who don't, emphasizing (they hope) the divide between conservatives and liberals. Of course it's not so simple considering Republicans are on both sides of this issue in the Senate, but the Republicans will clearly try to get the religious right fired up against the Democrats who by-and-large will be the main voting block against the FMA.

These sorts of tactics, as well as the FMA itself, have aggravated me beyond rational thought for months, but now I may actually be even more pissed off to learn that John Kerry and John Edwards don't even plan to go to Washington to cast their votes on this issue. It's seen as "politically convenient" not to be forced to chose one side or the other in a vote, but by avoiding voting against such discriminatory legislation, they are both sending a clear message that the rights and liberties of gay Americans really just don't matter to them at all. They could make a stand and make clear that this sort of gay-bashing tactic is wrong and meant to be fought, but instead they choose to send the message that gay people aren't worth the time it would take to fly to Washington and take a few minutes to cast their votes on import nat legislation.

Of course it now goes beyond the words of Emperor Bush and the battleground of the Senate, and the Republican leaders of the House of Representatives plan to have arguments leading to a debate just before the November elections. In the House, where the Republicans hold a clear majority, the FMA could very likely pass, and the Republicans could not only try to paint the Democrats as "anti-family" (whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean), but they can also send the bill to the Senate once again, leading to even more debate right at the time of elections.

All of this is meant to be polarizing politics, trying to bring forth the masse of the Christian Coalition and the Religious Right to swell the masses of those who would vote Republican in the fall. It's evil, I tell you - purely evil. Remember this in November. Send a clear message to the Republicans and VOTE THEIR ASSES OUT OF OFFICE. That way Washington will be notably less evil.

Same-sex marriage ban divides Senate GOP

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Short on votes and beset by internal divisions, Senate Republicans struggled Tuesday to salvage a respectable defeat for a constitutional amendment that would effectively ban same-sex marriages, an issue that President Bush pushed toward the top of the election-year agenda.

"This issue is not going away," Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said in a virtual concession that the measure would fall short of the 60 votes needed to advance past a Wednesday test vote. "Will it be back? Absolutely, yes," he added.

Democrats, many of whom oppose the measure, took delight in the internal Republican woes, and Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois read aloud from a recent statement on the issue by Lynne Cheney, wife of the vice president. "When it comes to conferring legal status on relationships, that is a matter that should be left to the states," he quoted her as saying.

The emotionally charged proposal, backed by the president and many conservatives, provides that marriage within the United States "shall consist only of a man and a woman."

A second sentence says that neither the federal nor any state constitution "shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

Some critics argue that the effect of that provision would be to ban civil unions, and its inclusion in the amendment has complicated efforts by GOP leaders to gain support from wavering Republicans.

While there was no disagreement that the measure would fall short of the 60 votes needed to advance, Republicans held out hope they could gain a majority.

Even that seemed in doubt, although their chances improved when an aide to Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts said he and vice presidential running mate Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina did not intend to return to the Capitol for what amounted to a procedural vote. Both men oppose the amendment.

The Senate moved toward a showdown as House Republicans pursued a different plan -- seeking to pass legislation rather than an amendment.

The House Judiciary Committee scheduled a meeting for Wednesday on a measure to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over a 1996 federal law that defined marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

Bush urged the Republican-controlled Congress last February to approve a constitutional amendment, saying it was needed to stop judges from changing the definition of the "most enduring human institution."

The odds have never favored passage in the current Congress, in part because many conservatives are hesitant to overrule state prerogatives in the area of issues such as marriage.

But Republican strategists hope to force Democrats to choose between voting the wishes of their liberal constituents, some of whom favor same-sex marriage, or in favor of an amendment that polls show is favored by a heavy majority of the country.

"They want to put senators on the spot. Ads will be running. Trust me," said Durbin, who added that the Republicans were trying to "change the subject" of the election away from the war in Iraq and the economy.

In a string of speeches during the day, Republicans said their motivation was the defense of marriage, the well-being of children and a desire to prevent unelected judges from amending the constitution from the bench.

"There is a master plan out there from those who want to destroy the institution of marriage to, first of all, begin to take this issue in a few select courts throughout this country at the state level," said Republican Sen. Wayne Allard of Colorado.

Pointing to rulings in Vermont and Massachusetts, he said that "once they get their favorable rulings from activist judges ... they want to take it to the federal courts and they'll eventually move it to the Supreme Court."

In a strongly worded speech, Republican Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania said some criticism runs along these lines: "Marriage is hate. Marriage is a stain. Marriage is an evil thing. That's what we hear. People who stand for traditional marriage are haters, they're bashers, they're mean-spirited, they're intolerant. ... Well, we're not."

Several Republican senators have argued in private meetings in recent days that their leaders are making a political mistake by trying to force the amendment to a vote. One lawmaker said there were fresh expressions of concern at a weekly closed-door meeting during the day.

At the same time, several aides said Santorum and Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon both urged fellow Republicans to support the measure on the test vote, depicting it as an issue of loyalty to the GOP leaders.

Smith has been among Republicans expressing concern about the amendment as drafted, saying he prefers a simpler one-sentence version. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, citing the confidentiality of the discussions.

Under the Constitution, it takes a two-thirds vote by both houses of Congress to submit an amendment to the states. Approval by three-fourths of the state legislatures is required to complete ratification.

Gay Marriage Amendment Battle Now Focuses On Houseby Doreen Brandt

(Washington) With the Senate set to deliver George W. Bush a serious defeat and potential embarrassment over the Federal Marriage Amendment the Republican in the House say they are continuing to move ahead on the issue that would insert a ban on gay marriage in the Constitution.

GOP Supporters of the proposed amendment are setting their eyes on a vote just prior to the November election.

In the meantime, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) is pushing two pieces of legislation that would strengthen the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
One bill would prevent the Supreme Court from hearing challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act. The other would stop the District of Columbia from recognizing gay marriages performed in other states.

"If DeLay has his way, no federal court would ever be able to review one of the most important laws affecting the rights of married couples and their families," the American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement Tuesday.

"DeLay and Republican leaders do not understand the word "no." They are now considering a proposal that would take away the right of the District of Columbia and its 600,000 residents to make their own decision on whether to recognize the marriages of gay and lesbian couples married in other states. If his proposal passes, Congress would be forcing discriminatory marriage policy on to the District of Columbia."

Earlier Tuesday, Republicans in the Senate admitted that they do not have the votes to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Despite prodding from President Bush the GOP is deeply divided on the amendment and it is likely to die over procedural issues on Wednesday.

But, that may not be last of the amendment if it gains support in the House. Should the amendment pass the House, a companion bill could be reintroduced in the Senate. The same scenario could also occur if DeLay's bills make through committee and passage.

The Human Rights Campaign Tuesday warned that even though the amendment appear likely to fail, gays should not abandon lobbying.

"The larger the margin the clearer the message will be that the politics of discrimination will fail," HRC spokesperson Steven Fisher told 365Gay.com.

Fisher said that a resounding defeat in the Senate would also send a message to the House leadership.

Posted at 12:22 AM

July 12, 2004

Emperor Bush yet again reveals his true colors: bigotry, self-righteousness, deception, and the predilection to throw blame onto somebody else for something he has done. While these traits apply to so many issues that currently face the nation and various political roundtables, in this case I refer to the Shrub's treatment of African-Americans, specifically apparent in his repeated annual refusal to attend the NAACP's national convention. This year he not only claimed he had "scheduling problems" as he has every year during his term in office, but he changed from that excuse within a day and claimed he would not attend because the NAACP had spoken unfavorable comments about him. Boo hoo! Poor baby!

The NAACP has every reason to decry Bush's tendency to ignore and mistreat the black community, and I can only hope that the people of America will see this ugly example of Bush's "inclusive", "compassionate conservatism" as a clear example of who he truly is and what he truly represents. This country where "all men are created equal" does not deserve such a low-life to hold any political office, let alone the highest position in the land. Make your vote against this bigot ring loud and clear. Go home, Dubbya. You do not represent what this country is about.

NAACP exhorts voters to oust Bush

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (AP) -- NAACP chairman Julian Bond urged members of the nation's oldest civil rights organization to increase voter turnout to oust President Bush, and condemned the administration's policies on education, the economy and the war in Iraq.

"They preach racial neutrality and practice racial division," Bond said Sunday night in the 95th annual convention's keynote address. "They've tried to patch the leaky economy and every other domestic problem with duct tape and plastic sheets. They write a new constitution of Iraq and they ignore the Constitution here at home."

Volunteers with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People have been working on voter drives in black communities across the country, registering more than 100,000 so far in 11 key states, including Georgia, Florida, Tennessee and New Mexico, Bond said.

Bond, a leader in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee during the 1960s civil rights movement and a Georgia legislator for 20 years, became chairman of the NAACP in 1998.

Leaders of the Baltimore-based group are upset that President Bush has no plans to attend the convention. Bush spoke at the 2000 NAACP convention when he was a candidate but has declined invitations to speak in each year of his presidency, making him the first president since the 1930s to skip it, officials said.

Democratic challenger John Kerry has accepted an invitation to speak Thursday on the final day of the convention, the group said.

Bond said that 50 years after Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on school desegregation, and 40 years after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, schools remain segregated based on income, and racism still exists in many forms.

Minority children still face inequality in school spending and are being disproportionately hurt by the accountability aims of Bush's No Child Left Behind Act, he said.

"On our present course, we are formalizing two school systems: one filled with middle-class children, most of them white, and the other filled with low-income minorities," Bond said.

Posted at 12:27 AM

July 11, 2004

Edward R. Murrow, the progenitor of responsibility, accuracy, and factual neutrality in modern journalism, is surely rolling over constantly in his grave these days. Sadly, facts supposedly don't sell newspapers or make decent tv ratings, so making things more "exciting" or more biased are top priority, even when there are no facts to bear out the story (in fact, even when the facts clearly point in exactly the opposite direction. Don't believe everything you read, but read enough to be able to determine the truth for yourself. The media, as this column from the Baltimore Sun states, will rarely be helpful in giving you unbiased, factual information.

Audiences look