the kindly planner

What the hell is a subdivision?

2006-04-28T12:27:00.000-04:00

So, hanging on posts and in big windows around Ithaca are announcements for town meetings regarding the creation of 'subdivisions,' which in this case is a big square brick/aluminum downtown building that will be divided into privately owned spaces for operating businesses and offices and retail locations. It turns out that you can actually go and object, discuss, suggest. The subdivision in question is a new building across the street from the Holiday Inn, so I don't really have much of a bone to pick, however, I'm going to keep my eyes peeled for more sinister subdivisions from now on. Did you know that they even met publicly to decide land usage? How come nobody told me this? As far as I'm concerned, governance is at least 50% a matter of geography and architecture, and it's time to pay attention. This could prove more important than voting in the next century.

Always with an eye to utopia and dystopia and the concrete imagination,
Yours,
The lyrical Paul Buchholz

2005-09-23T23:17:00.000-04:00

So here's my two cents on tragedy, Katrina, and two-party politics, in a nutshell:

what the hell kind of name is Trent Lott, anyway? Doesn't it say a lot about our country that we vote a man with that name into office?

That said, it hardly stands to reason that Republicans are, by definition, Presidential underlings incapable of independent rational thought. And even if they are, there are certainly people who take such pride in their "bleeding heart" label that its been a while since they paused to consider what their hearts were bleeding for, apart from angst at Republicans.

WHAT IN GODS NAME HAPPENED TO CRITICAL THINKING?

Maybe its a good thing I'm a history teacher.

The poor, the king and a rebuttal

2005-09-23T10:23:00.000-04:00

I'm not sure how Hoya Kevin can claim that Roberts is a moderate nominee. The man did not answer any questions, and has not made any decisions in his time as a judge (wow a whole two years) regarding any of the contentious topics. President Bush's refusal to deliver a number of documents and his rush to cover up a number of other documents released seems to suggest that Roberts has something up his sleeve that isn't so middle of the road.

I would like to point out that just because the Republicans control everything doesn’t mean that the Republicans know what is best for the country, case in point Hurricane Katrina. It is unfortunate, for example, that Republicans control congress when it comes to relief efforts. The democrats would like to cut the latest round of tax cuts for upper class Americans, which are not yet permanent, a cut which would provide congress with the 70 billion dollars to cover their expenditures on the hurricane. Yet, Tom Delay feels that removing these tax cuts would be analogous to raising taxes for the rich. What the hell is the matter with these people? I guess if they don’t continue the tax cuts, Trent Lott won’t be able to add a fifteenth room onto his soon to be rebuilt beach house. In any case, the Democrats are here to ensure that the President and his party do not turn this country into a monarchy supported by yes men, which is what I consider the Republican party to be. I don’t agree with Patrick Leahy for voting for Judge Roberts, but at least he has the courage to break from his party and vote what he thinks, even if he gave no logical reason as to why he did so.

I am unconvinced that the Republicans have done anything positive for this nation in the past two or three years. These are people who are solely interested in maintaining power and wealth, even at the cost of making life worse for the majority of the poor individuals who vote for them based on their social value system. Like they always say, I may be a bleeding heart, but at least I have one.

If you are interested in how the Republicans want to pay for Katrina check out Morning Edition on NPR, Wednesday, September 21, “Congress Hammers out Reconstruction Package.” Be certain it has something to do with making the education system even less

Foreign Affairs

2005-09-23T09:24:00.000-04:00

A couple replies to the Foreign Affairs article posted yesterday, September 22. Ken Pollack seems to make several logically iffy assertions in this essay. Here are a few.

After the more immediate danger posed by Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network has been dealt with, the Bush administration should indeed turn its attention to Baghdad. What it should do at that point, however, is pursue the one strategy that offers a way out of the impasse. The United States should invade Iraq, eliminate the present regime, and pave the way for a successor prepared to abide by its international commitments and live in peace with its neighbors. [Emphasis mine]

Al Qaeda has been dealt with?! Whoo, that's a releif! Make sure we tell the people of Tunisia, Indonesia, Kenya, Morocco, Turkey, Spain, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, and England that we've completely eradicated Al Qaeda's terrorist threat, because I'm sure they'd be glad to hear it. For those of you without the time to peruse each article, here is a concise timeline of events that prove Pollack wrong on this count. Further, there is a direct link between the motivation of the 7/7 London bombings and the Iraq war. Once again, this does not mean that the war should end tomorrow, but rather that a more prudent plan may have been advisable. Pollack himself seems to acknowledge this:

Hawks are wrong to think the problem is desperately urgent or connected to terrorism, but right to see the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein as so worrisome that it requires drastic action. [Emphasis mine]

At any rate, the war in Iraq has done nothing to reduce the risk of terrorism to the U.S. (if anything, it serves as a breeding/training ground for new terrorist acts), and has compromised the nation's ability to defend itself from other crises as well (Hurricane Katrina comes to mind). Perhaps unilateral action was a bit too hasty, hmm?

At any rate, I can't afford the $5.95 to get through the rest of Pollack's defense of the Iraq war. But in the first five hundred words, he fails to assuage my concerns.

Fulla crap?

2005-09-22T23:35:00.000-04:00

Larry Summers provoked a huge controversy back in the spring for his talk about "innate gender difference. I think the discussions it provoked (or at least many of the ones I overheard) were ignorant, based on hearsay and appallingly overblown (this isnt to say that Summers isnt a moron). But I know that I had a mother who was desperate to get me to play with blocks and climb trees and get messy and that I wasn't having any of it. Even before I was old enough to know what gender I was, I shunned trucks in favor of dolls.

The funny thing is, I lusted after Barbie dolls for years, but rarely if ever actually played with them. I just collected them in a bin under my bed. By the fourth grade, playing with dolls as a means of recreation had definitely become passe. I think that that is a fairly common phenomenon. Still, Barbie persists - she's a cultural icon, a childhood toy, and a collector's item. In recent years, I have seen Barbie's image on toothbrushes, backpacks, skateboards, phones, and Valentines. We've even exported her. Until recent years, Barbie was something of a sensation in the Middle East.

The thing that caused her Syrian social status to plummet, however, was not what you might think - at least not directly. What did it was the introduction of Fulla, a doll of similar size and proportions, who comes swaddled in a black abaya and matching head scarf. A pink felt prayer mat is included.

Locals speculate that had such a doll would not have fared well in the Middle East ten years ago, but an increased emphasis on "Muslim values" and a renewed interest in veiling has led to a surge in popularity for dolls with a more Middle Eastern orientation. At least three veiled dolls are currently available in the Middle East, the earliest of which became available in 1999.

Despite the existence of veiled alternatives, Fulla has emerged as the indisputed leader of the pack. Her popularity has led to some unique merchandising: in addition to bikes, lunchboxes and the like, keen Fulla fans can buy a human-sized prayer mat in "Fulla pink."

There is something about the primacy of dolls to the female experience, and the primacy of the head scarf to the 21st century Muslim experience, that makes a doll like Fulla a natural bestsellser in the Middle East. Furthermore, in "Islam: Empire of Faith," a PBS documentary, the narrator states that 25% of the world's population is Islam, which means that there is huge marketing capacity for any product that accurately taps into modern Muslim sensitivities, as this doll as obviously done. And a shift from a Barbie-centric childhood is certainly a good thing, especially since Barbie's ambition seems to end with the attainment of a pink convertible and pink plastic high-heeled boots. Plans for a doctor Fulla and a teacher Fulla are in the works, and are intended to emphasize the respect that women can achieve in either profession.

Initially, Fulla gave me pause: she seemed to be representative of all the things about which America is afraid, specifically increasing militarism and Islamicism in the Middle East. Unlike Barbie, she has career goals, which I find quite refreshing.

Just the same, can you imagine selling a Barbie-like doll that came with her own menorah or mini-cricifix? It would never fly. Thank goodness.

Roberts nomination

2005-09-22T17:55:00.000-04:00

Again, I have to point out, the republicans control both the house and the senate, oh and by the way, the president is also a republican. Also, it would not go over well with the American public to filibuster a supreme court nomination and there was an agreement between 14 senators to not filibuster judicial nominees unless there were serious issues. Additionally, if the democrats tried to filibuster the nominee, the republicans have the power to end the filibuster rule. The democrats are there merely to advise in these proceedings, Bush does not have to select moderate justices to get them through.
Therefore its in the democratic party's best interest not to bring this to the attention of the republicans. By turning Roberts nomination into a demonstration that the democrats will not support even a moderate republican, it merely encourages republicans to say 'screw you' to the democratic party and nominate right wing justices.
Personally, I hope most democrats vote against Roberts tomorrow as that would likely lead to a nominee like Judge Edith Brown.

Here is an article that can give a different perspective on Iraq

2005-09-22T17:48:00.000-04:00

It seems that there were reasons to go to war in Iraq. This article was written before the administration proposed the idea. It's worth reading in its entirety. It may not change many of your positions, but it is worth noting that there are those who believe the war was necessary.

Bush on Iraq: A Brief, Somewhat Relevant Rebuttal

2005-09-22T14:13:00.000-04:00

The Times says:

Mr. Bush said that "to leave Iraq now would be to repeat the costly mistakes of the past that led to the attacks of September the 11th, 2001."

This, this, and this all suggest that to go to war in Iraq (again) in the first place "would be to repeat the costly mistakes of the past that led to the attacks of September the 11th, 2001."

Bush has backed the U.S. into a must-win situation in Iraq, so Cindy Sheehan's demands of complete and immediate withdrawals are probably still premature. But to claim that the war in Iraq helped prevent terrorism is to ignore historical fact, not to mention current events.

And the Modest Shall Inherit...The Bench?

2005-09-22T14:01:00.000-04:00

The Judiciary Committee totally nominated John Roberts today. Way to go, guys! Somewhat interesting, though, was some of the reasoning behind the robo-nominee's confirmation. The Times reports:

Committee Republicans heaped praise on the nominee, for his undisputed intellectual acumen and for what they see as the proper role of a jurist. "He emphasizes the importance of modesty and humility in the role of a justice," said Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa.

Modesty and humility?! Since when does one's temperament have anything to do with one's judicial abilities. It feels as though Roberts has hypnotized the senate with these vacuous platitudes. Though the Planner isn't as afraid of Roberts as many others, one would hope the Senate could come up with something better than "well, at least he isn't arrogant..." But, honestly, who cares? There's a war and a hurricane on. Roberts won't pose a problem until he hits the bench. Plus, Russ Feingold voted for him, so he can't be THAT evil...

Life Lessons

2005-09-22T10:18:00.000-04:00

It appears that local, state and federal government learned the wind-swept, dead water lessons that Hurricane Katrina hurled at the nation two weeks ago. There is no debating that every precaution is being made in the face of an even stronger Hurricane Rita. Nursing homes are being evacuated. Ice, water and food are being piled at distribution centers in preparation for emergency efforts. Miraculously I can't find a reason to criticize the president. Yes, we learned our lesson, a lesson that has cost billions of dollars and unfortunately over 1000 lives.

Here, I would like to invoke, as Republicans are so wont to do to defend the senseless death of thousands of Iraqis and American soldiers, the memory of September 11th. That was a 2,986 lives lesson from which the American government took little away. Yes, our airports are safer. We are now required to remove our shoes before we pass through the metal detector to dance around in our socks while airport personal wave around their metal detector magic wands. September 11th did not teach the government to hire personnel capable of doing the job, did not correct inadequate emergency preparedness, did not improve communication lines between branches of government or even emergency response groups. It did teach them that patriotic flag wagging garners the support of the ignorant American public for nonsensical wars.

If we have to suffer a Katrina with regard to each new crisis, if a dirty bomb has to reap its consequences before our government is prepared to respond, if a subway bombing has to occur before our government can recognize proper prevention methods, there are many more life lessons awaiting this country.

Study Vocab

2005-09-21T12:10:00.000-04:00

I have been debating the idea of returning once again to the halls of knowledge and in turn have been picking through vocabulary note cards, now the basis for extensive GRE preparation. I know the majority of the words, having seen them regularly over the past few years, words like recant, oblige, vexation, but on occasion see others that are only used by haughty intellectuals to demonstrate their far-reaching knowledge of the English language. I wonder, when I see these words, words I never came across once in my four years of college, why anyone bothered to concoct yet another way to say concise or enraged. Yet, I find, albeit rarely, that one of these words is the only word with the capacity to encompass the specifics of a feeling of situation. And with that I bring you the word of the day, specious.

Specious is an adjective defined as having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious. When I read this definition off the back of my note card, one thing came to mind…one of President Bush’s campaign promises. President Bush vowed after September 11th to defend the United States to the best of his ability against terrorism. During the 2004 election, President Bush presented himself as a wartime president, a war which he created and dragged out into an unsuccessful occupation. He also presented himself as a man who had made America safer, and who, because of his experience and his opponent’s lack of such experience, was the right man to continue to do so.

Yet, as many commentators have noted President Bush’s war in Iraq has provoked another faction of extremists to oppose and violently protest against the United States and its policies. Over 1,900 soldiers have been killed since the invasion of Iraq, some the victims of this violence, in addition to the unspeakable amount of Iraqi citizens who have been slaughtered by terrorist bombs. This war has undeniably created another contingent of individuals who would be willing to carry out terrorist attacks against the United States of America, and thus made America less safe.

But Katrina has blown the specious claims he made during the 2004 election wide open. A president who signed the Department of Homeland security into existence, who stood on the USS Abraham Lincoln and declared victory in Iraq, who claimed that he was doing everything in his power to protect the United States from terrorism and to ensure that if there were such an attack that there would be a well organized federal response to it, has implied that he has not, over the past four years since September 11th, done everything he could to make America safer. (Michael Brown, a nepotistic appointment, is just an example of how concerned President Bush is with the safety of his country) In a recent press conference, President Bush, in answering whether he believed the United States was capable of handling another terrorist attack in the wake of the inefficient response to Katrina, Bush said, "That's a very important question. And it's in our national interest that we find out exactly what went on — so that we can better respond."
And yes, it is a very important question, but a more important question should be asked… “Why didn’t this happen after September 11th ?”

The whole point of this rant is not to teach you a new vocabulary word or for those of you who already know the meaning of specious to provide you another reason to feel self-important, but to ask why the nation does not and refuses to hold President Bush to the standard to which he himself says he aspires. It is safe to say that many voters selected President Bush because he would be tough on terror or because they thought he had already provided better security for this nation. But these voters cast their vote under false pretenses.

There are many adjectives that could be used to describe President Bush’s claims, whether they are specious, misleading, deceptive. I prefer a noun---Lies.

War on Terror: Victorious

2005-09-20T10:10:00.000-04:00

In today's Washington Post, Barton Gellman reports that the FBI is seeking recruits for a new focus in the Bureau: cracking down on adult pornography. The article notes that this directive, which is deemed one of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' "top priorities," will deal specifically with that which is marketed to consenting adults.

Isn't it nice knowing that with domestic and international terrorism simmering gently on the backburner (no pun?), the FBI can now direct more attention to cooking-up a nice porno stew to sate the appetites of Christian conservaties, who deem the elimination of adult pornography a top priority on their political agenda?

Gellman also notes the priorities that the FBI lists as less important than said initiative, which include (among others) organized crime, civil rights and "significant violent crime." Wonderful to see that we, as a nation, are starting to understand the gravity of what it means to live in a society that is so deeply in love with freedom.

More Senseless Death, This Time Even More Senseless Than Usual

2005-09-16T14:05:00.000-04:00

A BBC report shows that Uganda's amazing AIDS performance over the years has begun to decline, thanks largely to U.S. intervention. A trend of reducing the rate of AIDS cases in the country from 15% to 5% in recent years is beginning to reverse, because the Ugandan government now gives greater weight to the Abstinence component of its Abstinence, Be faithful and Condoms campaign.

Many blame the Bush administration for this. Advert.org puts it this way:

Uganda receives significant amounts of funding from America, and much of the PEPFAR money is being channelled through pro-abstinence and even anti-condom organisations which are faith-based, and which would like sexual abstinence to be a central pillar of the fight against HIV. This money is making a difference - some Ugandan teachers report being instructed by US contractors not to discuss condoms in schools because the new policy is "abstinence only".

Our President's religious faith is well known, as was obvious in his numerous allusions to religion in his New Orleans speech last night.

It is already unacceptable that America fails to donate more resources to fighting AIDS, an epidemic which may be the most threatening global health crisis of our era. That any American institution would actually help prevent a hugely successful anti-AIDS policy from taking hold is maddeningly wrong. To do this in the name of religious moral obligation is purely hypocritical.

What kind of person who does the following moral calculus: "I know that millions of people are dying and trapped in poverty as a result of a disease that can be prevented at miniscule cost if we provide people with condoms. However, this is outweighed by the fact that sex outside of marriage is a sin. A pro-abstinence, anti-condom message must be broadcast around the world, no matter how many bodies pile up as a result."

It's unbelievable.

Addendum: Harper's published an article recently on America's brand of Christian faith and how it sizes up against Biblical scholarship and the beliefs of the rest of Christendom.

Third World Majority

2005-09-16T10:45:00.000-04:00

Jeff Chang, author of comprehensive, profound, intellectual hip-hop historical text Can't Stop Won't Stop, is participating in a fascinating and worthy media project called Third World Majority. Check...it...OUT!

Iraq

2005-09-15T14:36:00.000-04:00

Lots of people are dying right now. It's tough to be funny or flip about that. Here are some questions, though:

Why don't we know very much about the insurgency? Several sites, of varying levels of credibility, have tried to break it down. Still, it's all fairly unconvincing.

Is there any such thing as ties to al Qaeda? Isn't al Qaeda more of an ideology than a structured group? As such, is there really any point in identifying al-Qaeda members? A fairly well-written article on the subject can be found here, and you can find a comically ignorant interactive report on al Qaeda's 'structure' by going here, clicking on Interactive: Bin Laden & Al Qaeda, then clicking "Catching Al Qaeda: The Top Members." Notice how all the unknowns have a kaffiyeh on, while only half of the photographed members are wearing head adornment at all. If you want to stop terrorism, make sure you look out wearing striped scarves on their heads. ugh.

Regardless to whether the leaders of al Qaeda terror cells wear hats, shouldn't the national media be a little more careful in its classification of acts of terror? All al Qaeda means is "the foundation," and any old group can come along and adopt its scary title, giving Americans nightmare visions of a giant network of well-trained operatives who carry out covert paramilitary activity. Today's Post article on the most recent bombings mentions Al Qaeda twice, though this was the best they could do to actually attribute the attacks to anyone:

The group did not immediately assert direct responsibility for the attacks, but an Internet statement issued in its name welcomed the start of "revenge battles throughout the land of Mesopotamia."

That, and a tape recording "attributed to Zarqawi, which was posted on the Internet," are the only connections the Post can report between the current insurgency and al Qaeda.

The point really isn't whether it's al Qaeda behind these attacks or not. The point is that this country is so far away from understanding its 'enemies' that progress will be extremely fitful and hard-won, lest some alterations in strategy are made. Because if we don't know whom to smoke out and exterminate one by one, where does that really leave us, you know, from like a moral standpoint, or something?

Today's Young Uns Munching Rug, Gobbing Knob in Record Numbers

2005-09-15T14:14:00.000-04:00

A Washington Post piece today featured new survey results from the National Center for Health Statistics that indicate over 50% of kids age 15 to 19 have been taken to the candy shop, and that girls have finally caught up with guys in reported levels of experience. To which the Kindly Planner says: Awesome.

A greater-scale study can be found here.

The Pledge of Allegiance Sucks

2005-09-14T15:55:00.000-04:00

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton banned the Pledge of Allegiance today in San Francisco. As usual, the "under God" bit had a few Atheists antsy in their pantsy. One in particular, Michael Newdow, who's filed anti-Pledge suits in the past, finally succeded in defeating recitation of the oath in public schools.

This is interesting because the original Pledge was neither an ode of devotion cooked up by our founding fathers, nor did it contain the offending phrase. Created in 1892 to help a magazine called Youth's Companion sell flags to schools, it only became a prayer in 1954, when the Knights of Columbus petitioned some Michigan senator to sneak one little preposition and another little Supreme Being into the poem. Congress adopted the idea, and Bob's your uncle.

The real issue at stake here seems to be less that atheist kids (raised, no doubt, by stuffy intellectuals) have to mention God's name in vain, but that they stand in mindless unison reciting a glorified advertising jingle in the name of patriotism. The Kindly Planner reccommends that children be forced to recite and enact instances of free speech upheld by the Constitution, rather than a lame, conformist poem that doesn't even rhyme.

Understanding al Qaeda, or, More Intimate Friendships Through Headlines

2005-09-14T08:41:00.000-04:00

A Copy-Paste Job, and...They're Best Friends!

This morning, news cameras cut away from John Roberts' dorky, reassuringly caucasian face, jumping right back to Baghdad, where hundreds of people died before the work day even started. A Times article reports:

Terrorists loyal to al Qaeda claimed responsibility for a wave of deadly attacks across Iraq that left more than 100 people dead today, saying they were retaliating for a military offensive against insurgents in the northern city of Tal Afar.

The Washington Post, meanwhile, says:

Insurgents killed at least 141 people Wednesday in at least 10 separate bombings and rocket attacks that made for one of Baghdad's deadliest days.

So, who did it? Al Qaeda? The "insurgency?"

It seems unfair to the reader to just drop in the ol' "loyal to al Qaeda" modifier these days. A bit more explanation of that tidbit seems to be in order. Are all 'terrorists' 'loyal to al Qaeda,' at least in the sense that they agree that blowing people up is a good idea? Is al Qaeda simply shorthand for people who oppose the U.S. occupation and the new constitution? Or are these terrorists really loyal to Iraq?

It seems reasonable to be suspicious of any mention of Iraq and al Qaeda in the same sentence, given how the U.S. has had a few "oops!" moments with that kind of thing. The Planner would love any legitimate articles exploring different factions of the Iraqi insurgency and their loyalties. Not that there is no connection between Zarkawi and bin Laden, but news sources need to practice extreme caution when giving a tangible face to a nebulous concept like 'al Qaeda.'

Commentespo

2005-09-13T20:25:00.000-04:00

I have a response to the upcoming ani-FLA protest so momentous that I thought all of you had better read it. Also, I couldnt get the "comment" portion of the blog to work.

Here is my thought:

If the population of Georgetown is really worked up about the Indosenian sweathshop workers (and trust me, I'm pretty indignant too; I'm just not sure that its 100% true) shouldn't they consider hurling invectives at Eddie frickin' Bauer, rather than at an organization that has, at least in the past, made an attempt to rectify situations like the one the Indonesians currently face?

Honestly. Earlier this week I was nostalgic about student political activism, but if this is the best they can do, I'm glad to have graduated.

[Sidenote: Eddie Bauer has refused to pay for a year and a half. This is not the novelty the Planner is making it out to be]

On the other hand, if you are interested in putting in your two cents, you can get in touch with Eddie Bauer here, here, and here and let them know how you feel.

The Fair Labor Association: Fair or Foul?

2005-09-13T15:34:00.000-04:00

Georgetown Solidarity is planning a protest against the Fair Labor Association later this week. In the interest of not blowing up their spot (even though no one reads this blog), you'll have to contact Solidarity for time and place info. The long and short of it is that Solidarity claims the misleadingly titled Fair Labor Association should probably be called the Unfair Bunch of Dicks. The email says:

In one of the most egregious cases I've ever seen, workers at the PT Victoria factory in Indonesia were forced to work a 24 hour shift to finish an order for Eddie Bauer. When they returned to the factory the next day they found the gates locked and their livelihood taken away. Even worse, the workers were denied their pay and legal severance. An Indonesian court ruled that the workers are owed the equivalent of one million US dollars. Eddie Bauer refuses to pay the workers the money they are owed.

The FLA says of itself:

The growth of the global economy has outstripped the mechanisms for regulating labor rights around the world. In principle, governments should adopt ILO Conventions and incorporate them into national labor laws enforced by labor inspectors. Trade unions and employers should negotiate collective agreements to fix wages and working conditions at sectoral or firm level and workers should have recourse to internal grievance procedures or external labor tribunals. In practice however, many of these protections have broken down. The FLA initiative is designed to complement international and national efforts to promote respect for labor rights.

Corpwatch.org says the FLA isn't doing a good enough job. Which is interesting, because all these groups are .orgs, which used to inspire the Kindly Planner's immediate confidence! Nonprofits fighting each other? Calling each other evil? Who knew? The debate will rage on at the appointed time and place, which is fine; the Kindly Planner didn't even know these things existed before!

In an interesting sidenote, Georgetown University isn't a listed FLA affiliate to begin with. The Solidarity Committee might want to investigate why their university doesn't even put up the PR effort to affiliate with a window-dressing organization such as that.

Roberts: Evil?

2005-09-13T13:36:00.000-04:00

A lot of the discourse surrounding John Roberts' nomination as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has to do with his unknown views, particularly with regard to abortion. What fewer people have touched on so far, however, is what Roberts might do for executive power. The New Republic touches on this in an opinion piece that opposes Roberts' nomination. It's difficult to believe that a strict constructionist like Roberts would make great moves to expand the executive's power. Of course, it's hard to tell what this big ol' bag of mystery will do once he's on the bench, so who knows?

Meanwhile, you can watch Roberts' impressive Manchurian Candidate routine here. The guy is unnervingly composed--an excellent witness. This is probably because he is a lawyer.

Conservative Quack Jobs

2005-09-13T12:37:00.000-04:00

The religious right has quacked again, discovering its latest pro-intelligent design, pro-marriage propaganda in the lovable, secular documentary, "March of the Penguins." I will pass on the pro-intelligent design aspect, leaving it up to somebody more qualified than myself to explain to conservatives that teaching a theory in American public schools that has no scientific foundation is antithetical to the idea of teaching. Yet, I will weigh in on the marriage/monogamy propaganda. In an address to the members of the young Republicans, Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review, proclaimed: "You have to check out 'March of the Penguins.' It is an amazing movie. And I have to say, penguins are the really ideal example of monogamy. These things - the dedication of these birds is just amazing." Even though Mr. Lowry probably doesn’t believe in scientific research, he should have done a little of his own. In June of 1999, French biologists released their research on “penguin divorce rates.” They had this to say about emperor penguins, “The longest penguin marriages appear to be among Emperor Penguins, who can sometimes make it to their fourth anniversary.” Sometimes to their forth anniversary…hmmm, probably not the kind of monogamy that Mr. Lowry is trying to propagate.

So please, my Christian conservative friends, please stick to the singing vegetables and Passion of Christ and stop trying to spin everything else into inaccurate conservative metaphors.

I would like to give a shoutout to staplehead for the foundation of this piece. You should give this a shot yourself.

Clarification:

2005-09-13T09:37:00.000-04:00

The Importance of Balance

For the record:

That anyone as focused, unbiased, and honest as a U.S. politician ("Ted Kennedy" and "trusworthy" sound so good together in the same sentence, don't they?) would introduce his own partisan agenda into the confirmation of a candidate who, by all known measures, is eminently qualified did come as quite a shock.

The Kindly Planner's hope--however fluffy-minded it may sound--is to ridicule any politician for his/her pomposity and/or uncritical towing of the party line. In this sense, the Rapture is fully welcome and encouraged to ridicule and rail against any public figure (political or otherwise) who sounds like a dumbass. Yesterday, it happened to be Ted Kennedy. On most days, it's Rick Santorum. The future of our particular corner of the blogosphere will be rife with profiles of no-talent ass clowns; the inclusion of one particular person is not meant to be read as an endorsement of others--far from it. The Planner is surly and ridiculous, but above all aspires to even-handedness.

In this vein, the Rapture (hell of biblical, by the way!) it would be wise to note that both Republicans and Democrats have labeled decisions they disagree with as "judicial activism." What seems more important than whether or not we abide by strict constructionism is the safeguarding of every American's basic civil liberties. Sometimes the Court needs to be active in order to do so (Roe), but sometimes an active court is counterproductive (Dred Scott). This is exactly why it's important to roast politicians for cluttering up legitimate arguments with absolute nonsense, like (as Rapture points out) politicians' labeling of any Supreme Court decision they disagree with as "judicial activism" (said with that annoying, whiny sneer).

Regardless to that debate, please continue to post sarcastic, poignant, rigorous, and thoughtful paragraphs. The Planner wags its cute little tail every time you do!

Why Women Can't be president...or All Politicians are Partisan...duh!

2005-09-12T23:53:00.000-04:00

Oh my god!!! A politician participating in partisan haranguing??? I don’t believe it. Well, okay I do. Perhaps, Michael just tuned into the American political scene eight hours ago. To criticize Senator Kennedy’s comments, without looking at the other side, shows a major bias on Michael’s part. For instance, let us take a look at Oklahoma Senator Coburn’s statement today during the opening comments of Robert’s confirmation hearing. Senator Coburn yammered on and on in his statement today about ending judicial activism. Here’s an example, “It is time for judicial activism to stop. It is time that we have judges who understand their constitutional role.” What is judicial activism? It is a partisan phrase created by the Republican Party to undermine the role of the judicial branch of the United States. Don’t believe me? Look at the second sentence of Mr. Coburn’s comment. “It is time that we have judges who understand their constitutional role. Senator Coburn much like the rest of the Republican Party has launched an all out war on the Court system, a war that arose primarily from their disapproval of the Masschusett’s Supreme Court opinion that the state’s ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional. Since Coburn and fellow Republicans disliked this opinion, they decided this was a case of judicial activism. Interestingly enough, Republicans do not like the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision because they are anti-abortion. They also call this a case of judicial activism. Coincidence? I think not.

And yes folks, Coburn’s comments get better as he goes along. On the verge of tears, literally, Coburn whines , “When I ponder our country and its greatness, its weaknesses, and its potential, my heart aches for less divisiveness, less polarization, less finger pointing, less bitterness and less mindless partisanship, which, at times, sounds almost hateful to the ears of ordinary Americans.” If Coburn really desires, if his heart truly aches for less divisiveness and polarization, maybe he should lead as an example instead of sounding like a sissy little hypocrite. Crying…for god's sake. A little too emotional for politics…isn’t that why they say a woman can’t be president?

Verdict: All Politicians are No-Talent Ass Clowns…whatever that means.

Feel free to peruse the rest of Senator Coburn's brillant opening comments here.

"Below the Belt"

2005-09-12T14:42:00.000-04:00

I don't know if I should find this funny or not, but check out what NOW president Kim Gandy has to say about New Orleans:

I'm from Louisiana, as you may know. I lived and worked for 14 years in New Orleans, and spent all of those years as a NOW activist. The flood pictures that have been, well, flooding my TV and newspapers the past few days are almost more than I can bear.

And this:

Seeing tens of thousands of hungry and desperate people jammed into the Superdome days after the hurricane, without even a semblance of an organized federal relief effort made me want to scream. It's just such a classic case of needing nine stitches to make up for the one that wasn't in time.

Her column is titled "Below The Belt." The Planner doesn't quite know what to do with this.

Spinmaster Windbags

2005-09-12T14:15:00.000-04:00

Bush Surveys a "near catastrophic" scene in New Orleans

The Smoking Gun has posted this document. I, for one, am extremely relieved to know that Katrina was not completely catastrophic, but only nearly so.

France Vs:

2005-09-12T10:32:00.000-04:00

Four Teenage Girls
Part 2 in an ongoing "France Vs:" Series

The four French girls who started a fire in southern Paris on September 4, killing 18 people, have now expressed regret, but are "incapable of explaining" their motivations. Having started the fire in the Hay en Roses, a low-income housing project, the young ladies admit that they "didn't like" their target, dubbed "Jessica" by the authorities for her own safety. For her part, "Jessica" had no idea the arsonists felt any animosity towards her.

America is typically known for its violent teenagers, given the rash of school shootings around the country from 1997 to 2001, most notably at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO in April of 1999. It seems possible that France's continually escalating social tension and crisis over its own national identity may have something to do with the recent increase in violence--there have been two other fires in immigrant communities in recent weeks.

At any rate, the French media have inscribed typical class markers into the story, pointing out that Jessica "does not know her biological father," and that the four arsonists, though "of French nationality," are of Portuguese and Malian "origine."

Whether or not this attack was motivated explicitly by class or race conflict, it underscores the officially unspoken racial and cultural tensions burgeoning in France today. Le Monde links to a Society forum where this debate rages: contributors write about the "France qui me revolte," and the need for the French government--who doesn't officially recognize minorities--to finally address the issue of race. While America deals with its own reheated racial tensions in the wake of Katrina, France continues to grapple with a cultural division it barely even recognizes.

Preliminary Verdict: France, having taken the four girls into custody, has won this small battle, but still confronts a looming threat that may prove much more difficult to handle than a group of upstart adolescents. The Planner recommends tighter play earlier in the game.

France's Standing Record: 1-1

Ted Kennedy: Ass Clown

2005-09-12T10:12:00.000-04:00

The Roberts confirmation hearings start today. A Washington Post article reports today that, for some reason, Ted Kennedy uses Hurricane Katrina as background for an interesting line of inquiry:

"What the American people have seen is this incredible disparity in which those people who had cars and money got out, and those people who were impoverished died," Kennedy said. The question for Roberts, he said, is whether he stands for "a fairer, more just nation" or will he use "narrow, stingy interpretations of the law to frustrate progress."

Can anything be more irritating than lopsided questions with built-in partisan bias? The New Republic has a great opinion piece about why John Roberts should be confirmed.

The Verdict: "Ted Kennedy" (along with the name of just about any Senate Democrat) is now appropriate shorthand for the term "No-Talent Ass Clown."

D-List 'Celebrity' Product Hawker Roundup

2005-09-09T23:59:00.000-04:00

Kevin Trudeau you are slick!

You may have stayed up late one night and seen Mr. Trudeau pitching his fairly new book Natural Cures They Don’t Want You to Know About. You may have had a little too much to drink, and ordered his book.

I gave Mr. Trudeau a shot because he had quite a powerful voice to influence public appetite against its mainly pharmaceutical fed diet.

Mr. Trudeau, I never read your book, but as one who fears pharmacological science, knows Echinacea is a joke, and respects eastern medicine, well, Mr. Trudeau, I thought your statements had some fiery qualities, and maybe you could lead me to the Promised Land.

Being a skeptic, I typed your name into Google to check into your background about a month ago, and well, Mr. Trudeau, you’re a f!#*ing scammer. Not that I really care that much, I didn’t even have the conviction to buy your book. But I was standing in front of the T.V. with my mom, a western trained physician, and I was agreeing with you in principle.

Do you remember the Mega Memory system in 1995, that was Mr. Trudeau's. It turns out Mr. Trudeau is no longer allowed to sell any products do to a Federal Trade Commission ban on all of his products because he has made a number of false claims on television. He’s only allowed to publish books because of his First Amendment protections.

His book has hit the number one spot on the New York Times bestseller list, selling over a million and half copies, available at Borders and Amazon, and other big retailers.

For some reason though, I respect you Mr. Trudeau, you are one of the slickest individuals since Ron Popeil.

"I'm doing this virtually as a nonprofit," he said. "I'm not doing this for the money. It's a passion."

News from the Inside

2005-09-09T20:38:00.000-04:00

I have family who live in New Orleans, and have just received the first communique from them. While I agree with the sentiments expressed in "Bush Does Something," I wanted to pass on my uncle's message: he's seen his house, which was in New Orleans proper, and while there is ceiling damage and roof damage, it is largely intact. He said "the city will be rebuilt, and will be better for it." This is news that I find genuinely reassuring.

Another thing that will be better is Trent Lott's house. A recent White House press release assured everyone that:

We've got a lot of rebuilding to do. First, we're going to save lives and stabilize the situation. And then we're going to help these communities rebuild. The good news is -- and it's hard for some to see it now -- that out of this chaos is going to come a fantastic Gulf Coast, like it was before. Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott's house -- he's lost his entire house -- there's going to be a fantastic house. And I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch. (Laughter.)

And I have to say, that is a comfort. Because I would hate to have the really, really wealthy residents of the Gulf Coast having to settle for anything less than fantastic while the rest of the city is just trying to pull itself back together.

Musings on a Theme

2005-09-09T17:29:00.000-04:00

I read the other postings on the peril of placing all blame on the President, and after read that and this oped from the Christian Science Monitor, these were my relatively incoherent thoughts.

Its amazing the way we inextricably find ourselves forced down a path, characterized by secondhand choices and happenstance. The disillusionment that has been given shape and cause by the failure of the government to sufficiently prepare or respond to the hurricane is expected, justified, inevitable. The Bush Administration has set its course and is now being forced to answer questions it thought is posited rhetorically. Although hardly the bleeding heart liberal that my mother fears, I have long been disillusioned by the policies of a government that was so enraptured by its self woven shield of invincibility that its narrow minded optimism eclipsed the reality of developing despair.

But what might bother me the most is how casually and how quickly the suffering and loss of thousands has become yet another casualty to the bickering and finger pointing of party politics. There is plenty of finger pointing to be done, plenty of blame to be distributed and reprecussions that will likely be felt indefinitely but right now our country stands vulnerable, faced with its own fragility, faced with its own disgrace, confronted by its resounding failure and no amount of squirming accusations can change or fix that. Over and over again you hear people complaining that Bush took his mandate and just went too far, as if he ever showed any indication of taking it elsewhere. He came into office declaring that God was on his side and many Americans just accepted he did. But Bush and his impertinent, lackadaisical, haphazard ideas on governing aren't the only one to blame. Our country, our political culture is one that fosters an environment of extremes. Its either the cowboy or the diplomat. The playboy or the priest. Even our concept of an everyman has been distorted, reduced to caricatures in the face of man's overwhelming complexity. Politics might never have been the pursuit of justice but the fact that its become primarily an attempt to maintain party lines when faced with any kind of adversity is a detriment to the growth of American society. A politician ought to be encouraged to have the ability to see and understand both sides, to compromise yet still progress. Unfortunately such individuals are labelled flip floppers and discarded as potential leaders. I may be young and ignorant but I would prefer an individual with the strength and conviction to make and change his mind than one whose mind is preprogramed with glib responses, never stepping harder than tip toeing the party line.

How Our Heroes Fall

2005-09-09T15:25:00.000-04:00

Rolling Stone published Hunter S. Thompson's suicide note. The missive pretty much falls in line with Kurt Cobain and Arthur Rimbaud's final writings in that it fails to do justice to the liveliness and rebellious fury that made its author famous. It's no secret that Thompson's mental and physical health was rapidly deteriorating at the time of his death. The Planner posts this much with a heavy heart, so if the reader desires more editorializing and even some snide (perhaps inappropriate) commentary on the note and the suicide, he or she is welcome to go here.

A New Leadership Style

2005-09-09T15:17:00.000-04:00

The Smug Face of Incompetence

President Bush's leadership in the wake of Hurricane Katrina has been nothing short of abysmal. After the September 11th terrorist attacks, President Bush utilized his charisma and confidence to unite the American people. Yet, President Bush's nonchalance in the face of Katrina's mounting threat and her aftermath, has left the country divided when we should once again be coming together to weather this storm. While the city of New Orleans flooded, drowning many of the inhabitants, Bush flew to California in order to delivers a speach commemorating the 60th anniversary of V-J Day, even taking time to receive an autographed guitar from country singer Mark Wills. Finally, when Bush decided to take time out of his money grubbing schedule to fly down to the Gulf Coast, ( this was after he stated on Good Morning America that he felt there should be a zero tolerance policy for looters, most of whom were stealing food and water for their starving children because the government at every level failed to provide even these simple amenities) his tone continued to lack the gravity for which the situation called. First, he gave the equivalent of a frat boy slap on the ass to FEMA director Michael Brown, proclaiming “Brownie, I think you’re doing a heck of a job.” Please, I don’t even have to comment. Next, he continued with his Frat boy intonations, stating, while he laughed at his own intimations, “I believe the great city of New Orleans will rise again and be a greater city of New Orleans. I believe the town I used to come from Houston TX to enjoy myself occasionally too much will be that very same town that will be a better place to come to.” Ahhhh, the good ole’ days. And finally, demonstrating how in touch he is with what he might refer to as the hoi polloi, “Out of the rubble of Trent Lott’s house, this guy lost his entire house, there is going to be a fantastic house and I’m looking forward to sitting on the front porch.” Because, of course, that would be a true come back story. Imagine Trent Lott’s eight bedroom, five bathroom five million dollar beach house against the backdrop of a beach at sunset a year later…the camera’s zooms to the front porch, and there sits George Bush cowboy boots and all, doing what he does best as president…vacationing. Oh yes, Check this out...http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/katrina-timeline.php

More On "Google Bombing"

2005-09-09T12:04:00.000-04:00

"Google Bombing" is nothing new, apparently. Friend and inspiration to the Planner Leon Neyfakh wrote about this storied act of nerd retribution back in the day. Computer geeks wreak passive-aggressive havoc once more!

Lovely.

2005-09-09T11:30:00.000-04:00

Bush Gets Google Bombed
Franny Poo

Exercise #1:

Go to google. Type in "failure." Hit "I'm feeling lucky!" Enjoy.

Exercise #2:

Go to this article, scroll to the bottom, and laugh at the genius that is British news.

I know taking potshots at the president is no longer clever or novel, but I still find it funny. One particular piece of poetic justice is that the #2 hit for "failure" is Michael Moore. And I have to agree: I liked "Bowling for Columbine," but Fahrenheit 9/11 was one big, steaming stinker of a movie, that furthermore failed to be the massive piece of Kerry propaganda that Moore intended.

Verdict: Bush and Moore are both douches.

Verdict #2: Student/young person political movements of yore, particularly the type of student riots of 1968 depicted in the movie "The Dreamers," are beginning to look a lot more appealing than they used to.

Further Considerations

2005-09-09T10:19:00.000-04:00

I Guess We Should Be Better Prepared When a Region Gets Wiped Out?
Kevin Walsh

I'm in agreement with Annie [see comments following Sept 8 "Bush Does Something" posting. Planner-ed] on the national response to Hurricane Katrina. If we want to place blame, we can blame the local, state and federal government. Yet to blame only one, or to blame one party, seems foolish. The mayor could have used the school buses to get the civilians out before the storm. Some other state could have volunteered in advance to house them. The federal government could have sent in troops faster. People could have only looted what they needed. The governor could have requested the military. In short, the storm was worse than the worst case scenario. Day one Hurricane, day two levee breaks, day three looting, day four fires, day five it starts to improve the tiniest bit. Providing relief to victims of natural disasters is similar to lifeguarding. The first thing you do is you survey the scene, then, if it's safe for the rescuer, you take action. I think the entire area was overwhelmed and maybe it wasn't until Friday that it became safe to begin the restoration process.

What Might Have Happened?

2005-09-09T09:33:00.000-04:00

Today's Times gives us an interesting insight into why Katrina went from national disaster to national shitshow:

According to the administration's senior domestic security officials, the plan failed to recognize that local police, fire and medical personnel might be incapacitated.

This might seem like a flimsy enough excuse for some people, but lameness continues unabated; White House officials are now blaming Federalism for much of the debacle, citing the political heat a President might take for unnecessarily seizing control of National Guard troops.

It sounds as though Kathleen Blanco had a recourse to military action, had she been willing to set up a joint command of Guard Troops. Nevertheless, the Active Duty response was five days late. This is an unacceptable administrative failure, particularly when the politics of perception seem to be the primary motivation behind the inaction. An anonymous administration official explains to the Times:

"Can you imagine how it would have been perceived if a president of the United States of one party had preemptively taken from the female governor of another party the command and control of her forces, unless the security situation made it completely clear that she was unable to effectively execute her command authority and that lawlessness was the inevitable result?" asked one senior administration official, who spoke anonymously because the talks were confidential.

The Bush administration has yet to come through with a compelling explanation for this needless loss of life. It seems crass politics may have gotten in the way of what should have been a purely humanitarian undertaking.

Bush Does Something

2005-09-08T17:03:00.000-04:00

The Bush response to Katrina: take a couple minutes out of your vacation schedule to pay the living victims good, honest lip service. When those victims die, make sure to pray for their departed souls. At least now they're getting some attention. What a dick.

Addendum: A tonally biased and incomplete--but compelling--take on Katrina's unfolding.

France Vs:

2005-09-08T15:02:00.000-04:00

Lance Armstrong

Part One in an Ongoing "France Vs:" Series

Today, France takes on the world's all time greatest cyclist, Lance Armstrong. L'Equipe, one of France's premiere sports news providers, is engaged in an ongoing allegation of impropriety on the part of the cancer-fighting Texan. Apparently, somebody got suspicious that a guy with hostile cells in his testicles, brain, and lungs could win seven Tour de Frances; under particular scrutiny is Armstrong's 1999 victory. The French publication quotes numerous cycling officials, including: former president of the French Cylcing Federation, Daniel Baal; French team Cofidis manager Eric Boyer; and even Jean-Marie Leblanc, director of the Tour de France.

Leblanc is extremely vocal about the impact of the scandal on the Tour:

Le Tour est choqué. On ne pouvait s'y attendre même si la personnalité de Lance Armstrong était controversée, sujette à une certaine suspicion à côté de l'admiration qu'il suscitait. J'oscillais pour ma part entre l'admiration et la prudence à cause des articles, des procès en cours. On peut dire qu'il n'a pas fait sept ans de vélo sur le cours d'un fleuve tranquille... Dès la première année, en 1999, il y a eu suspicion.

What this means for you freedom lovers out there is that Lance has been under French suspicion since '99, but even Leblanc found himself "occilating" between the the power of Lance's legend and incredulity at its improbability.

Armstrong's defenders have nevertheless mustered an indignant response. Eurosport dismisses the charges as a series of ad hominem attacks on Lance's "lack of emotion."

At any rate, the eurosport article lazily conflates recent political animosities between the U.S. and France with L'Equipe's overall anti-Armstrong sentiment. The Iraq war seems to have little to do with whether or not Lance cheated in '99. Meanwhile, L'Equipe does look pretty bent on tearing down America's yellow-jerseyed Horatio Alger story, so who wins?

Preliminary Verdict: The Planner loves American heroes, no matter how ridiculous their rags to riches stories happen to be. We even endorse a little fudging of the rules when times are tough. Lance had cancer. Then he won seven Tours. A few visits to the blood doctor just don't seem to matter.

France's standing record: 0-1.

Addendum:Funny, though pretty much irrelevant to the actual doping charges, is drug company Merck's sponsorship of Lance. He had cancer! And he's suspected of employing medical science to enhance his performance! Now buy some Propecia!

John Roberts: Dork?

2005-09-08T11:47:00.000-04:00

So, John Roberts is going to be the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Which is, apparently, kind of a big deal. So enough waffling, already; in the interest of secondhanded, up-to-the-week journalism, the Kindly Planner is boldly taking a stance on John Roberts now. But, in typical evenhanded style, we'll take a look at the relevant facts.

People who always sound a little hysterical to the Planner have vehemently opposed John Roberts' nomination. NARAL thinks John Roberts is a more avid pro-lifer than Eric Rudolph, and NOW thinks Roberts should burn in hell.
Still, Roberts has gone on record saying he kinda might sorta be a little bit pro-choice. So what's the deal?

Probably the most compelling evidence against Roberts' nomination can be found on Slate, where they discuss the steaming pile of Roberts dossiers in serious detail, combing over instances of sexism and concluding:

The problem isn't with [Roberts'] desperate housewives (or hideous lawyers) crack, but with his relentless "Gidget sucks" tone. Roberts honestly seemed to think that humor or disdain were the only appropriate ways to think about gender. It's not that feminists can't take a joke. It's that Roberts can't seem to take feminists seriously.

The record seems to make it quite clear that Roberts—with his "perceived/purported/alleged" discrimination trope—simply didn't believe that gender problems were worthy of his serious consideration or scrutiny.

So, in the 1980s, John Roberts, like a lot of men, was skeptical of--and maybe slightly perturbed by--the newfound power of the feminists. So he was dismissive of their claims. Still, a sexist jerk of the 80's does not a sexist jerk of the 00's make. Is John Roberts kind of a conservative stick-in-the-mud? Definitely. Does he make the Kindly Planner's All Time Top Supreme Court Justices? No!

Preliminary Verdict: John Roberts is about as smarmy and smart-alecky a dork as any of his photos make him seem. He is a sort of evil genius, but our political processes will get him confirmed. To avoid sounding hysterical, the Planner thinks it wise to accept his nomination, and to mercilessly and immaturely ridicule him at every available opportunity.

Time To Get Reckless

2005-09-08T09:07:00.000-04:00

Alright, folks, it's time to kick off another adventure on the 'net, a little looser, a little freer, a little bit of an effort to keep abreast of all that is happening in our world. The focus is the news and relevant pop culture developments around the world. You'll find no verse here, only prose, unless it's the lyrics to the latest and hottest track on the floor. I've tried to open this thing up to anyone who wants in, and hopefully it'll spawn a great deal of punditry and zing.

The floor is open, but in the interest of keeping things somewhat legit, I ask that postings either reference one article from another site, or pertain to a subject already discussed.

Following are a few posts that will set the tone and pace of this thing. Welcome aboard.