Choosing sides

Cato esse, quam videri, bonus malebatChoosing sides. It's as old as history. Man has been choosing sides since he first walked away from the rest of nature, since he used his first tool, since he spoke his first word. And why does he—why do we—choose sides?

First, let's consider what is meant by the term "side." When someone asks "whose side are you on?" more often than not, it is a question built around an either-or proposition. And more often than not, it is not really an either-or proposition, but rather it is a false dichotomy. For the one truism that we must remember, that we must always pay heed to, is that we are all—first and foremost—on our own side. Always. Many will claim differently, but they will be lying, often to themselves as well as to everyone else. Altruism as a basis for decision-making is an illusion, when it comes to mankind. It always has been. Man's proclivity for social interaction is rooted in self-interest. We cooperate for own benefit, not for a collective benefit. "Side" is a misnomer. It assumes there is a line, which has, by definition, two—and only two—sides. There is no room for a third, let alone a fourth or fifth.

Nonetheless, the question of whose side you are on is still asked. And it still means something.

Now, when it comes to a specific argument about, let us say, a government policy or program, there might actually be two sides to choose from: pro or con, for or against, etc. Are you for or against the War in Iraq? For or against universal healthcare? Legalizing marijuana? Mandatory sentencing guidelines? Tort reform legislation? Abortion? Equality before the law? Whoa...let's slow down. How about those last three? Are there still only two sides to speak of? Many people will tell you that yes, there absolutely are two sides and only two sides. Further, they will tell you that if you claim to support neither side, you're just unwilling to face reality or are unable to understand the big picture.

In the case of the first of these last three—tort reform legislation—people who say there are but two sides are absolutely and demonstrably wrong. And this is no less true on the issue of campaign finance reform. The word "reform" is a key. It implies improvement through change. But improvement in whose eyes? And change to what end? Two people can easily have very different ideas about what would be entailed by reform.

As for the second—abortion—there are many who see only two options: you are pro-choice or you are pro-life. Every claimed middle-ground is, to such people, merely a subset of one of these two positions. Is that judgement correct? Is it fair? Certainly, when a woman is pregnant, she can either have an abortion or not have an abortion. There is no gray area, here. So, the argument goes from the pro-choice camp, she should always get to make that choice, she has an absolute right to make that choice, end of story. And from the pro-life camp: she should never get to make that choice, abortion is murder, end of story. How can there be another position? What middle ground exists, other than a series of qualifying scenarios, wherein she would either a) not be allowed the choice (for pro-choicers) or b) allowed the choice (for pro-lifers)? To be sure, it's not as simple a nut to crack as many who hold to neither extreme might believe. And yet, some insist they are in neither camp.

Equality before the law is fairly wide-ranging; it can refer to many different things. But the essential idea is that every person should be treated the same-equally-with regard to legal responsibilities, charges, and benefits. If the law says x is illegal, it must be illegal for everyone, not just for some. And if the punishment for committing x is y, then everyone found guilty of x should get y. And most importantly, perhaps, if the government provides benefit z to one person, it must be prepared to provide benefit z to all other persons. That's really not asking for much, right? So, let's consider the great bugaboo: Affirmative Action. As a program, Affirmative Action provides benefits to a limited portion of the population, benefits that are not accessible to the entire population, by definition. So, can you claim to believe in equality before the law and still support Affirmative Action? The Supreme Court would have you believe so. But then again, some would argue that the word "equality" is functionally incorrect. In their view, there has been no equality and Affirmative Action is a means of rectifying this reality. Thus, they are really the ones standing for equality before the law, not the detractors of Affirmative Action.

Twisting. Spinning. Say it however you like. The fact is that people want to make their position seem like the most logical position, the most correct position, the most just position-really the only just position. Look at the three examples again. In the first, the pro/con positions are interchangeable, depending on what one means by reform. And reform sounds like a good thing, so all sides will co-op the word: reform is always the "right" answer, never mind that we don't really know what the answer is. In the second, no matter what one's position is, both sides will reduce it down to pro or con-for abortion/for life or against abortion/against life—and of course, both sides want to appear as "pro." Positive is always better, no? For the third, the twist is more subtle. No one who wants to appear fair and just can object to the premise-equality before the law-so the trick becomes an arrangement of reality whereby a given position is the one that is for equality. Neat, huh?

So, how does help us answer the first question: why does man choose sides? Obviously, man chooses sides as a means of identifying who he/she is, as a means of social bonding, and as a means of achieving goals. But why a "side"? Why not just a "position" or "point of view"? "Side" is antagonistic and suggests conflict. And that's our answer, in a nutshell.

In all three cases, above, defining a "side" is about presentation with a goal: maximum support. Having sides, choosing sides, is all about winning, nothing more. There is nothing noble about any "side," nor is there anything inherently right or just. Picking a side tells everyone else that your goal is victory for the sake of victory, nothing more. It's a selfish act. Of course, mankind is a selfish creature, as we have already noted.

So, the next time someone asks you "whose side are you on?" tell them the truth: "my side, of course." Or better yet, ask them what it is that they so desperately want to win. Is there a trophy for the winning "side."

Having said all of that, there remains right and wrong, truth and lie, justice and injustice. But seek the good for its own sake, not for some arbitrary side. And sometimes, you may find yourself surrounded by people who think they are on your side, or who think they are on the other side. Unfortunately, there isn't much you can do about this; just hold on to the good.

Rain

Let them eat cakeA number of my favorite songs have a common theme: rain. There's Let it Rain by Eric Clapton, No Rain by Blind Melon, Have You Ever Seen the Rain? by Credence Clearwater Revival, and Love Reign O'er Me by The Who, just to name a few.

Rain is a natural phenomenon, of course, and quite mundane. It's precipitation in the form of water, spawned by evaporation and initially manifested as clouds. Water from the sky.

Yet, it's more than this, too. Rain can be inspirational and it can be beautiful. It can also be sad and even frightening. It can be an answer to a prayer or a curse from the gods. Rain fall, shower, sprinkle, moisten, soak, cover, and even pelt. Rain can evoke wonder in the eyes of a child, and it can summon the child in the eyes of an adult. It can be clean and innocent, heralding a new beginning or a fresh start. But it can also be dirty, unrelenting, and unforgiving, echoing the realities of existence.

When was the first rain, I wonder? To have been there on that glorious day, watching as the first clouds unleashed their fury on a virgin earth. Or maybe it was nothing more than a sun shower. A few drops sprinkled here and there, splattering off rock and sea. And when will the last rain fall? Will anyone be there to see it? Will it fall with an accompaniment of thunder and lightning, the first salvo in a cataclysmic event, or will it be the last, desperate gasp of a dying world?

Do not go gently into that good night...

Final results

A matter before the CourtOnce again, the Immigration Reform Bill has gone down in the Senate. In a test vote, taken under the guise of cloture, the Immigration Reform Bill (S 1639) was soundly defeated by a vote of 53-46. Sixty votes were required to pass the cloture motion.

I am going to take this vote as the last word on the subject from the Senate. A number of Senators who had supported the measure changed sides shortly before this vote. No doubt, this was because of the massive upswell of public outrage over this bill that actually succeeded in bringing down the phone system at the Senate, because of the high volume.

As promised, here is the final list of Senatorial garbage:

Akaka (D-HI)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Truly, it saddens me to see some of the names on this list, particularly that of Lieberman and that of Obama. I thought both were better than this. Regardless, I strongly suggest not voting for any of these turkeys, ever again. This list isn't going anywhere, and rest assured that I will have specific information, re those Senators up for reelection in '08, when that time comes.

For those interested in such things, that's 34 Democrats and 12 Republicans that voted for it. Harry Reid is quite the leader, no?

Garbage in, garbage out.

Pete and Carrie: Revenge

Let them eat cakeIn days of yore, which is kinda like a real long time ago, when the world still sucked at the teat of the universe, the land was populated by all sorts of fantastic beasts and creatures. There were elves, of course, and snobbits. And there were unicorns, gryphons, fardsnarglers, jabberwockies, ferrets, chihuahuas, lemurs, unnaturally thin gophers, and even WalMart greeters. Through this land roamed two great and powerful wizards, both exceedingly clever, compared to no less than half of those beasts that had reached the evolutionary pinnacle of self-awareness.

The first great wizard was known to all as PeeDee. With his mighty powers, he could wilt a flower from two paces, cause his bath water to bubble unnaturally, and even produce violent and scary sounds from deep within his armpits. A formidable foe in shuffleboard, he moved with the ease and quickness of a highly paid electrician. He eschewed the fashions of the common man, choosing to dress instead in luxurious polyester, with extra-stretchy waist, ankle, and wrist bands. All trembled before his passage.

The second of these two titans of the dark arts was known as Carrie. More of a female than a male, her powers were no less formidable than those of PeeDee. Able to retain water in both her hands and feet, she could wipe a child's ass with little more than a look and a handful of Wet Ones. Car keys were no match for her, as she could locate any such miscreants before the Sun could make two full cycles about the earth. She dressed only in the finest fineries, as befitting one of her station, unmatched by any other woman that might be found at a twenty-four hour laundromat. She was grace, personified.

And these two morose, yet dim, prestidigitator's were drawn together by an unnatural love, not for each other, but for a rare and utterly mundane substance: fenter beans. Found only on fenter plants, fenter beans possessed many magical properties. They could serve as both a source of nourishment and as an effective filler for bean bag chairs. When ground to a fine powder and moistened, they produced a sticky substance capable of keeping two sticks together for an hour or more, provided that the sticks were on a very flat surface and were left undisturbed. Yes, fenter beans were priceless: it is no wonder that PeeDee and Carrie desired them.

Their search throughout the lands for the objects of their greatest desire spanned days, perhaps even months. They searched tirelessly, pausing only to eat, sleep, snack, nap, loiter, shop, and urinate. And so impressive were their efforts, bards, poets, minstrels, and hookers composed many tributes to them. Over time, these many tributes were blended together to produce this:

Lament of the Pointless, in Stretchy Pants

O Snuffleupagus, O Tinky-Winky, O Charles Barkley!
Here my call, O Great Muses and bless my tail!

She walked in the night, searching
She talked on her phone, gabbing
"Fenter beans, fenter beans
Why hast thus forsaken me?
Aye, does my soul long for thee
Aye, does my heart mourn for thee."

He came with no elastic in his waistband
He sailed like a pirate with no ship
"Combed the beaches and the hairy palms,
Mastered fish with no bait, have I
But still no fenter beans, no
But still no fenter beans, yes."

Trembling earth
Soaring skies
A flash!

And as one, they cried!
"Together we will search the land!
Together we will find the bean!
What a good fucking idea!"

And the Moon said "morons."

Now, that was my feeble attempt at some pointless comedy, at the expense of two fine friends and damn funny people, Pete and Carrie. You can find their blog, CarrPeeDiem, right here. For a good time, make sure to check it out. For a real good time, e-mail me and I'll send you Pete's direct line...

Sacred River

Cato esse, quam videri, bonus malebatA Sacred River Left in Peril by Global Warming. That's the title of this story in the Washington Post. In a nutshell, the story is about the possibility that the Ganges River may cease to exist in the not-so-distant future. The glacier in the Himalayas that is the principle source for the river is disappearing rapidly.

And the Ganges River is not just a river, necessary for the existence of millions upon millions of people, it is a sacred river for adherents of Hinduism. The river is the manifestation of a goddess, Ganga, and bathing in it has special significance, as does drinking of it. People make pilgrimages to the Ganges from all over the world.

So, now Global Warming is going to destroy an entire religion, if we don't do something about it...

The problem I have with this is that it strikes me as a pretty conceited and ignorant point of view. Rivers are not eternal. They never have been. Sometimes they change courses, sometimes they get smaller, sometimes they get larger, sometimes they get faster, sometimes they get slower, sometimes they dry up altogether. Man-made Global Warming or no man-made Global Warming, such changes are going to happen, whether we like it or not. Yet, the Global Warming alarmists are now prepared to marshall the possibility of such change, common throughout the history of this planet, as a reason to combat the sinister forces responsible for such change. Or should I say, the forces that they claim are responsible.

Of course, considering that hurricane activity is being used in a similar fashion, this isn't really all that surprising. But the difference here is that religion is about to become an explicit tool in the service of a cause célèbre. And this should give us pause. Global Warming—real or unreal, human-induced or natural, correctable or unstoppable—has the potential, as an issue, to divide the world's population and destroy the world's economy. As bad as it is now, the last thing it needs is religious overtones. And the last thing the world needs is another religious conflict. But somehow, I doubt these concerns will matter a whit to the alarmist crowd. Sad.

In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure-dome decree :
Where Alph, the sacred river, ran
Through caverns measureless to man
Down to a sunless sea.
So twice five miles of fertile ground
With walls and towers were girdled round :
And there were gardens bright with sinuous rills,
Where blossomed many an incense-bearing tree ;
And here were forests ancient as the hills,
Enfolding sunny spots of greenery...

Paranoia strikes deep

A matter before the CourtAnd on it goes. Even as the Immigration Bill goes up in flames, despite the combined efforts of Congressional Dems, Repubs, and the Administration, the "we'll get that stinkin' Bush if it's the last thing we do" crowd continues to flex its investigative muscles.

As the Washington Post reports, both House and Senate Judiciary panels have issued fresh subpoenas. The House wants a date with former Supreme Court nominee and White House counsel Harriet Miers, while the Senate has requested the company of former White House political director Sara Taylor.

And Senator Patrick Leahy, representing the Soviet of Vermont, is heading the charge:

By refusing to cooperate with congressional committees, the White House continues its pattern of confrontation over cooperation, The White House cannot have it both ways--it cannot stonewall congressional investigations by refusing to provide documents and witnesses while claiming nothing improper occurred.

Let's examine this statement to fully understand what the Senator is saying and implying. Remember, this "investigation" is about the removal of nine U.S. attorneys (whose offices are filled, by definition, by the President of the United States). And this "investigation" is occurring because of why? Well, not because anything obviously illegal has occurred. Any decent Constitutional scholar can tell you that. Rather, it's because the issue plays well in the media and provides fertile ground for attacking the administration.

But politics aside, Leahy is asserting that Congress can investigate the Presidency just to see if something fishy has occurred. And he is insisting that the White House must cooperate with any such investigation (at least, that's the logical conclusion that follows from what he has said). Sounds like Leahy believes Congressional oversight extends to the executive branch. What Constitution has he been reading, I wonder?

But it gets worse. Look at the final part of his statement, the "both ways" bit. Obviously, he thinks it's one "way" or the other. But one way is "claiming nothing improper occurred." So, if the White House didn't make such a claim, it could stonewall all it wanted to? Of course, that's the way it works in court: plead the Fifth, admit to nothing, and clam up. But this isn't a court. And Leahy isn't a judge. Or even a prosecutor. He's just a Senator, a member of a body whose powers are distinctly outlined in a document that he clearly isn't very familiar with. Sad. Very sad.

Must read

A matter before the CourtMichelle Malkin has just posted this knock-out on her blog.

Scary stuff, and I see no reason to doubt any part of this piece. One portion sticks out at me:

2. All negotiations by Republicans had to go through Ted Kennedy - the architect of 40 years of failed immigration policy - promising the same result we have received before: a terribly broken immigration system

For those unfamiliar with the history of immigration policy, it was Kennedy that championed the Immigration Act of 1965. And when he did, he promised that because of this reform:

... Our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, S. 500 will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Africa and Asia.... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.

How does that "final analysis" look now, Mr. Senator?