When I first was looking to buy a home, I tried to buy a condo so I could avoid all this gardening, snow shoveling and other maintenance. Alas, the dream of affordable homeownership without any hassle has gone the way of the dodo, and for much the same reason.

So here I am in my beautiful 1939 bungalow, which is great. Interior decorating? I’m all over it. Gardening? Wow. Not so much. Still, there are things to be learned in life, and gardening is as good a place as any to learn them.

Growing up in Colorado, I watched my mom spend hours at the back-breaking, sweaty labor of preparing the ground, planting annuals (which, although they were pretty, always struck me as a monumental waste), tending the roses, and weeding, weeding, weeding. Her gardens were beautiful every year, and she claims to have loved all that gardening.

I have always lived much in my head, so I wasn’t the little girl who wanted to help mommy with the weeding. (My mom didn’t win the “little helper” lottery.) Still, I did want to talk to mommy, and I watched and watched and watched.

In Colorado, it’s a challenge to get anything to grow at all. It’s dry as dust and your top soil is likely to be clay. You have to bring in arable top soil. Identifying weeds is easy — they’re big and ugly and probably have stickers. It’s rare to find a flowering “weed” in Colorado — except, of course, for dandelions.

Historically, there were virtually no trees on the plains. Trees need water, so on the grasslands of the great American desert, travelers kept an eye out for trees because they indicated a water source relatively close to the surface. You’d see the occasional cottonwood stand; not a dense tangle of old growth and underbrush.

I love trees. I love forests. I love leaf mold and the smell of mushrooms.

Here in Minnesota, the ground is damp and loamy and the soil is black. I’ve spent the spring watching my home’s previous owners’ gardens appear, green up, and bloom. As I’ve watched, the gardens have thickened with a proliferation of green life, much of it unknown to a grass-desert native. Some of these plants are clearly intentional; neatly set in rows, or showing signs of pruning. Others are perhaps not, but are often just as beautiful.

Weeds are just plants you don’t want in your garden, so I guess I can choose what to keep and what to pull out. Kill.

More troubling to this Colorado girl are the trees that seem to grow with the lightest touch of animas. Not that they do, but that I have to kill them.

They grow in cracks in my garage foundation. They grow where they will eventually undermine my garage or house. They grow where they will undermine my neighbors’ garage. Beautiful baby maple trees, and I have to yank them out.

So, gardening, fairly enough, involves killing. Killing weeds. It’s still sad, though, when your weeds are maple trees.

“Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you’re going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love.”
                                                                                              – Butch Hancock

“The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine.”

— George Washington

This article, which just appeared in the New York Times, describes a GOP effort to split the electoral vote in California (but not in Republican strongholds).  If successful, they would likely win the White House in 2008, even if they lose by a substantial margin of the popular vote.

Please forward to any Democrat friends you have who live in California or know fellow Democrats in California.
————————————-

OPINION | September 18, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist: G.O.P.’s Dirty Tricks Begin
By BOB HERBERT

The folks who gave us the Willie Horton ads, the Swift boat campaign, the purges of black voters in Florida and endless other dirty electoral tricks are at it again.

The folks who gave us the Willie Horton ads, the Swift boat campaign, the purges of black voters in Florida and endless other dirty electoral tricks are at it again.

Like crack addicts confronting the irresistible vial, the evil geniuses of the G.O.P. can’t seem to help themselves. This time — with an eye toward seizing the White House again next year, even if they lose the popular vote — they’re trying to rewrite the rules for the distribution of electoral votes in California.

Under current law, all of California’s 55 electoral votes go to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote statewide. This “winner take all” system is the norm in the U.S. It’s in place in all but two states, Maine and Nebraska, which have just four and five electoral votes, respectively.

Now comes a move, from lawyers with close ties to the Republican Party, to scrap the current system in California and replace it with one that would divide up the electoral votes in a way that would likely give 20 or more of them to the candidate who loses the popular vote in the state.

Democrats fear, correctly, that this maneuver could checkmate even their best efforts to win back the White House next year.

California is widely expected to go Democratic in the presidential election. Its 55 electoral votes are a hefty chunk of the 270 needed to win, and thus crucial to Democratic hopes.

Under this new proposal, the 20 or more electoral votes that would be denied the winner of the statewide vote in California, could well be enough to hand the White House to a Republican candidate who loses the popular vote nationally.

“Their idea is to have California be the only big state to do this,” said Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist who is supporting Senator Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. “If the Republicans can poach 20 electoral votes from the Democrats in California, that’s the same as winning all the electoral votes in Ohio. You’re basically giving them the election.”

The effort to change the way Californians vote for president has been cloaked in the typically deceptive garb that the G.O.P. pulls out for its underhanded maneuvering. The proposal has been dubbed the “Presidential Election Reform Act.” It is being led by Thomas Hiltachk of Bell, McAndrews and Hiltachk, a law firm that has represented both the state Republican Party and G.O.P. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

According to The Associated Press, the firm was also linked to a political committee, largely funded by Bob Perry, that targeted Democratic candidates in 2006. Mr. Perry, a longtime supporter of George W. Bush, contributed millions of dollars to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, whose intense and deceptive campaign in 2004 was so damaging to the candidacy of John Kerry.

This crowd is no more interested in genuine electoral reform than Britney Spears is.

Mr. Hiltachk and his operatives are trying to gather enough signatures to get their proposal before the voters as a California ballot initiative next June. If they succeed, and the voters approve the initiative, the rules for apportioning the state’s electoral votes would be changed for the 2008 presidential election.

Instead of “winner take all,” 53 of the state’s 55 electoral votes would be apportioned according to the winner of the presidential popular vote in each of the state’s 53 Congressional districts. A single vote would be awarded to the winner in each district. (The other two votes would still go to the statewide winner.)

John Kerry defeated George W. Bush in California in 2004 and collected all of the state’s electoral votes. But Mr. Bush won the popular vote in 22 of the state’s Congressional districts. If this proposed system had been in effect, 22 electoral votes would have been withheld from Mr. Kerry and given to Mr. Bush.

“This clearly is a power grab by the Republican Party,” said John Travis, a longtime political science professor at Humboldt State University in California. Mr. Travis believes that while there may be problems with the Electoral College system, this is not the way to fix it.

“This is simply a way for the Republicans to manipulate California’s electoral votes to their advantage,” he said.

Democrats do not have perfectly clean hands when it comes to this sort of thing. A similar effort by Democrats in North Carolina was scrapped at the insistence of national party leaders, and not a moment too soon.

What the Democrats need to do now is make sure that California voters understand that they are the latest targeted pawns in the G.O.P.’s longstanding efforts to undermine not just the Democrats but democracy itself.
———————————————————-

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/opinion/18herbert.html?ex=1190779200&en=d39098e7db194b47&ei=5070&emc=eta1

ABOUT THIS E-MAIL
This e-mail was sent to you by a friend through NYTimes.com’s E-mail This
Article service. For general information about NYTimes.com, write to
help@nytimes.com.

NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

“The opposite of faith isn’t doubt; it’s certainty.”
-Christian writer Anne Lamott

“Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you’re going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love.”

- Butch Hancock

So now I’m a shill for the big corporations. <wink>

But seriously – I’ve found quite a few great products in the last few months, so I thought I’d publicize them for your enjoyment/benefit. Here they are:

1) Curel Continuous Comfort lotion: available at major retailers

I’m not saying this is better than other lotions in the newly created “24 hour” group, but I do love this.

I’m very picky about lotion–I hate greasy lotions that stay on your hands, and I don’t remember to use lotion very often, so this is great. It rubs in quickly and lasts a long time. It has totally cured my dry skin. Awesome!

2) DHC Washing Powder: available at DHCCare.com

I have problem skin. Yuck. I’m 37 and still get acne, although not nearly as bad as I did in law school–thank goodness!

Anyway, besides acne, I was also getting black dots (blackheads that are not pimples), whiteheads, congested pores (from using too much moisturizer or too thick of moisturizer), and large pores! I was starting to freak.

This is a powder (which makes it great for plain travel–no restrictions!), which you wet before use. It’s kind of like Woolite for your face. It has done a great job with the blackheads and whiteheads, although hasn’t affected the acne. The best part is, it has really refined my pores and made my skin look younger!

DHC is a Japanese skin care company recently come to America, and their stuff is generally available only through their catalog or Web site (they have one store in Southern California). They send out free samples and offer free shipping for orders of $75 or more. They even sell Japanese foods!

3) DHC Velvet Skin Coat: available at DHCcare.com

Hey–what could be better? Velvet skin. Sounds awesome.

Actually, it is pretty great. I put it on my eyelids, below my eyes, and on my nose for a lovely skin texture and a natural “made up” appearance, and to control shine. It’s clear; not makeup. It makes a great base for eye makeup–using a base makes your eye makeup look fresher longer. If you use it on your whole face, your skin really will feel like velvet (although you can certainly tell there’s something there)! LOVE IT.

4) Keen’s Honey Foam Bath: available at Target and probably other places

This is from a South African company, which I kind of think is good. Crescit cum commercio civitas*, and all that.

Anyway, it’s pretty cheap for a bubble bath (about $10 where I live, for about 6 baths), and it does smell exactly like honey. Rich later. Yummy.

It does not, however, contain a great deal of honey, nor is it particularly “natural.” Your usual bunch of chemicals and fragrences. Honey is near the bottom of the list of ingredients. Still, awesome!

*For those who didn’t go to a republican college: “the commenwealth waxeth with commerce.”

Back when I originally wrote “Gee, that SUV makes your butt look big! and other ideas from an evil genius,” I included these fun pictures to further illustrate my point. Somehow, they got left out of the final post. Thought you’d enjoy this evidence of people’s real feelings about their SUVs:

Compensating for something, are they?

<wink>

Update to my previous post “Live Free or Die Horribly“:

I have to give the guy credit: even though I specifically told him that I neither wanted nor expected a reply to my letter because I was sure he would just dismiss me as some “radical,” U.S. Senator Norm Colman sent a thoughtful, if a bit bright-eyed and idealistic, response to my angry e-mail. I think his response shows that he has considered the issues carefully, again to his credit. However, I have to conclude that he has not been watching the news. (Note: All typos below are as they appeared in his original e-mail.) My comments to follow:

Thank you very much for contacting me regarding military commissions for suspected terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay , Cuba .

The Supreme Court decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ruled that a new, Congressionally-mandated system was needed to handle trials of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay . As a result, Senators John Warner, John McCain and Lindsey Graham introduced the Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006. This legislation was passed by the Senate on September 28th, 2006, by a bipartisan vote of 65 to 34 with my support. The House subsequently voted on the measure and it was signed into law by the President on September 29th. The MCA provides the statutory framework for military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants, and uses the Uniform Code of Military Justice as the basis.

I believe that in dealing with enemy combatants being tried for war crimes, the U.S. must ensure due process while administering justice. I believe that the trials authorized by the MCA, together with the system currently used to ascertain the status of suspected terrorists, will provide suspected terrorists with due process. Under the MCA, every detainee will have the opportunity to defend himself before a military commission, the structure of which exceeds all of our obligations as signatories of the Geneva Conventions and our own statutes.  Suspected terrorists will even have access to classified evidence being used to prosecute them, with certain protections for our national security.

The MCA language also maintains the prohibition on torture that was clearly spelled out by Congress in the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) of 2005. I strongly condemn the use of torture and voted in favor of this legislation that was signed into law on December 30th, 2005. Since the DTA established that cruel and inhumane treatment for detainees is illegal, the MCA builds on this framework by stating that no evidence derived from this type of treatment after the passage of the DTA is to be used against suspected terrorists in their trials.

The MCA language also maintains the prohibition on torture that was clearly spelled out by Congress in the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) of 2005. I strongly condemn the use of torture and voted in favor of this legislation that was signed into law on December 30th, 2005. Since the DTA established that cruel and inhumane treatment for detainees is illegal, the MCA builds on this framework by stating that no evidence derived from this type of treatment after the passage of the DTA is to be used against suspected terrorists in their trials.

A prominent issue that arose with the Military Commissions legislation was the question of whether habeas corpus rights should be extended to non-citizen enemy combatants. The primary purpose of habeas corpus rights, which are guaranteed for U.S. citizens, is to allow for individuals to contest the legality of their detention through our civilian court system. Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) introduced an amendment to the MCA that would have extended habeas corpus rights to enemy combatants, which was defeated by a vote of 48-51. I opposed the amendment as I do not believe alien enemy combatants are entitled to access to U.S. civilian courts through habeas corpus rights. Such a measure would be duplicative given the robust military system that has been established for these suspected terrorists to determine whether there is sufficient cause for their detention at Guantanamo .

I would like to emphasize that I agreed with the intention of the Specter provision, which was to provide an opportunity for suspected terrorists to contest the legality of their detention in Guantanamo .  However, suspected terrorists already have such an opportunity through the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) system, which far exceeds any requirements of the Geneva Conventions. The status of detainees is also up for review every year through the Annual Review Boards, which reconsider whether detainees still constitute a threat to the U.S. Finally, detainees also have the right to appeal the decisions of the CRST to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, thereby allowing for an unprecedented level of judicial review for enemy combatants. Essentially, alien enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo have equivalent protections granted by habeas rights through civilian law, only through a military system.

It is important to keep in mind that the application of habeas corpus rights is standard for American citizens facing criminal charges, but historically has not been applied to non-citizen enemy combatants who are charged with crimes of war. The difference between criminal law and the law of war is fundamental to this debate. The military has historically maintained a separate system of justice from the civilian system due to the fact that the laws of war are fundamentally different from criminal laws, and military systems are the most appropriate vehicles for making military decisions and administering military justice. For this reason it is military judges and not federal judges who have previously been charged with making the determination of who constitutes an enemy combatant and who does not. I believe it is in the best interest of this country to follow this precedent.

In addition, providing habeas privileges to enemy combatants could have harmful unintended consequences for our national security. There are numerous examples of frivolous habeas petitions that have been made by detainees at Guantanamo on items ranging from demanding access to high-speed internet and complaining about the speed of mail delivery. Entertaining such frivolous petitions would allow for detainees to avoid interrogation while their petitions are in limbo, thereby preventing our military from collecting intelligence critical for fighting the War on Terror and protecting our nation.

Again, the fundamental question is not whether due process should be ensured, but whether a military or civilian system is more appropriate for individuals engaged in hostilities against the U.S.   It is important to note that at the end of hostilities of World War II, over two million enemy combatants were held under U.S. custody. Our nation did not grant habeas privileges to these individuals, and those who were tried for war crimes were subjected to military tribunals. Granting habeas corpus rights to alien enemy combatants would overturn all historical precedent for administering justice for war criminals, and could ultimately undermine our national security. For this reason, I oppose the extension of habeas corpus rights to alien enemy combatants and believe that a better solution is to ensure a strong Combatant Status Review Tribunal system, which was strengthened by a provision added to the Defense Authorization bill of 2005 by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC). 

Overall, this legislation allows due process for all enemy combatants, but without compromising our national security. Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, was recently transferred to the Guantanamo detention center. He and other high-level terrorists may now be tried through the application of the Military Commissions Act. It was critical for Congress to take action on this front and establish a system for the U.S. to bring terrorists to justice in a manner that provides them with a fair trial while preserving our national security.

Thank you once again for your interest in this issue. I value your input and hope you continue to contact me with a ny further issues you may have.

Sincerely,
Norm Coleman
United States Senate

Hey, I think it’s sweet that a U.S. senator would believe that our country is 100% honest, straightforward, and good. We might live in a much nicer world if all of our elected officials were as starry-eyed as Mr. Coleman purports to be.

But that world isn’t real.

For example, consider this report by MSNBC in which nine very senior military and intelligence officials describe what they call potentially “a crime, conspiracy to commit torture,” and how their attempts to stop abusive interrogation tactics (what the rest of us call “torture”) were turned away by Donald Rumsfeld:

In interviews with MSNBC.com,…former senior law enforcement agents described their attempts to stop the abusive interrogations. The agents of the Pentagon’s Criminal Investigation Task Force, working to build legal cases against suspected terrorists, said they objected to coercive tactics used by a separate team of intelligence interrogators soon after Guantanamo’s prison camp opened in early 2002. They ultimately carried their battle up to the office of (former) Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, who approved the more aggressive techniques to be used on al-Qahtani and others.

Although they believed the abusive techniques were probably illegal, the Pentagon cops said their objection was practical. They argued that abusive interrogations were not likely to produce truthful information, either for preventing more al-Qaida attacks or prosecuting terrorists.

I am actually a very practical person. If I truly believed that torturing someone would save hundreds or thousands of lives, I would be willing to reconsider my position. But experts in this field say that it will not.

Furthermore, I believe that torturing people – no matter how secret George Bush thinks we can keep it – will ultimately end with the deaths of many, many more people. The reason is that the United States has had, however undeservedly, a reputation for upholdinghuman rights. For standing up for individual rights in the face of group preference. For believing that individuals are important. For being a country based not simply upon geography or tradition, but upon principal.

We have squandered that reputation. That is the true danger.

So thanks, Norm, but I don’t think I’ll be voting for you when you come up for reelection in two years. As you seem willing enough to tie yourself to the coattails of Dubya and the neocons…chicken hawks…whatever, I can hope that if you don’t look back on these events with great shame, I do hope you will at least be judged at election time on your loyalty to your party. I don’t see how you can be judged favorably on your loyalty to what makes America…well, unlike Taliban Iraq.

Assistant Interior Secretary Caught Rewriting Endangered Species Science On Monday, the Washington Post reported that high-ranking political appointees within the Department of the Interior have to prevent the protection of several highly imperiled species under the Endangered Species Act. Click here to read the Washington Post story. This latest example of the abuse of science centers on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Julie MacDonald, a civil engineer with no biological training, personally changed scientific conclusions and ordered the agency to refrain from protecting several species under the Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act requires the FWS to use the best available science when making decisions regarding what species should be protected under the Act.  The documents showing MacDonald’s edits and edicts were obtained by several conservation organizations through the Freedom of Information Act. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) brought the documents to the Washington Post in the context of the greater issue of political interference in science. Click here for a summary of the issue and to view the documents. Through this effort, we have already achieved a notable success: Representative Nick Rahall (D-WV) has indicated that he will hold oversight hearings regarding this matter should his party take control of Congress after next week’s elections. But we’re aiming even higher: we’re asking new Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to take concrete steps to restore scientific integrity to the agency. Sincerely, Dr. Francesca Grifo Senior Scientist and Director UCS Scientific Integrity Program P.S. The article has also appeared in the following newspapers. You can also consider submitting your letter to one of these publications: Contra Costa Times Denver Post Houston Chronicle Myrtle Beach Sun News Rocky Mountain News Salt Lake Tribune Seattle Times If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for Scientific Integrity Network The Union of Concerned Scientists relies on individuals like you to support our research and advocacy. Join us to promote practical, science-based environmental and security solutions. We are committed to protecting your privacy, your email address will NEVER be sold or exchanged. [Note from Finito la Commedia: I removed a section of the above message. The message contained a plea to write a letter in response to the above-referenced article to the Washington Post or one of the other newspapers listed. Since the requested letter was to be sent by November 3, 2006, I removed that plea from this view of the UCS's e-mail.]

If government secrecy wasn’t enough for you, how about government lying?

This appears to be but one example of the Bush Administration’s refusal to believe scientific proof that their positions cause real damage. Indeed, it is an example of how the Bush Administration does not appear to believe in science at all.

Personally, I believe that certain Evangelical Christians have chosen to believe that science is just another belief system that can be disregarded. Unfortunately, in this case, for all of us, science is not the same as religion.

I speak as someone with at least the basic training in science that used to be required by public and private schools. The basic understanding of the scientific method that used to be considered necessary for all educated people.

I also speak as a religious person. Religion is not the same as science, and religious truth is not interchangeable with scientific fact – nor should it be.

In my life, I use scientific fact to further illuminate my understanding of the divine. I don’t use religion to spread false information or to promote irrational public policy.

Shame on those who do.

It’s Not that We Hate Gay People…Um, Well…Yes, It Is

If your state has a “Defense of Marriage” amendment on the ballot and you’re considering whether to vote for it, you’re probably relatively centrist.

After all, if you hated the very idea of people who are different from you being in committed, loving relationships, you would just vote for the damn thing and hope that would put an end to it.

But if you’re on the fence, please consider this short post so you’ll know who you’re getting into bed with.

I don’t have much to say, except that I have never seen the anti-gay marriage folks state their true objectives so boldly.

Here are some actual quotes from the primarygroup promoting the “Defense of Marriage” amendment in Wisconsin, 2006 – the Family Research Institute and their spokesperson, Julaine Appling.

“I think we’ve been extremely tolerant in allowing [homosexuals] to live wherever they choose.”
   – Julaine Appling, Isthmus, September 9, 2005 [a Madison, Wisconsin alternative daily which does not take a position against the amendment]

“Society needs to control sexual activity,” she said. “Anytime that you have rampant sexual activity, with no prescriptions on it, society is headed for trouble.”
-Julaine Appling, Family Research Institute of Wisconsin, “Decision 2006: Wisconsin votes on Same-Sex Marriage,” KARE 11, October 23, 2006

Does that represent your view? If so,

Go Blue State Sesesh!

Step One: Eliminate the Homegrown Freedom-Haters First

Here is an e-mail recently brought to my attention by a friend whose aunt had urgently—and approvingly—forwarded it to her. I should explain that although my friend is one of the most extraordinarily wonderful people I have ever known, her family is, well, not.

For example, my friend’s grandmother once told her that she should not be friends anymore with a girl from the grandmother’s small town in Kansas because she’d had a “polka dot baby.” [!]

In any case, my friend was absolutely horrified by this further example of her extended family’s hard-core, bigoted ignorance and passed this along with a shocked and angry note, including counter-argument. (This just goes to show that a strong person can overcome even the most pathetically weak, spineless, evil-minded relatives.)

Read the e-mail below for your illumination about what the civilized world is up against. If you would like to protest this type of hate-mongering by buying the EID stamp, please click on the picture of the stamp for a link to the U.S. Postal Service Web site.

CHRISTMAS STAMP

How ironic is this? They don’t even believe in Christ and they’re getting their own Christmas stamp, but don’t dream of posting the ten commandments on federal property? 

USPS New Stamp

This one is impossible to believe. Scroll down for the text.

If there is only one thing you forward today…..let it be this!

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of PanAm Flight 103

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the military barracks in Saudi Arabia

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the American Embassies in Africa

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the USS COLE

REMEMBER the MUSLIM attack on 9/11/2001

REMEMBER all the AMERICAN lives that were lost in those vicious MUSLIM attacks

Now the United States Postal Service REMEMBERS and HONORS the EID MUSLIM holiday season with a commemorative first class holiday postage stamp.

REMEMBER to adamantly and vocally BOYCOTT this stamp when purchasing your stamps at the post office. To use this stamp would be a slap in the face to all those AMERICANS and others who died at the hands of those whom this stamp honors.

Pass this along to every AMERICAN you know 

Hmmm. Despite my friend’s truly incredible ability to remain good, loving, and untouched by the ignorant, hate-mongering people who, in part, raised her, people as disgusting as this frequently make me wonder if there can be any common ground anymore. How can we have a unified nation when we clearly have no common values?

Ok. Maybe that’s overstating the case. Obviously, I agree with the author of this e-mail and my friend’s aunt that terrorist attacks are evil. Another point of presumed agreement: the e-mail’s author did say “Americans and others” were killed in the World Trade Center.

Need I point out that some of those—even some of the Americans—were Muslims? And I only point out in case you missed it: this would not be a Christmas stamp.

However, it is so clear to me that one can only justify killing thousands of people by lumping every individual into a giant, homogenous group. After all, if one were to truly comprehend that people are individuals and not simply a mass of gibbering foreign evil, one would have to admit that there is no greater chance that any particular foreign person is “evil” than any particular person from one’s own group.

Unfortunately, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that this very same evil stalks the cities, towns, and countryside of the United States.

Let me point out that yes, civilized people know that terrorists are no more representative of Muslims as a whole than the author of this e-mail is of Christians. In fact, terrorists are probably less so, because this e-mail doesn’t even represent the most extreme Christians who daily hang around being treated with the utmost respect in the United States.

As we say in Minnesota: “They’re out there!”

Go Blue State Sesesh!

I am excited to see a member of the mainstream media (even one whose background is mostly as a sportscaster) has come around to the view that, as Murrow said, “We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.” Here are some exerpts from Mr. Olbermann’s fine commentary on October 19th, the first day after our rights of habeas corpus and our commitment to the Geneva conventions were handed over to a government and administration who keep secrets from us, take people to secret prisons abroad, and takes no accountability when things go wrong. To see the full article and some of Olbermann’s other commentaries, click on his picture – it’s a link.

‘Beginning of the end of America’

Olbermann addresses the Military Commissions Act in a special comment

By Keith Olbermann
Anchor, ‘Countdown’

…Tonight have we truly become the inheritors of our American legacy.

For, on this first full day that the Military Commissions Act is in force, we now face what our ancestors faced, at other times of exaggerated crisis and melodramatic fear-mongering:

A government more dangerous to our liberty, than is the enemy it claims to protect us from.

We have been here before—and we have been here before, led here by men better and wiser and nobler than George W. Bush.

…Each of these actions was undertaken for the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons….In times of fright, we have been only human. We have let Roosevelt’s “fear of fear itself” overtake us….

We have accepted that the only way to stop the terrorists is to let the government become just a little bit like the terrorists….

“With the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few: Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously, and did we do what it takes to defeat that threat?”

Wise words.

And ironic ones, Mr. Bush.

Your own, of course, yesterday, in signing the Military Commissions Act.

You spoke so much more than you know, Sir.

Sadly—of course—the distance of history will recognize that the threat this generation of Americans needed to take seriously was you.

We have a long and painful history of ignoring the prophecy attributed to Benjamin Franklin that “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

But even within this history we have not before codified the poisoning of habeas corpus, that wellspring of protection from which all essential liberties flow….

…We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who has said it is unacceptable to compare anything this country has ever done to anything the terrorists have ever done.

We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who has insisted again that “the United States does not torture. It’s against our laws and it’s against our values” and who has said it with a straight face while the pictures from Abu Ghraib Prison and the stories of Waterboarding figuratively fade in and out, around him.

We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who may now, if he so decides, declare not merely any non-American citizens “unlawful enemy combatants” and ship them somewhere—anywhere—but may now, if he so decides, declare you an “unlawful enemy combatant” and ship you somewhere – anywhere.

And if you think this hyperbole or hysteria, ask the newspaper editors when John Adams was president or the pacifists when Woodrow Wilson was president or the Japanese at Manzanar when Franklin Roosevelt was president.

And if you somehow think habeas corpus has not been suspended for American citizens but only for everybody else, ask yourself this: If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an “unlawful enemy combatant”—exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not? Do you think this attorney general is going to help you?

This President now has his blank check.

He lied to get it.

He lied as he received it.

Is there any reason to even hope he has not lied about how he intends to use it nor who he intends to use it against?

“These military commissions will provide a fair trial,” you told us yesterday, Mr. Bush, “in which the accused are presumed innocent, have access to an attorney and can hear all the evidence against them.”

“Presumed innocent,” Mr. Bush?

The very piece of paper you signed as you said that, allows for the detainees to be abused up to the point just before they sustain “serious mental and physical trauma” in the hope of getting them to incriminate themselves, and may no longer even invoke The Geneva Conventions in their own defense.

“Access to an attorney,” Mr. Bush?

Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift said on this program, Sir, and to the Supreme Court, that he was only granted access to his detainee defendant on the promise that the detainee would plead guilty.

“Hearing all the evidence,” Mr. Bush?

The Military Commissions Act specifically permits the introduction of classified evidence not made available to the defense.

Your words are lies, Sir.

They are lies that imperil us all.

“One of the terrorists believed to have planned the 9/11 attacks,” you told us yesterday, “said he hoped the attacks would be the beginning of the end of America.”

That terrorist, sir, could only hope.

Not his actions, nor the actions of a ceaseless line of terrorists (real or imagined), could measure up to what you have wrought.

Habeas corpus? Gone.

The Geneva Conventions? Optional.

The moral force we shined outwards to the world as an eternal beacon, and inwards at ourselves as an eternal protection? Snuffed out.

These things you have done, Mr. Bush, they would be “the beginning of the end of America.”…

Maybe his juice as a sportscaster will make some of the “Nascar dads” listen up?

Here’s an idea I had. If there’s one thing some people are more afraid of than death and public speaking, it’s looking fat.

Why not use this fear for good and convince people that their bad behavior is what is really making them appear so rotund.

Please understand – I am not making a statement against fat people or fatness. I’m simply your run-of-the-mill evil genius who wants to manipulate people’s insecurity for the greater good.

Here are some other ideas:

When I was about 19, I came up with an idea to promote an unsubstantiated Internet rumor about a device, which was to be called the “Vagina Dentata,” that was now available to prevent rape.

The vagina dentata (vagina with teeth) is a rather common myth found in several cultures. Depending on the source, a goddess, a witch, or all women are said to have teeth inside their vaginas to punish rapists or, perhaps, any unlucky man.

The device I imagined would be somewhat like a bear trap and would instantly castrate any man who, shall we say, entered uninvited.

Fortunately or unfortunately, however, there is no need for me to promote this rumor. That is because such a device actually exists!

According to a Wikipedia article:

The anti-rape female condom (aka vaginal bear trap, brand name RapeX) was invented by Sonette Ehlers, a South African woman.

The device is a latex tube fitted internally with shafts of sharp, inward-facing plastic barbs that could be worn by a woman in her vagina, similar to a tampon. Should an attacker attempt vaginal rape, the penis would be hooked by the barbs, causing the attacker pain and giving the victim time to escape. The condom would remain attached to the attacker’s penis and…could be removed only surgically… which would alert hospital staff and police….

The device’s inventor believes that the very existence of the device in over-the-counter stores could also act as a deterrent by creating the possibility in a potential rapist’s mind that victims might be using it. [emphasis mine]

Assuming certain objections can be overcome, the device is to be released in late 2006.

Furthermore, I’m not the only one to have thought of a vaginal bear trap. In his exhibition “Impenetrable Devices,” Colorado designer and artist Ira Sherman, after interviewing rape victims, created a series of metal sculptures depicting his ideas for such a device.

Here are two: the “Saber Tooth Speculum” and the “Bear Trap Corset”:

So, I guess this just goes to show that no matter how creepy your inner world, you can pretty much count on the fact that someone else has thought of the same thing and, probably, taken it much further than you have.

Please feel free to copy and distribute my SUV bumper sticker and/or start any unfounded Internet rumors you please. Just don’t blame me.

I am finally ashamed to be an American. Ok, so a lot of you are probably thinking: What took so long?

In fact, so am I. However, it hasn’t so much been that I’ve been ashamed to be an American up until now; I’ve been ashamed that (presumably) a slim majority of our nation elected this government. Now, I’m really discouraged.

Since the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was passed on September 28th, I was very much disappointed to see that the front page story on both of my local newspapers was sports. Granted, our baseball won its division title in a sudden and exciting game, but really.

What it comes down to for me is a simple proposition: we can’t trust this government — or perhaps any government — to tell us the truth.

A government that proposes that it can be completely certain that it will never harm an innocent person – for how else could it defend the idea that anyone it asserts is an enemy combatant or a terrorist most certainly is, and therefore does not deserve even the opportunity to challenge the assumption of his guilt?

Either the government is asserting that it will never, never be wrong about the guilt of those it arrests, or the government is asserting that it does not matter whether these people are guilty or innocent.

Have our values degraded to the point that we are willing to destroy the lives of innocent people for expediency? Surely not.

Surely our government cannot mean that we are willing to disregard the possibility that someone is innocent because it would be too much of a burden to prove their case before an impartial judge with fair rules of evidence. So, I can only assume that the government is now asserting that it is never wrong.

I ask you – have you not noticed the many recent occasions on which our intelligence was, in incontrovertible fact, wrong? Does the name Maher Arar ring a bell? WMDs in Iraq? I am sorry to sound sarcastic, but I am stunned.

Here is a useless letter I wrote on September 28th to the empty suit who is, unfortunately, one of my senators. As I say in the letter, I have no hope that my letter will have any effect on him whatsoever.

Luckily, I sent a copy of the letter to our other senator, the beleaguered good guy. In my fantasy, he reads it to the full Senate, which also does no good, but makes for good copy in the news.

Mr. Coleman,

I see that you voted for the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Now that you have voted to prevent even a completely innocent U.S. citizen from having the right to protest their detention as an enemy combatant, I see that you and I have absolutely incompatible views of what the words “freedom” and “America” mean. I can see that our values are so opposite that it is hard for me to see you as a rational person.

I am ashamed that you are my senator. I am ashamed that I, personally, have shaken your hand and allowed my step-daughter to do so.

If I am ashamed of the United States and horrified at how willing we are to give up the very basic tenets of due process – valuable not only because we are (or were) lucky enough to live in a country that guaranteed it but because due process is what brings about fair trials with fair results – how can you expect people with much less reason to like America that I to believe in us?

I do not require or want any response to this letter. I do not have any hope that I can reach your mind. I am sure you will dismiss me as some “radical.”

I only hope that you find yourself someday haunted by my prediction that you and this Congress will go down in history, along with those that passed the Fugitive Slave Act* and the Japanese-American internment**, as one of those that children are taught in school to pity and adults bring up as exemplars of bad government, weakness, stupidity, and injustice.

I hope that you, someday, are far more ashamed than I am now.

Sincerely,

Your unwilling constituent

Here’s what I wrote to my other senator:

Dear Senator Dayton,

I want to personally thank you for voting against the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

I am very sorry that you did not run again, although I can certainly understand why.

You have been consistently willing to stand against what I view as the forces of oppression within our government. Even if you have only succeeded in being an uncomfortable burr in the coats of these mindless wolves, that is a greater success than most of us will ever know.

Below, please read my note to Norm Coleman.

For my part, your work has been greatly appreciated, and I want to express my sincere appreciation.

I’m so bummed. I realize that I’m a little late with this post, but I just couldn’t get up the energy, to be honest.

Updates:

Senator Dayton apparently personally responded with this e-mail:

October 17, 2006
 
Dear Ms. Reynolds:
 
Thank you for contacting me to express your support. I am always happy to hear from Minnesotans who take the time to let me know what they think.

Your interest is most welcome, and I invite your active participation in
all levels of the democratic process.
 
Representing the State of Minnesota in the United States Senate is not
only a privilege, it is a joy. I am committed to working with my colleagues to craft legislation ensuring the best quality of life for all our citizens.
 
Again, I greatly appreciate your thoughtful message. Please stay in touch with me if there is any way in which I can be [sic]assistance.
 
My best regards.
 
Sincerely,
 
Mark Dayton
United States Senator

MD:ckk

*There were actually two fugitive slave acts: one in 1793 and one in 1850, both with the purpose of requiring non-slave states to return fugitive slaves to their bondage in the South. 

**My husband correctly points out that the Japanese Internment was the result of an executive order by Franklin Roosevelt. However, Congress did not have to go along with it.

The following is a message sent to NPR’s Marketplace. They were requesting public comments to help them decide what to cover during election season.

What local or national issue do you find yourself talking about with friends and colleagues?
My friends, colleagues, and I are very concerned about executive pay. It seems to me that what has traditionally kept excessive executive pay in check was that the board of directors had to justify their actions to stockholders, some of whom were very active, owners of large blocks of stocks, or members of the board themselves.
 
As stock ownership has become more diffuse through the rise in popularity of mutual funds and 401(k) plans, whose managers  may not have the same proprietary interest or motivation to challenge directors’ actions, a power vacuum has arisen in the check against boards of directors.
 
I am an attorney (non-practicing) and business professional and, honestly, it is hard for me for me to think of anything a CEO or other executive could possibly do that would justify salaries in the multi-millions, especially when that is just the base rate of pay. I understand that many boards feel they must offer “competitive” compensation if they are to retain the most talented leadership, and since other companies are willing to pay these rates, the most competitive industries must do so in order to compete.
 
I think they are wrong. I think that the compensation for any employee, top to bottom, must relate to that person’s actual ability to increase profitability or maintain value.
 
Are there CEO’s who are capable of single-handedly producing even one cent more for their company than their multi-million dollar salary? I challenge anyone to show me that an executive’s work routinely, every year, brings in more than his or her cost.
 
I could probably name five people right now who I sincerely believe could competently head even the most complex and competitive companies – and who would be happy (in the abstract) to do so for…say…one million a year? Obviously, such people are aware of their value, and their compensation is the primary measure of their prestige and their company’s commitment to them. In principle, however, I’d wager that even most highly paid executives know they are not producing more than their cost; that they gain no more life satisfaction with $50 million per year than they would with $1 million; and that the whole situation is ridiculous.
 
Add to the argument that companies are reducing wages (either in hard dollars or by failure to keep up with inflation), laying off workers, closing divisions, outsourcing, and facing strikes. Add to that the recent national employee satisfaction surveys that showed employees across the nation are getting fed up with working more, harder, and more efficiently, and not receiving any benefit from it. Add to that the shrinking middle class (the existence of which, I believe, is the root of American prosperity).
 
Has executive become synonymous with parasite?

Who, if anyone, is addressing this issue at the local or state level?
The only people I ever see dealing with this are journalists (very occasionally, and in no depth) and, surprisingly, personal injury lawyers in their advocacy against tort reform.

Describe a solution to this issue that you would propose.
As I am trained as an attorney, my most familiar solution is to make or enforce laws, and I’m not sure that’s the best solution. I think changing corporate culture to hold board members accountable for their wasteful spending would be good, in addition to holding executives responsible for proving – quantitatively – that they are more valuable to the company than they cost.
 
If I were to make laws, I would propose three:
 
1) For corporations, make it per se mismanagement, enforceable by shareholder lawsuits, to pay any highly paid employee more than they produce in profitability or value. Make the board prove in real, verifiable numbers in their annual report.
 
2) Tie layoffs to management’s pay. For example, bankruptcy courts could (and may, I don’t know) require harsh reductions in executive/management pay before reorganization or debt discharge — and backdate this. In bankruptcy or not, if lower-paid employees are taking pay cuts or losing their jobs, management should lose just as much or more, because it is their job, more than the lower level employees’ to make the company profitable in the first place.
 
3) It should be illegal to contract for a “golden parachute” that would pay an executive a large severance even if fired for cause or malfeasance.

Update:

Marketplace was interested enough in my comment that a reporter called me for more information. Ultimately, I didn’t make the cut for their “What’s Your Issue?” series, but I was thrilled to have earned that much attention!

Can’t you take them back??

Look. We’re serious here. We gay men are tired of all the straight women following us around and falling in love with us. We’re not interested, which can make for a pretty embarrassing situation. But we can’t seem to help it! We’re just so attractive, erudite, and interesting.

We could really use a little help here. It was kind of fun at first when women were so accepting of us. We share many of the same interests–fashion, decorating, literature, philosophy, hygiene, cleanliness, intelligent conversation, guys….

Why do we always have to be the ones who care about how we look? Why do we have to be the ones who dress nicely, decorate our homes attractively, and make an effort to be interesting conversationalists and caring partners? Why couldn’t you do any of that?

Weren’t you listening to “[Every Girl’s Crazy ‘Bout a] Sharp Dressed Man” by Z-Z Top?

Weren’t you paying attention to the “Best-Dressed Real Men in America” contest in Esquire? [May God bless you with the love of a thousand women (or men), Anthony Rogers!]
Chances are, you could if you gave it a little try. But…YOU’RE NOT WATCHING Queer Eye!

It’s not that we think you’re secretly gay. I mean, no one could seriously be convinced you were gay. Just look at you. Uggh.

No, common sense tells us that you’re not gay; you’re just not trying to attract women.

Yes, we really said that. And we’re right.

You’re not trying to attact women–you’re trying to fit in with your buddies.

Now, before you get your stained tighty-whities in a twist, think a minute. Women understand that they’re not trying to attract men with the way they dress or act. They’re trying to get along with other women.

When women dress and act in ways calculated to attract men, other women roll their eyes and call them unpleasant names. If you want to get along in the world, we understand that you have to get along with members of your own gender, which is why we have it so easy. We can look and act like men while simultaneously trying to attract them.

The unfortunate consequence of this is that, with all you straight guys in the world trying to get along with your buddies by ensuring they know you’re not trying to come on to them, you’ve been engaging in some sort of horrible one-upsmanship of ass-scratching, loogie-spitting, wrinkled-shirt-wearing, ugly-shoe-sporting, eating-over-the-sink, garbage-car-driving, yuck. Cut it out! You’re ruining our lives!

So here are a few simple rules for you to follow:

Quit worrying about whether your friends think you’re gay. You know you’re not; they know you’re not; hell, we all know you’re not. Seriously. 

Get a job. Get a life.

Learn how to behave like a responsible person. This used to be a possibility for both sexes. Let’s get back to that. Need money? Again: get a job. Have a problem? Work toward a solution. Need a mommy? Grow up.

Learn what matches. Period.

Enough with the baggy pants and t-shirts.

Yes, you can learn how to cook without growing a vagina.

Yes, she has legs, too, but you should still grab her a fucking Coke.

Put the toilet seat DOWN asshole. Why? WHY? This is NOT just a disagreement. Women are trying to a) keep from falling in; and b) keep their visitors from seeing your muck and pubic hairs. This is not optional.

Quit with the genderational excuses, already. Those include:

I can’t do the laundry because I’ll put a red thing in there and ruin all your whites;

I don’t know where the dishes go;

Nobody looks under the toilet rim anyway;

Who cares whether I have holes in my underwear?;

Guys can’t remember birthdays;

Nobody expects me to act like a person — I’m a guy!

I’ll be taking down similar complaints, and then WE’LL BE TAKING NAMES.

Remember when real men did things like write the Declaration of Independence? Said things like “I must study Politicks and War that my sons may have liberty to study Mathematicks and Philosophy” [John Adams]? Wore nice clothes and were expected to be polite and intelligent?

Dear GOD, I’m glad I’m a gay man. <grin>